so now we should not have the right to own a gun? so the only people to have them is police and a criminal? if you take this right away the criminals will always have the upper hand and there will be more crime out there. remember this country is for the people by the people.

The right to bear arms is not really in dispute. Any person with a clear mind understands that the right to bear arms is fundamental to the defense of liberty. If the only people who can legally possess firearms are those employed by the government, than people have no physical protection against that government. The people would also have little to no protection against an armed criminal whom government law enforcement has failed to remove from the general population.

The right to defend your home, your family and your life is indisputable in a democratic, free society. The means you use to defend yourself must not be unreasonably restricted, otherwise, your ability to defend yourself may be compromised.

Brian, the point is not to remove guns, but to repeal the 2nd Amend because it doesn't make sense in 2012. A completely new law is necessary. For example:

Hunting rifles only until age 26. Any legal gun for current or ex-military and law enforcement, including the National Guard. CCW's permitted at age 35 after extensive law enforcement style training. CCW's could be awarded to those over age 18 who are awarded Orders of Protection from the court and receive extensive law enforcement style training.

All gun purchasers, including ex-military and law enforcement, must pass a background check and submit to Hare's Psychopathy exam by a randomly assigned and audited psychiatrist.

The Feds should start a substantial gun buy-back program of at least $5000 and a pardon for every gun turned in that is not legally owned with a permit as of 2012. $5000 Rewards offered for info leading to the arrest of anyone who owns a gun illegally. Fraud would be a felony; ie, Buying a gun and using proxy to sell it back to the government.

Anyone who owns a gun legally that is used by anyone else for homicide should receive a minimum of 5 years in prison and be considered an accomplice regardless of how the gun was obtained. Some exceptions plausible.

Lastly, anyone who sells a gun illegally that is used by anyone else for homicide should receive a minimum of 10 years in prison and be considered an accomplice regardless of how that gun was obtained or how many hands it passed through.

AHAHA.

"The Feds should start a substantial gun buy-back program of at least $5000 and a pardon for every gun turned in that is not legally owned with a permit as of 2012."

Cash For Caps.

Yeah, that's it. Let's start a criminal stimulus and throw more $$$ away. Let's give criminals a reason to go steal, rob, & kill people for legally owned guns to get 5G's & a PARDON after they shave off the serial #'s and turn them in. And fraud? You think criminals give 2 itsh about fraud. The last thought in their mind before they'd break into someone's house to steal their piece is... "oh no if I get someone to sell this gat I just ganked they might charge me with fraud, a felony." More like... "swipe the gun, shave the serial, $5K tax free baby!"

http://i.imgur.com/7siIq.jpg

I don't even know why I'm making comments on this article. It's a waste of time really... Mr. Frank is always right.

Karl, the 2nd amendment isn't a law to be repealed. It is an enumerated right established to protect our citizens from tyranny. Its sole purpose is to prevent leaders from instituting draconian laws that leave the populace unprotected & at the mercy of a corrupt govt. & those individuals that lack the desire/ability to coexist w/ the rest of us in a reasonable & peaceful manner. By disarming their visitors, the theaters policy created a situation ripe for lunacy. The sane & law-abiding sat unprepared & unprotected. Nothing you suggested will prevent a tragedy from happening. Psych. testing is not an exact science. It is ripe for misuse & corruption (the buying of test results or the issuing of poor scores unfairly). You cannot legislate perfection in an imperfect world. Criminals won't care that the fine is larger or if the sentence is longer. Let's say the shooter set the building on fire instead of choosing a gun. Would you be considering the same laws / regulations for matches? Restaurants could be shut down if one of their patrons used their matchbook to torch a church? "Orders of Protection from the court"?!? The more you write the more unhinged you sound. Clearly you suffer from Hoplophobia. I recommend you face your fear & take a safety training course. Don't be afraid of things you don't understand, understand the things you are afraid of. Frankly, people who believe as you do are the biggest threat to the freedom & security the rest of us believe in.

In a much broader view, our Constitution should always be examined with a historical perspective. There are a great deal of amendments that, when placed in the proper historical context, make sense for that time period. I think we need to look at the principles and intent behind the makers of this or that amendment to truly understand the meaning of the Constitution. I believe the intent behind the makers of the Bill of Rights - the first 10 Amendments - were fearful of our federal government becoming too powerful. With regards to the 2nd Amendment, I believe they thought it was necessary for a land owner to own a gun for security and common defense. What does the 2nd Amendment mean to us today? That would be an interesting discussion for sure!

Elizabeth, most of what you say is a list of what are commonly called straw man arguments. However, I will address the "enumerated right established to protect our citizens from tyranny."

I recognize that I am repeated myself here, but here are the exact words of the 2nd Amendment:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"Necessary to the security of a free State." Nothing about individuals rights to own guns. Again, I am not proposing we take these rights away. I am proposing we repeal the 2nd Amendment that no longer applies in the 21st century since we now have the largest standing military in the history of the world and replace it with one that makes sense with the knowledge and realities of our time.

Again, with the psych testing, it will be regularly audited for irregularities and appeals would be permitted.

There are no perfect laws, just laws that are less wrong or dated.

I have no fear for of guns, nor of death. But I do fear paranoid and uninformed citizens. Not for my own safety, but because I love my country and the innocent people who suffer from dated and laws that are no longer applicable to the country the law serves.

What part of "the right of people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" don't you understand. THE RIGHT of THE PEOPLE. The whole purpose in enumerating the rights is because "there are no perfect laws". When there is a 100% guarantee that no person will ever die or suffer at the hands of another, then and ONLY then does your argument for the repealing the 2nd amendment make sense. I too, fear paranoid and uninformed citizens, especially those who think the government can save them from everything harmful and eagerly offer up liberty (theirs and mine) as tribute. So long as the criminal, the deranged or the tyrannical exist, the 2nd amendment serves me well. Feel free to exercise your right not to bear arms, leave the rest of us alone.

"The right of the PEOPLE, not the individual". And now I understand you. You subscribe to the ideology of collectivism.

On a separate note, if you think it is "easy" to legally obtain a CCW license you haven't tried to get one. There are many hoops to jump through, many of them monetary, which would be of greater hardship to those of limited means. Effectively & disproportionately discriminating against lower income people.

"Tyranny cannot exist in this style of government" It exists a little more each time we give up the very freedoms our founders fought for. Tyranny exists when we philosophize our personal freedoms away for the false prophet of the collective security. Some examples would be laws that make starting a simple lemonade stand financially impossible, or my personal favorite, the law requiring a cellulose ethanol to be used in oil refining on a progressive scale and then fining oil refineries for not using the additive....... even though it hasn't been invented yet.

A few posts ago you stated "but thinking you really have any protection against a Trillion dollar a year military is a little bit off kilter" I want to point out that while the military is a whole unit, it is comprised of individuals. I feel confident that those military members who firmly support the Constitution would not blindly follow a government that would set its military upon the citizenry, so your point is moot.

But I won't waste my breath further. Good day.

Karl with a K. Is that German? I only ask because Hitler loved gun control too.

1938 NAZI weapons law. Granted it was not directed at the whole populous, only Jews.
But it did force gun registration. So yes, Hitler supported gun control. Statement stands.
When seconds count the police are only minutes away. I live in the sticks. Takes the sheriff 45 minutes or longer to get there.

Karl, we going to have to agree to disagree. I do apologize for the Hitler comment although it is accurate in regard to gun control but not your heritage.

Seth Simons - Thank you for your service and sacrifice.

Personally I think Karl is right here. When the Constitution was developed we did not have automatic rifles, AK-47s, Uzis, and other large caliber military style weapons.....we had muskets and the occasional cannon, but no one was keeping a cannon in their pockets. Many people only want to read the latter part of the amendment about the right of the people to keep and bear arms, while they skip over the first part, or the prerequisite--A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the state. To me, that means that when a well regulated militia is no longer necessary, then the right to bear arms is no longer needed.
Personally I don't have a problem with people having hunting shotguns and small caliber hand guns for protection. But assault rifles and other types of high powered arms should be restricted to military and law enforcement. And I completely support waiting periods and background checks

Not sure who your "we" is. My real name though.

Then it must be a different Seth....my apologies.

Mr. Murphy,

The laws made by the three branches of our government are all based on the premise that the 2nd Amendment exists in the Constitution.

Jefferson and Madison were vehemently opposed to standing armies. In the Articles of Confederation, there was no method to call up militias in defense of the State. So, the 2nd Amendment was necessary because they needed armed citizenry they could call to action to defend the state.

If it's defense against government tyranny you are concerned about, you are already defeated. There is nothing gun owners in this country could do to defeat our $1 Trillion military infrastructure. Guns or no guns. And Federalist Paper Number 10 by Madison would explain to you why it shouldn't be a concern anyway.

Regardless, Amendments have been made and removed before. There is no reason why the 2nd Amendment couldn't be treated the same...with the common sense and facts of the 21st Century.

Again, the point is to still let people have their guns...but in a way that makes sense now...not 250 years ago. It's like African Americans counting as 3/5ths of a person for population counts but not being allowed to vote. It's dated...and it's wrong.

I know and understand Supreme Court decisions based on the 2nd amendment. (those darn activist judges.). :)

I don't want to change the Amendment. I want to remove it. Therefore, Supreme Court history on the amendment doesnt mean anything to this debate.

All I can say is thank god majority still rules,that's what makes this country great!

Kind of Mike. If the majority ruled, Al Gore would have been President in 2000. After all, he had 553,000 more votes than the shrub. :)

First, I like the Supreme Court very much. It was a tongue n cheek joke that I won't bother to explain....but most importantly, I think an unchanging government document is a totalitarian government. When the times and needs change, the governments legal documents need to change with it.

The 2nd Amendment is a dated law that has no place in the 21st Century with a nearly trillion dollar annual standing military.

Where the heck did Karl come up with his imagination "- It was put in there because they were opposed to a standing army". There was no standing Army at that time because there was no funding.
When a normal person doesn't like guns: They don't buy one.
When a Liberal doesn't like guns: They want to prevent everyone from owning one.
I am able to write this because when seconds mattered, I was able to protect myself.
Karl, .. Show us a photo of your "Blue Helmet"....
No need to reply further to Karl, it's obvious he is right while anyone who disagrees with his way of thinking is wrong.
Karl, There must be a reason God gave us one mouth and two ears.

Here is the entire quote:

""For a people who are free and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security. It is, therefore, incumbent on us at every meeting [of Congress] to revise the condition of the militia and to ask ourselves if it is prepared to repel a powerful enemy at every point of our territories exposed to invasion... Congress alone have power to produce a uniform state of preparation in this great organ of defense. The interests which they so deeply feel in their own and their country's security will present this as among the most important objects of their deliberation."
--Thomas Jefferson: 8th Annual Message, 1808. ME 3:482"

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. - Thomas Jefferson

Boy, did he ever nail that one. LOL.

Karl, Do you realize everything you referenced is dated after that of when our U.S. Constitution was writen and ratified?
Written in 1787, ratified in 1788, and in operation since 1789

Gene! Thank you! You have made my point! The Constitution is not a totalitarian document and is designed to change with the times. When the Constitution was written, they were vehemently opposed to standing armies because it imposed a threat to the state, but they believed every man should be ready and trained for the militia to be called up as necessary.

Now we have a $1 Trillion a year standing army. The 2nd Amendment is no longer necessary.

So, the Amendment that does apply to 21st Century America should be repealed and replaced with one that makes since with the things we know to be true about 2012 and beyond.

I meant to add the part about the Supremacy Clause, the "2nd United States of America" created after the Civil War, and Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, just because that is such an interesting part that few ever take the time to read because it wasn't included in elementary school.

Karl,
They say history has a tendency to repeat itself: Our U.S. military is not what prevented Japan from an invasion of America, according to Japanese General Isoroku Yamamoto who stated: "Behind every blade of grass there stands a gun in America".
Do you realize what you are posting on this public forum which may possibly be read by criminals, and gangstas ? Your posts portray that you very likely are unable to protect yourself. Of course you can phone 911... and pray.... you see, the police are not armed to protect you, when they show up how many minutes later. They are armed to protect themselves.

Gene, I am not afraid to die. I'm fully prepared for the inevitable. If I worked or lived in a high risk area, I may consider owning a gun but believe it should be as hard as possible for me to get one.

You are 4 times more likely to die by a gun if you own a gun no matter how trained you are.

So I'm fine with the boys having their toys, but a new law is necessary that makes since in the 21st century.

Hey guys,
Let's remember to keep it clean and respectful. Discussion is one thing; insults are not tolerated.
Thanks,
Sarah

Yes. When you run out of valid arguments...resort to insults.

The 2nd Amendment makes no sense to any reasonable person in the 21st Century and should be repealed. Since it is a religious like part of the psychosis of America, go ahead and create a gun ownership law that fits what we know about reality in 2012.

Thanks Sarah...fixed a grammar mistake while I was at it.

Raygun, Your right.... at least the politicians in the murder capitol of America agree with Karl..... would that be Detroit or D.C..... Both have the highest overall restrictions.
Look what happened to Australia when they enacted total ban.... the police and criminals are the only ones with guns. The murderrate rapes and robberies skyrocketed.
Ray's quote: "You are 4 times more likely to die by a gun if you own a gun no matter how trained you are".
I've gone to the aid of others on more than one incident, over the past 48 years.
His quote could apply to many police, I've seen many of them never come close to qualifying. Which brings to mind the city car chase at 2 AM some years ago where the bad guys and cops fired over 110 rounds and no one was hit. Fortunately neither were any innocents.
I'm done .... time to BBQ that possum I shot....

Gene, since you can write, I'm assuming you can read. Once again, read above. I am not promoting a ban on guns. I am promoting the repeal of the 2nd Amendment that is no longer relevant in the 21st Century.

Also, as far as I am aware, no one has tried to enact a plan for gun ownership similar to what I am proposing. So you can cite all the countries and cities you won't...it doesn't mean a thing because it is not relevant to the proposal.

Yes Jason, here is my source: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html

You're also 6% more likely to die in a crash on tax day. http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-04-11/news/31322653_1_fatal-crashes-tax-day-fatal-accidents

You're 27% more likely to die of a heart attack if you own a tv and a vehicle.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2084926/Do-car-TV-It-deadly-combination-leads-greater-risk-having-heart-attack.html

You're 47% more likely to be involved in a crash if your vehicle is black.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1288457/Black-cars-likely-involved-accidents.html

You're more likely to die in a crash if you own these particular cars...
http://www.autoblog.com/2011/06/09/certain-chevrolet-nissan-owners-most-likely-to-die-in-a-car-cra/

You're 14% more likely to die on your birthday.
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/06/11/people-are-more-likely-to-die-on-their-birthdays-study-finds/

When using guns in self defense, 91.1% of the time a shot is not fired.
http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.0/Gun-Facts-v6.0-screen.pdf

The statistic you quoted is from a single "study" limited to 677 instances in Philadelphia. The study doesn't indicate whether the victims were legal gun owners or criminals.

Just a thought.

Sheesh. I'm glad I drive a maroon truck. Anyway. 4 times more likely is the lowest number. 20 times more likely us the highest, but that one includes suicides as well. I guess they are trigger happen when sad. Either way, the 2nd amendment doesnt make sense anymore in 2012 and should be repealed and replaced with something that does.

"the 2nd amendment doesnt make sense anymore in 2012 and should be repealed and replaced with something that does"

Well, luckily, that is only your opinion and not actually fact.

It is an opinion, but it is also a fact. As I've stated many times here, the writers of the Constitution were opposed to standing armies and believed the males should be armed in ready to be called up as militias in protection of the state.

The fact is that now we have a $1 Trillion a year standing army so the 2nd Amendment is no longer necessary and needs to be replaced with something that makes sense in 2012 and beyond.

"Stimulus money for illegal gun owners" that makes sense in 2012.

Columbia vs Heller....The Supreme Court held:
---The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

The Supreme court ruled that the 2nd amendment covers individual rights to arms, that is a fact.

Your interpretation ignores the original wording of the 2nd amendment by Madision who also submitted the placement of the amendment be included under the civil rights portion of Article I, section 9 and NOT section 8 that provided for military law.

Elizabeth, I am aware of Supreme Court history on the 2nd Amendment. That's why I'm saying that instead of being modified, it should be repealed. It's a totally different process...just like prohibition.

I'm sorry, I thought your reasoning behind repealing it was that it wasn't necessary because it applied only to militia and not citizens and is unnecessary via our military. Am I to understand that your opinion of the Supreme Court's ruling that it applies to individuals in a non-military capacity is irrelevant? Please clarify.

Ok. Once again. The Supreme Court looks at laws sent to them to see if they are Constitutional according to the laws in the Constitution. Their job isn't to make value judgments based on the laws currently existing in the Constitution.

So, when it becomes a matter of repealing an amendment (removing it from the Constitution) the the Supreme Court and their prior and current opinions don't matter.

So, being against standing armies, a well regulated (meaning government) militia was necessary for the safety of the State (not the people). Because of that, the people had a right to bear arms and be prepared to fight if called upon.

now we have $1,000,000,000 a year standing army and no militia is necessary for the safety if the state.

therefore, the 2nd amendment is dated and no longer necessarY in the 21st Century and be repealed. A new amendment could take its place that makes sense in 2012. How many more times does this have to be repeated?

I for one am not going to depend on the government for my protection and see no reason to change the amendment simply be cause there is such a large standing army controlled by present government officials that I do not trust. And just because the military has 1T of the budget how do you know its spent mostly with our protection in mind?

Keep the shotguns and rifles. Charge $100 per round as an anti-massacre tax.

Geez, this discussion has lit a fire!
Excerpts"The Feds should start a substantial gun buy-back program of at least $5000".
Yes! I hope the $5,000 is taxable. This way all those middle-class Gun-sucking owners will pay their fair share of Taxes.
"The constitution time did not have AK-47's", so why now?
My Response! Right on! so let's Ban the manufacture of all cars that go over 75MPH. No one needs that speed legally.
Why would you need to have an "illegal car?"
We didn't have big Tundra, Ford450, Trucks on our first highways, so people need them today , just to be on "EQUAL" safety grounds.
True, we did not have AK's back then, but we DO NOW. "Right to bear Arms" is not a fixed definition. If a sword was the best weapon then, an AK is the best weapon today. Both are Arms.
125MPH limits are all legally allowed to purchase.
Big trucks are not necessary to Travel. Going 125MPH is just like any dangerous weapon. IT KILLS EASILY. Going 125MPH in a Big truck is just like the AK.
Confused?
You cannot be half-banning "arms", if the rest of the world still produces AK's.

Benghazi, Libya proves that even our President cannot be trusted to Save the lives of any American attacked with Big weapons.
That Folks is why our Constitution remains the greatest Protector of HUMAN RIGHTS. FREEDOM to PROTECT YOURSELF from any HARM starts with the best weapon (Arm) available TODAY. TODAY. TODAY. The musket has evolved into AK.
Don't you all believe in "EVOLUTION"?

Any Banning/or control of Guns should start with TV.
How about banning any Hollywood producer from using any Large guns and bombs to make their movies?
Let's start there. It would be a good starting point to see how sincere the liberals are about truly banning Large guns. I'd say about 95% of movies would be banned from production.

While I am not in favor of guns (I believe only police and military should have them) the sad reality of this school tragedy is that the guns weren't the main problem, the monster who did it was. There needs to be more support for mental health, more resources provided to parents who don't know what to do with people who are on the edge, more dedicated to prevention, more dedicated to anti-bullying programs, social skills training and social activities. Sadly, our culture today breeds people who lack social skills---we can text or email rather than talk face to face, we can play video games all day instead of going outside, we have parents who arrange play dates instead of kids figuring out how to make friends on their own, we have people who would rather post on Facebook than talk to someone in person. Parents often encourage a lack of social skills by lacking them as well. Go to a restaurant and count how many parents are on their own phones, sitting right next to their kids and not talking to them. Parents also are scared to let their kids fail at anything--go to a park and watch how many parents are on the slide with their kid or on the equipment with them. I recall a story about an easter egg hunt that was canceled because too many parents got into the field and were picking up the eggs for their kids. All of this creates anti-social people who lack problem solving skills and who don't know how to fail and recover---main ingredients in most school shootings

We are partially on the same page:

http://www.callnewspapers.com/Articles-i-2010-06-30-245573.112112-Another-View-A-childs-safety-education-only-as-strong-as-support-of-community.html

http://mehlville-oakville.patch.com/articles/offset-district-budget-cuts-by-turning-off-your-tv

Thanks for re-posting links to those two posts. I agree that kids need more time outside, less time in front of TVs, games, phones, etc. and more time to be social and understand how to get along with others. We hear an awful lot about how Autism and Asperger's syndrome (an Autism spectrum disorder) are increasing, yet we don't look at our own society and how we allow kids to become anti-social (a hallmark of Autism) and how we don't teach them how to get along and develop social problem solving skills. This monster in Connecticut did not have any social problem solving skills, had access to firearms, and went on a rampage. We need to realize that gun control is only one aspect of these shootings, and that how kids are being raised and the expectations put on them are another aspect. Now please don't think I am construing all kids who play video games as future gunman, because I'm not. I'm only saying that constantly playing video games can lead to social maladjustment, and it is that maladjustment that can lead to evil acts.

There are really two distinct issues here. One is what public policy should be on the ownership of guns. The second is the confusing language and intent of the 2nd amendment. I think the verdict on the second issue is clear — the amendment is (1) very confusing with its bizarre wording, and (2) was intended to accommodate the needs states (not individuals) had to maintain an armed militia. Viewed from this context, the 2nd Amendment is hopelessly out of date and useless when it comes to a current discussion of this issue. I've linked an article about the role of the 2nd Amendment with respect to the slavery issue. This article is fascinating. Any understanding of the Second Amendment should also take into account Shays Rebellion and other political issues of the day relating to the perceived need for this amendment. Here is my take on this: (1) the amendment, as written, had nothing to do with the right of an individual to own a gun; (2) until very recently, the Supreme Court confirmed that history in its opinions; (3) the amendment's wording and history make it completely useful in terms of today's public policy; (4) we need a smart discussion of what public policy should be without confusing the discussion with this obsolete amendment. http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery

I meant "completely useless" not "useful" in the above comment.