Except that it's totally cool to kill people without due process, and no one outside the far Left and Ron Paul's weekly newsletter mailing list cares.
Other than the point about due process not being given since 911... 5th: 2th: If Militia is all civilian as claimed by gun supporter of the 2nd amendment, than in time of public danger, all civilian is subjected to the exception as stated by the 5th amendment. No?
You're going to have to learn to think harder than "LOL, Second Amendment" if you want to have an honest debate and solve this problem. (two things I know you're not interested in doing, at all, based on your posting history, but I'm writing this reply to speak to the lurkers and/or non-trolls) It's like going "LOL, Bible" to win an argument that slavery should still be legal. It's just an appeal to authority that goes nowhere logically. First we have to recognize the Second Amendment is interpreted and enacted incorrectly. Secondly we have to recognize that even interpreted properly, it is still woefully outdated and inadequate. Not sure when the Court will finally tip back to the center enough to actually start making progress, but it will eventually. Unless President Trump gets in there and starts throwing haymakers.
The case has been made in the past that the US is engaged in a perpetual war against Islamist terror, which would qualify as both a "time of war" and "perpetual danger." If liberty is what matters most, don't be in perpetual war. [PROBLEM SOLVED]
Apart from unintended consequences, I can imagine a legal argument that heavily taxing bullets is a de facto abridgement of one's gun rights. It's not like gun rights proponents won't see what you're doing. The point of the tax is to reduce the use and ownership of guns. They'll oppose it. Same with the incremental laws to ban assault rifles or increase background checks. They know the point is to slowly wind down gun ownership. So they oppose it. There's no sneaking up on gun rights. The only viable strategy I see is having a President and a Legislature and a Supreme Court all willing to say it's right and appropriate to regulate guns. We're not very close there.
Which would be great. But it seems to me we don't have to be in 'time of war' to be in 'public danger'. E.g. we are not engaging in any warfare, but we, the public, are being attacked periodically by terrorists. Israel might be a good example of that. And that state is not something we can control directly. If we view that terrorists threat is 'constant' and thus is a public danger, than it seems those amendments said those in the militia can lose their 5th amendment rights. So then what's the militia? The national guards? Or is it all American civilians as claimed by gun right supporters.
This really isn't THAT hard, like Deji said.... You will not get an outright ban, and honestly it isn't worth the money to police a prohibition and would cause an underground black market and a permanent class of people that would be outlaws... can you imagine places like Sycamore Illinois? 80% of the town would be outlaws and blood would be spilled. A huge tax on ammunition isn't going to do anything except spur homemade ammunition production and another black market. An assault rifle ban will do little to stop violence, as there are handguns that can be as deadly. The only thing that can really be done is to get both sides to agree to a more complete and more strict background check that includes anyone that has committed a violent crime, has diagnosed psychiatric issues, is on a "no fly" list or is being investigated for terrorist connections. Also, enforce the rules concerning possession/theft of a weapon and get rid of gun show and online loop holes. The NRA will still complain, there will be a strong minority of Libertarians claiming that it isn't fair; and liberals screaming "what about the children"; but that is the best possible outcome.
That's simply not true. I know you want to focus on the fact that the word militia is included, but it flat out states "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms", and there's just no way you can work around that to try and strip the right of the people from the people in a legal manner.
All Americans are potential members of militias, right now there isn't a public danger that requires citizens to form into militias to defend their homeland so those militias haven't formed. If a public danger sufficient to cause civilians to form militias to defend their homeland arises, you can bet martial law will be a thing and the 5th amendment would be suspended.
Arguing over the meaning of the Second Amendment and the clumsy phrasing (which is not an accident) isn't going to get us anywhere in 2016. Gun ownership and the sport of shooting/hunting and home protection all are deeply embedded into the culture of America; especially in rural communities.
Very true, sounds like places that have large gatherings of people need to increase their security. Other than that, there's not much that can be done.
The reason why argument over the 2nd amendment happens is because one side refuses to do anything because 2nd amendment. So until that side changes tune, we can't get anywhere until the 2nd amendment interpretation change or is abolished. Maybe not in 2016, but in 2018-2022? 2024? Culture doesn't really apply. Slavery was once a deeply embedded culture of America.
Potential? For defending? Great. It's clearly stated 'well regulated militia'. And you further recognize it as a force for defending. So who are these people that are potential members of a well regulated militia? Certainly not children. We do not use children as a force of defense. Perhaps then, laws can be made on the topic of 'well regulated militia'. Such as able men/women of certain age ranges without criminal history, well trained, and isn't under any suspicious of being a terrorists or has mental temperament in detriment of a defense force.
Sure, and that creates negative externalities that adversely impact ALL americans. It's just a question of either eliminating those externalities or properly allocating their costs.
Militia regulations aside, men, women and children all have the right to keep and bear arms in the US. I for one think that is pretty cool.
If you want constructive criticism, then take the time and research the issue. You're coming up with ignorant ideas (because you have very little insight on the issue) and then complaining 'the other side' is not listening. Here are a few key suggestions that automatically make me realize a person does not understand the topic -Banning assault weapons -Banning guns as a whole -Buy back programs -Gunshow loop holes -Ammo tax -Ignoring the 2nd amendment If you wonder why we as a country are not passing significant gun control, its because liberals continue to hammer on these issues. If you want to erode my right to weapons, at least do it in a manner that will be significant.
It's clearly stated "the right of the people", it's a right of the people, not a right of a militia. I get your desire to take away rights of the people, it's just something people on the left love to do, but it's simply a non-starter. You just aren't going to get any traction when it comes to stripping constitutionally protected rights of the people without due process.
Culture does apply. Slavery resulted in a war that killed almost 700,000 soldiers and 100,000+ other people and resulted in the USA being almost ripped in half. I don't want that over a fight over the Second Amendment. If you are okay with something of that magnitude, go ahead, but there won't be many that join you. As far as one side not doing anything, there are shades of grey. There already are regulations on what you can and cannot purchase, you are required in most cases to be registered and there are background checks. So lets not act like there isn't some flexibility. I have been critical of both sides in the past, and do not believe it is remotely feasible to remove gun ownership in the USA. That leaves attempts at alternatives that will be somewhat successful and also prevent splitting the country in half.
