Skip to main content

View Diary: Text of the proposed 28th Amendment to the Constitution. (97 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I must be missing something. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pistolSO

    States can already institute their own gun laws. If you're under the impression that the only thing preventing states fr
    imposing strict gun laws, I'd say you don't know much about it. And if you don't think people wouldn't "get it" that this process is a circuitous attempt to undermine gun ownership, I think you underestimate people.

    Just as I understand the right's "personhood amendments" as a back door way of trying to effective reverse a perfectly legal Roe v Wade decision, I think this would be seen a just as transparent.

    Sorry.

    I also happen to think you overestimate the numbers of strict gun control advocates.

    •  States have been consistently overridden (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Glen The Plumber, atana

      with regards to carry laws, etc.

      It's needed.

      And I'm not being circuitous about it at all.  I want strong gun control.  This is merely the first step to imposing it.  I'm just suggesting we do it the legal way that can't be overturned by the conservatives.

      I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

      by detroitmechworks on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 02:35:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  And I'm suggesting that you may be (5+ / 0-)

        In a bit of a bubble if you think it's just conservatives that would oppose this.

        This is part of the problem. The "sides" are presently the crazy NRA, who no longer even represents actual gun owners much anymore, and the "strong gun control" left, many of whom really would like to see most all guns illegal.

        There's no voice for the majority of gun owners -democrat or republican.

        Nevertheless, I think your proposal is a good thought experiment but as I said I think even going state by state I think you'd be surprised even in some liberal states, the resistance this would get. 200 million guns are not all owned by republicans living in Oklahoma. And so, an unintended consequence of this idea is that blue states end up with redder legislatures, who then make trouble for state residents and work steadfastly against any democratic federal governance.

        •  Then let them oppose me. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Glen The Plumber, stevej

          In good faith, and I shall do the same.

          I grew up with weapons, served with them, and am familiar with them.  I am also a strong gun control advocate who does not see the need for most of them.

          I think that the reason more people don't advocate for strong gun control is because of the constant propaganda that states your points, nearly verbatim.

          I strongly feel that we need much stronger gun control in this country, and the courts and elected officials have consistently proven that the only way we will be able to accomplish that is through constitutional amendment.

          I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

          by detroitmechworks on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 02:48:53 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I believe we need some better regulation. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            David54

            I own guns too.

            But I have no idea what "strong gun control" means in your book. But I still think the effort circuitous. At least be honest about the intent. Come on.

            And as far as your thoughts on "why more people don't advocate for strong gun control" being propaganda...maybe maybe not. You're certainly entitled your your beliefs. I have a different set of reasons why I believe people oppose "strong gun control". And my reasons are as likely or unlikely to be the cause as your own. But the devil is in the details, isn't it? So why would I agree with something so undefined unless, in my opinion, the was no (or virtually no) gun control restriction I would find too restrictive? I personally have controls I think make sense and those I think are symbolic but maybe a good idea and yet others I think would be terrible. So, no. It's not the propaganda. It's the details.

            And again, it's not just republicans who value their 2nd amendment rights. This isn't a propagandistic statement. It's a statement of fact. I think you're in a bit of a bubble. Sorry.

            •  I will not post specifics. (0+ / 0-)

              Because that is exactly what is wanted.  Specifics to be negotiated upon, nitpicked and finally dismissed because they are "Too Specific".

              I'm going for the bullseye.  There is No illusions in what I am proposing.  I am proposing that gun laws can be made as restrictive or as lenient as any state desires, within that state, and that state alone.

              I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

              by detroitmechworks on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 03:10:17 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Ah, you're going with the Romney Gambit. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                FrankRose

                I was actually surprised at how close that came to working.

                •  Funny. (0+ / 0-)

                  I posted EXACTLY what I am proposing, and somehow that makes me RMoney because I won't talk about something afterwords?

                  Yeah, have fun with that big man made of straw.

                  I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

                  by detroitmechworks on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 03:56:22 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I quote (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    FrankRose
                    I will not post specifics. (0+ / 0-)

                    Because that is exactly what is wanted.  Specifics to be negotiated upon, nitpicked and finally dismissed because they are "Too Specific".

                    There's a way to misread that?
                    •  Yup. (0+ / 0-)

                      Because it has NOTHING to do with what I suggested.  Or did you miss the entire text of the diary?

                      I was asked what gun control I felt was necessary after the 2nd is repealed.  That's not what this diary is about and not something that needs to be dealt with NOW.  Not until the 2nd which allows gun regulation to take place.

                      I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

                      by detroitmechworks on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 04:01:22 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  So first we jump, and then we figure out where to (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        detroitmechworks, FrankRose

                        land?

                        Listen, we're not going to agree about this. I can't see screwing with the Constitution without a really really solid idea of how it's going to play out. I don't see a single reason to think that anybody knows.

                        I would actively work against any attempt to alter the Constitution at this time. I think that the goal is noble, but there's no certainty about outcome, and I can think of many circumstances where unintended damage outweighs any gain.
                        Things can play out strangely on the ground.

                        I'm going to leave it here. I hope that you have a pleasant evening, and a prosperous New Year.

        •  IMO we should be trying to repeal the 2nd (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Glen The Plumber

          but not "amend" it in any way that would impose a gun ban.

          Yes, the right will say this is a step toward a gun ban. In some places I'm sure there would be a gun ban -- Berkeley and San Francisco might pass actual gun bans. But Idaho will not.

        •  It's a thought experiment, but it doesn't (0+ / 0-)

          go very far before it hits a massive wall: it won't work.
          It won't happen.
          We have a chance to change the discussion in this country about guns and gun responsibility, and gun obsession, and any kind of significant move to "repeal the 2nd amendment" is going to completely derail that.
          The NRA would love a "repeal the 2nd amend. movement."

          Furthermore, it's a little like the "secessionist" movement.
          It just further divides the country.
          This is a problem we're going to have to conquer, "all together".

          You can't make this stuff up.

          by David54 on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 06:24:20 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site