The Second Amendment Topic

[Kromm]

I know it's going to get ugly. And probably pretty repetitive. But it's going to pop up in other topics, and so perhaps we need a place for the mods to er... move those discussions if they are civil enough to continue (vs. just delete).

I have humorously labeled this with the "book talk" tag! Because it's written down, ain't it?

[atomationage]

The amendment in question reads as follows:

Quote

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.

[Kromm]

Personally I think Bears don't deserve any constitutional consideration at all! None!

[atomationage]

The thing that I would like to restrict is the ability of a person to shoot a hundred people in a minute.   They only had out of date rifles from France when that amendment was written.  No one could walk into a school, office, or tavern, and shoot everyone before any of them could stop them or get away. 

[ClareWalks]

17 minutes ago, Kromm said:

Personally I think Bears don't deserve any constitutional consideration at all! None!

I am very opposed to the right to arm Bears. In Cutler's case, though, he probably couldn't hit anything.

[NewDigs]

39 minutes ago, atomationage said:

Drumpf supporters don't know that, or need to use it as a talking point anyway.  I call the second amendment the militia amendment, because that's what it's about, clearly, not ambiguously:

 

17 minutes ago, atomationage said:

There's now a Second Amendment forum in this same section, to keep that discussion separate.

 

19 minutes ago, NewDigs said:

I have gotten so tired of Allred jumping on everyone's bandwagon but this? Go Gloria!

 

And I count myself as one who thinks the Supreme Court overreached with their last 2nd Amendment decision. Like the Citizens United decision.

 I don't think all of the pro-gun people think of their militias as being supportive of the established military so at what point does my neighbor's militia become my foe?

But guns taken away? Never happen. Most are asking simply for better background checks and the closing of the gunshow loophole. 

Moved from Trump thread.

Sorry. Just replying. Now I know.

[Kromm]

27 minutes ago, atomationage said:

The thing that I would like to restrict is the ability of a person to shoot a hundred people in a minute.   They only had out of date rifles from France when that amendment was written.  No one could walk into a school, office, or tavern, and shoot everyone before any of them could stop them or get away. 

Well not to mention that the Amendment was literally originally about the balance of power between the federal government and state. The founders didn't want the federal government to be the only ones who could mount a military force, and it's why we have State Defense Forces (although people generally don't hear about those, and some states eventually shut theirs down for financial reasons). 

It was only twisted to the current interpretation in the 1970s via a concerted effort by the NRA. In fact, their own earlier position on gun control was markedly different. 

Edited October 12, 2016 by Kromm

[madmaverick]

As a non American, I believe I'm not alone along with many in the rest of the world, in not understanding why America continues to fail to act on gun control.  Countless tragedies should have acted as wake up calls.  How many more people have to die?  But when nothing changed even after Sandy Hook, you've really got to despair.  I understand that many Americans believe they have a constitutional right to bear arms, but how can there not be a consensus about taking automatic assault weapons and the like out of the civilian population, mandatory background checks and such?  That's just common sense!  I don't see how society can be served in any way by assault weapons being in the hands of civilians.  

No doubt others are aware of this example, but in Australia, after the Port Arthur massacre, the centre-right govt at the time shortly initiated a buy back programme for guns and tightened gun laws substantially.  No such horrific tragedies since.

What will it take for the Republican Party and the NRA they are beholden to to see the light?  No one in America's talking about taking away all of people's guns, just enacting some common sense gun control.  That just about all other developed countries have. 

[cpcathy]

I would have thought as well after Sandy Hook something would be done, because people would be ready for change, gun owners or non gun owners. When your children are getting shot in kindergarten class, perhaps something is askew. Now they are being shot in movie theaters, high schools, churches, clubs, concert venues. It's gone way, way too far. I don't think "our thoughts and prayers are with the victims of...." such and such is going to cut it much longer.

[NewDigs]

I continue to be astonished that the rallying cry is, after each and all of these horrendous events, that we need more guns! 

Everyone's a goddamn cowboy sharpshooter potential hero who would probably get shot before s/he got the gun out.

[Moose135]

47 minutes ago, Kromm said:

Personally I think Bears don't deserve any constitutional consideration at all! None!

[Kromm]

15 minutes ago, madmaverick said:

As a non American, I believe I'm not alone along with many in the rest of the world, in not understanding why America continues to fail to act on gun control.  

Literally it's because the NRA has bribed people. Literally, although usually under loopholes which make most of them technically legal bribes.

And again, it's all due to a misunderstanding of the Amendment that the organization themselves chose to propagate--one which was actually totally different from what their own organization supported before 1971.  The Amendment was meant to continue the system of checks and balances from the main body of the Constitution. In this case, making a statement that the states needed military power apart from the feds. It wasn't about people in their homes, other than perhaps by accident, because the usual State Militias of that time (what would now be the State Defense Forces) kept their guns at home.  It WAS perhaps in a way at least in part about the rights of the people to rebel against the Federal government, an aspect most people aren't very comfortable talking about these days, but it wasn't via random lawless armed insurrection as much as it was via the States themselves being able to rebel if they ever felt the need. In a way, the Civil War was an outgrowth of this, I suppose, which is perhaps why it's a bit hard to look at this straight on.

Edited October 12, 2016 by Kromm

[NewDigs]

Imho the NRA is nothing more than the lobbying arm of gun manufacturers.

[Moose135]

1 minute ago, NewDigs said:

Imho the NRA is nothing more than the lobbying arm of gun manufacturers.

And they have done a great job - eight years of "Obama is coming for your guns!" has resulted in record sales.

[madmaverick]

Loved Sam B's response to the Florida massacre so, so much.  People should be angry.  F*ck thoughts and prayers if that means you don't care enough to bring on legislative change.  Americans should be up in arms (oops) over the lack of action. 

Psychologically, I wonder what is it with some people that they so object to extremely destructive guns being taken away from everyone for everyone's safety.

[atomationage]

The NRA and the KKK both started after the Civil War.  That wasn't a coincidence.  It's been made pretty clear this year that the ""2nd amendment people" only believe in the right of some of the people to keep and bear arms.  

[b2H]

43 minutes ago, madmaverick said:

As a non American, I believe I'm not alone along with many in the rest of the world, in not understanding why America continues to fail to act on gun control.  Countless tragedies should have acted as wake up calls.  How many more people have to die?  But when nothing changed even after Sandy Hook, you've really got to despair.  I understand that many Americans believe they have a constitutional right to bear arms, but how can there not be a consensus about taking automatic assault weapons and the like out of the civilian population, mandatory background checks and such?  That's just common sense!  I don't see how society can be served in any way by assault weapons being in the hands of civilians.  

No doubt others are aware of this example, but in Australia, after the Port Arthur massacre, the centre-right govt at the time shortly initiated a buy back programme for guns and tightened gun laws substantially.  No such horrific tragedies since.

What will it take for the Republican Party and the NRA they are beholden to to see the light?  No one in America's talking about taking away all of people's guns, just enacting some common sense gun control.  That just about all other developed countries have. 

Put succinctly, money to come from other sources than gun manufacturers.  As with anything in US politics, follow the money.  It is why one of the first things I want to see is the reversal of Citizens United.  The NRA holds their campaign funding over the heads of the Congresscritters and these folks have no choice but to dance to the NRA's tune.

 

Quote

And again, it's all due to a misunderstanding of the Amendment that the organization themselves chose to propagate-

Do not be misled:. Their interpretation is not a misunderstanding, but a willful misinterpretation.  A very big difference.

Edited October 12, 2016 by b2H

[Kromm]

39 minutes ago, b2H said:

Do not be misled:. Their interpretation is not a misunderstanding, but a willful misinterpretation.  A very big difference.

I did say "chose". As in they deliberately caused people to misunderstand the Amendment through a deliberate choice (as proved by their own pre-1971 position and their abrupt about face).

[candall]

11 minutes ago, atomationage said:

The thing that I would like to restrict is the ability of a person to shoot a hundred people in a minute.   They only had out of date rifles from France when that amendment was written.  No one could walk into a school, office, or tavern, and shoot everyone before any of them could stop them or get away. 

I live in the number one state for puppymills.  When a proposal finally went on a ballot that would have provided just the BAREST, TINIEST bit of relief from the cruelty of the 24/7/365 puppymill breeder conditions (which would make you sick if you saw) I immediately started hearing opposition of the "give them an inch and they'll take a mile" variety:  if we ever let the government get all up in the dog business, they will soon shut down everything--your kids will have to sell their pony, keeping chickens for personal egg consumption will be outlawed, no more parakeets or ten-gallon aquariums.  I'm not exaggerating.  The first time I heard this argument, I thought it was a joke, until I looked around the room and everyone was nodding.

 

So now I recognize the same fear-monger propaganda in the response whenever anyone suggests maybe we could just discuss the automatic weapons that fire a hundred shots in sixty seconds or the "gun show loophole" that's so enormous all the other regulations are practically moot.

There's a campaign ad now where the woman hears an intruder and calmly walks to her incredibly responsible gun safe to retrieve protection, but the name of Hillary Clinton is invoked and the gun and the safe **poof!** disappear, leaving the woman to turn and face her attacker, terrified and defenseless.

That's right--if you ever admit deer hunters don't need armor-piercing bullets, the next thing you know, Ralphie will be arrested for wanting a Red Ryder B.B. gun for Christmas.

 

[BTW, puppymills are astonishingly lucrative, so the 'commercial breeders' and the state legislature have roughly the same relationship as the NRA and Congress.  The puppymill relief initiative squeaked through, but was overturned within days.]

[BuckeyeLou]

3 hours ago, madmaverick said:

As a non American, I believe I'm not alone along with many in the rest of the world, in not understanding why America continues to fail to act on gun control.  Countless tragedies should have acted as wake up calls.  How many more people have to die?  But when nothing changed even after Sandy Hook, you've really got to despair.  I understand that many Americans believe they have a constitutional right to bear arms, but how can there not be a consensus about taking automatic assault weapons and the like out of the civilian population, mandatory background checks and such?  That's just common sense!  I don't see how society can be served in any way by assault weapons being in the hands of civilians.  

No doubt others are aware of this example, but in Australia, after the Port Arthur massacre, the centre-right govt at the time shortly initiated a buy back programme for guns and tightened gun laws substantially.  No such horrific tragedies since.

What will it take for the Republican Party and the NRA they are beholden to to see the light?  No one in America's talking about taking away all of people's guns, just enacting some common sense gun control.  That just about all other developed countries have. 

You've stated it clearly.  Common sense, you would think, calls for background checks and no assault weapons in the hands of civilians.  

[Brattinella]

Wow.  My eyes have really been opened.

Edited October 13, 2016 by Brattinella

[Guest]

I live near Sandy Hook. I thought that would have opened people's eyes. I'm so tired of reading "my prayers are with the victims of (insert state/place here)." Your prayers aren't going to bring change!

[b2H]

Hell, it happened to one of their own with Gabby Giffords and still nothing happened.

until the craven NRA is taken out of the picture with the overturn of Citizens United, nothing will change.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

2 hours ago, heatherrrrz said:

I live near Sandy Hook. I thought that would have opened people's eyes. I'm so tired of reading "my prayers are with the victims of (insert state/place here)." Your prayers aren't going to bring change!

Recently in Charlotte there was an incident where a woman was being harassed in the parking lot of Walmart, and a good Samaritan tried to intervene only to be shot and killed by one of the men harassing the lady. Then someone else intervened and shot and killed one of the miscreants.

This kind of discussion always makes me think of Denis Leary's bit about drugs - "Not fewer guns drugs. More guns drugs. All the guns drugs you want!" Reasonable people can, in fact, discuss the issue, and the truth is that a gun itself is neutral. It's an inanimate object, and as an inanimate object it has neither will nor the intention to harm. I'm one of those annoying moderates who thinks that responsible gun ownership isn't an oxymoron, and that in the right circumstances your life could be saved by a handgun.

Unfortunately, the law hasn't kept up with technology, and as firearms have become more powerful they've also become more deadly. The 2nd Amendment was ratified just before the turn of the nineteenth century, and I really doubt that the guys who wrote it had anything like assault rifles in mind. Guns may be neutral, but the mindset of anybody who thinks they need a weapon that can fire a hundred bullets a minute isn't.

[Guest]

I'm all for having a gun, you can do what you want. I just want stricter laws that make it harder for people to go out and shoot up schools. Sandy Hook should never have happened. A mom should not be supplying her child with violent video games and taking him to the gun range.

[BookWoman56]

I've never understood the mindset that thinks the 2nd amendment somehow means that no restrictions can be placed on owning arms. The amendment does not say "guns;" it says "arms." Logically, either there can and should be restrictions on gun ownership, including background checks and prohibiting weapons designed to kill many people in a few seconds, or I should be able to walk into Walmart and pick up a nuclear warhead, because nukes would definitely fall into the category of "arms."  

[Deadpool]

On 12/10/2016 at 10:45 PM, Kromm said:

the Amendment was literally originally about the balance of power between the federal government and state. The founders didn't want the federal government to be the only ones who could mount a military force

Wouldn't this also mean that people should be able to be armed with more than just guns? i.e bombs etc? If the Amendment was brought in to balance power?

If the argument of the NRA is about bearing arms then surely  a slight adjustment to say bear appropriate arms rather than being able to bear Automatic weapons as they are never going to be able to 'balance the power' anymore.

[Kromm]

1 hour ago, Deadpool said:

Wouldn't this also mean that people should be able to be armed with more than just guns? i.e bombs etc? If the Amendment was brought in to balance power?

Except "people" did not literally mean every citizen specifically. It meant local communities. 

In theory one could argue it meant local communities should be able to use bombs on the Federal government... except... bombs didn't exist when it was written, and the closest parallel were inefficient cannons. They couldn't easily imagine a time when weapons would exist that could kill entire communities, muchless the entire world.

What also wasn't intended was that it was a statement about what citizens could use on each other. It DID have an aspect of defending oneself and home from "Indians" (I use that term deliberately in this context because the paranoia and fear back then wasn't communicated as "Native Americans") but OFF of your own property people's rights to carry were hardly considered unlimited. You'd defend your camp in a Wagon Train, for example. But at the same time, many towns and cities in the Old West felt perfectly justified in asking people to surrender their guns to the local Sheriff while they were in town (admittedly that was a bit after the time of the Founders, but I'm just saying that this country, as a historical whole, wasn't always so obsessed with leveraging the Second Amendment to its theoretical most expansive interpretation). 

And that's where we've really gone off the reservation so to speak. All day long people can quite statistics about gun accidents in people's homes, but despite that you can trace the logic behind people defending that even if you don't agree with it. It's the people who argue things like school shootings with "well if everyone had their guns on them this never would have happened!" where the logic gets scary, and well beyond anything the Founders could have ever possibly intended. People on the street, in their normal jobs, in normal society are not acting as a militia. Nor are they defending their homes. Bands of "Indians" are not swooping into settlements of our citizens on the edge of civilization where no law exists otherwise. The logic of people being able to carry in those circumstances is ludicrous. 

Edited October 17, 2016 by Kromm

[Deadpool]

2 minutes ago, Kromm said:

They couldn't easily imagine a time when weapons would exist that could kill entire communities, muchless the entire world.

Exactly so the Amendment should be 'amended' to take in to account the new modern weapons. As other people have mentioned in this topic, i dont see why the NRA and others are so against the changes so that high powered automatic weapons arent put in the hands of the wrong types of people.

[Kromm]

17 minutes ago, Deadpool said:

Exactly so the Amendment should be 'amended' to take in to account the new modern weapons. As other people have mentioned in this topic, i dont see why the NRA and others are so against the changes so that high powered automatic weapons arent put in the hands of the wrong types of people.

A paranoid combination of "Slippery Slope" (that once the "gubmint" takes one away, they'll go for the rest) and that even the automatic weapons have makers who profit by them being sold to civilians.

[Deadpool]

I have heard peoples comments that if everyone was armed then if there was a shooting people could protect themselves BUT most of the mass shooting cases in the US are against children/teenagers who obviously wouldnt be able to carry weapons to protect themselves. This is why it should be up to the adults of America to say 'No, we won't let this continue to happen with the mass shootings of children!' and come together and work out a solution rather dismiss any/all changes to the 2nd Amendment.

Edited October 17, 2016 by Deadpool

[Moose135]

2 hours ago, Deadpool said:

I have heard peoples comments that if everyone was armed then if there was a shooting people could protect themselves...

I wonder how you would tell the good guys with guns from the bad guys with guns? If everyone is armed, you will likely have as many, if not more, killed or injured in the crossfire.  And I've seen too many cases where trained police officers have mistakenly shot the wrong person to think that some of these Rambo wannabes will react appropriately in the heat of the moment.

[Darknight]

On Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 9:30 AM, heatherrrrz said:

I live near Sandy Hook. I thought that would have opened people's eyes. I'm so tired of reading "my prayers are with the victims of (insert state/place here)." Your prayers aren't going to bring change!

And it gets tiring. The only change that might happen is a gun owner or a congressman getting shot or someone close to him is. 

9 hours ago, Deadpool said:

I have heard peoples comments that if everyone was armed then if there was a shooting people could protect themselves BUT most of the mass shooting cases in the US are against children/teenagers who obviously wouldnt be able to carry weapons to protect themselves. This is why it should be up to the adults of America to say 'No, we won't let this continue to happen with the mass shootings of children!' and come together and work out a solution rather dismiss any/all changes to the 2nd Amendment.

Shootings happen quick. How is being armed going to save you? We will have more seas people 

[biakbiak]

13 minutes ago, Darknight said:

And it gets tiring. The only change that might happen is a gun owner or a congressman getting shot or someone close to him is. 

 

James Brady and Gabby Giffords have proven this statement to be false. 

[RedheadZombie]

When upper class white grade school children are killed in their classrooms and laws don't change, I'm assuming they will never change.

And while this isn't about the 2nd amendment, it is about George Zimmerman who fired up that segment of the population.  The man who shot at George Zimmerman was sentenced to twenty years.  GZ wasn't injured or killed.  There's something so wrong when you can kill an under-aged human being you are stalking and get off, but shooting someone and missing gets 20 years in prison.  GZ surely thinks he's untouchable at this point.

[tenativelyyours]

I think the only time change will happen is if it happens to them.  If a mass shooting turns out to be nothing more than a bunch of open carry idiots who think they are being attacked and open fire and decimate themselves in some public area. 

What is interesting is that Jon Stewart had someone on back after Sandy Hook and they did say that the issue oddly ties into the privilege of driving a car.  We license it, we regulate it, but it is a privilege to drive, not a right...or is it?  Because if it falls within one of the amendments if someone tried to truncate or even deprive that right, then the reverse holds to be true.  And I would think the Court finally recognizing marriage equality, another thing that is still licensed and regulated, is a step towards that.  It still is a huge deal and will take lots of horror to make even the next baby steps.  But I do think eventually steps will be made by some progressive states.  Think back to when the first state legalized same sex marriage.  How radical it seemed.  Heck even the first Black President was something I often thought I would not live to see, and my third election to vote was President Obama's first run! 

It is ironic though that the all or nothing approach to guns rights often prates the "watering the tree or revolution with the blood of martyrs" bit and yet none have the shame to realize those martyrs are small children, movie goers and church attendees and shoppers and not a single one them signed up for this fictional war these small minded people think they are fighting.

But it will take a self inflicted massacre or two of their own by their own before they even will be shamed to apathy sadly enough.  Hopefully we still live in a nation that will see someone, some state, take the first step that simply says guns should be afforded the same personal responsibility as a fucking car.

[RedheadZombie]

I've read speculation that the US has an inherent cowboy mentality, and that's partly why we have this gun culture. 

[Kromm]

50 minutes ago, RedheadZombie said:

I've read speculation that the US has an inherent cowboy mentality, and that's partly why we have this gun culture. 

How can speculation exist on something which can be definition only inherently be opinion? It can't be proven either way.

It's also IMO kind of BS. An excuse people give to not fight it harder. 

[RedheadZombie]

25 minutes ago, Kromm said:

How can speculation exist on something which can be definition only inherently be opinion? It can't be proven either way.

It's also IMO kind of BS. An excuse people give to not fight it harder. 

There's a lot of opinion and speculation on this thread.  Are only facts allowed?  I'm asking honestly. 

[Kromm]

1 hour ago, RedheadZombie said:

There's a lot of opinion and speculation on this thread.  Are only facts allowed?  I'm asking honestly. 

I can't or won't say what's allowed. It's not my role.

I can say when something doesn't make sense to my way of thinking. Some things in the world probably can "inherently" fit into certain baskets. Every man and woman you meet will inherently be a human. The color Blue will inherently be between 4100-4900 angstroms. You could even make a statement like "riding a unicycle through a lava field is inherently dangerous". Sure that could be interpreted as an opinion rather than an absolute fact, but it's also fairly easy to get a consensus on.

To me the problem with the statement "the US has an inherent cowboy mentality, and that's partly why we have this gun culture" is that there are so many moving parts. "cowboy mentality" is vague and undefined (and subjective). Actually, probably "this gun culture" is as well. So before we even talk about the impossibility of shoehorning the opinion that 319 million people share a trait, we can't even properly define what that trait IS.

I know it's semantics, and I've probably annoyed the shit out of you with it, but it bothered me because I couldn't see where to go with a seemingly absolute statement on something so loosely defined. That doesn't mean the ideas inside of it can't be analyzed. Not that the US is inherently filled with whatever "Cowboys" means in this instance, but that the US is in the position it's in because a large (but not complete) part of it's popular are trained from birth to think about personal liberties over communal good. That's definitely something worth thinking about.

Edited October 20, 2016 by Kromm

[Constantinople]

On 10/12/2016 at 5:46 PM, madmaverick said:

No doubt others are aware of this example, but in Australia, after the Port Arthur massacre, the centre-right govt at the time shortly initiated a buy back programme for guns and tightened gun laws substantially.  No such horrific tragedies since.

First Dog on the Moon: When I hear the words 'smashed avocado', I reach for my Adler 110

[Hanahope]

22 hours ago, RedheadZombie said:

I've read speculation that the US has an inherent cowboy mentality, and that's partly why we have this gun culture. 

And who created that cowboy mentality?  Our ancestors did, by moving into land occupied by indigenous people and killing them, which caused them to try and fight back to protect themselves.

Now we no longer have such an issue, so this 'cowboy mentality' should be put to rest, like they did in Australia.

[Kromm]

25 minutes ago, Hanahope said:

And who created that cowboy mentality?  Our ancestors did, by moving into land occupied by indigenous people and killing them, which caused them to try and fight back to protect themselves.

Now we no longer have such an issue, so this 'cowboy mentality' should be put to rest, like they did in Australia.

Australia still has a cowboy mentality (although they don't call it that). They just don't express it with guns.

By that token, nor should we need to. Except you know... the worship that's been misdirected into the NRA-tweaked version of the Second Amendment.

[partofme]

All I have to say on this topic is that I am in favor of repealing the 2nd Amendment.  I did a well thought out speech on this in high school, way back when, that explained that the 2nd Amendment had to do with militias and not individual rights, unfortunately I don't still have my notes all these years later and don't remember all the details.

[magicdog]

  Just remember, you can't have a first amendment without the second.

 

Quote

the 2nd Amendment had to do with militias and not individual rights

What made up militias?  Common everyday folk who believed in freedom and fighting for it.  They weren't "National Guardsmen".  We the people are the "militias".  

On 10/20/2016 at 0:31 PM, Hanahope said:

I've read speculation that the US has an inherent cowboy mentality, and that's partly why we have this gun culture. 

I live in the Western US and the "cowboy mentality" is real to some extent as they and their families have lived in the area for generations.  However it is also a state of mind for those who are independent in thought and spirit.  

[theredhead77]

Seth Meyers Constitutional Corner from 2011 is still relevant. Starts about 24 seconds.

"In 1787 shooting a bullet was slightly faster than throwing one"
"If you wanted to be bullet proof in 1787 you put on a heavy coat"
http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/update-favorites-11511/n13023

[InsertWordHere]

1 hour ago, magicdog said:

 What made up militias?  Common everyday folk who believed in freedom and fighting for it.  They weren't "National Guardsmen".  We the people are the "militias".  

But we the people aren't well-regulated. 

On 10/16/2016 at 11:20 PM, Moose135 said:

I wonder how you would tell the good guys with guns from the bad guys with guns? If everyone is armed, you will likely have as many, if not more, killed or injured in the crossfire.  And I've seen too many cases where trained police officers have mistakenly shot the wrong person to think that some of these Rambo wannabes will react appropriately in the heat of the moment.

And in situations like the Pulse shooting, which took place in a dark, crowded, loud nightclub filled with people who had been drinking, it would have been incredibly dangerous to have a "good guy with a gun" firing back. 

[Kromm]

3 hours ago, magicdog said:

  Just remember, you can't have a first amendment without the second.

You have every right to that opinion. but I'd argue it's darn near unprovable. 

But also it pre-supposses this is about repealing it rather than keeping it and simply correctly interpreting it. With apologies to @partofme there's really no reason to repeal it. Just give it the meaning it had before the NRA stuck their noses in during the 1970s, and concede to modernity that some sub-issues couldn't have been anticipated in a time when the most deadly personal arm loaded two musketballs max, was wildly inaccurate, and took minutes to reload each time.

I've seen a lot of claptrap talking about "The Founders" and talking about their intentions, and it's usually not even that well founded anyway. I've widely seen that quote by Sam Adams for example ("The constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.") interpreted like the man spoke for all of the Founders (and in fact saw his quote misattributed recently to Alexander Hamilton, who in HIS writings was quite clear he was talking about maintaining local militias). The whole Federalist/Anti-Federalist thing was about the balance of power between the States and the National government they were trying to create, and the people who twist the Second Amendment around to suit their own beliefs ignore that very well documented context. 

[magicdog]

3 hours ago, InsertWordHere said:

And in situations like the Pulse shooting, which took place in a dark, crowded, loud nightclub filled with people who had been drinking, it would have been incredibly dangerous to have a "good guy with a gun" firing back. 

 

As someone who knows something about concealed carry, it's wrong to assume someone will just shoot back when bullets start flying.  Owning a gun is a great responsibility and using it even for self defense shouldn't be taken lightly.  Not all situations call for a legal gun owner to fire back at a bad guy.    Some situations call for not shooting.  Each scenerio is different.  

[InsertWordHere]

41 minutes ago, magicdog said:

Some situations call for not shooting.  Each scenerio is different.  

ITA. I was referring to the many people I saw on the interwebs after the Pulse shooting claiming it would have not been as bad if someone in the club had had a gun even though he had been engaged before he entered the club by an armed off duty police officer.