Honestly. The strength of our Constitution is that it is flexible. We can change and modify our Constitution as our times change. The Second Amendment as written is vague.
It is referencing a time that no longer is relevant, as our times and technology has changed. When the Second Amendment was written, the thought of a repeating musket was
a simple pipe dream. You would have to have several barrels lined up and fire them off in succession. Now, there are rifles that can fire faster than a person can count.
Therefore it might seem logical to outline our rights for today. Honestly there is no need to have a 30 round magazine, if you are out hunting. Really.
You should be a sufficient marksman that you can drop your target with one shot. Even if you own your firearms for personal protection, what is the benefit of having
a room full of guns? The point is, is that there should be some guns that we as Americans simply do not need to own. We do not need to own Assault rifles, or military grade hardware.
We have no need for anti-aircraft or rocket launchers.

That is why I suggest a new second amendment that spells out that we are permitted to purchase, as well as the types of weapons that we are not allowed to purchase.

The capabilities of weaponry have changed so much since the constitution was written that the Founding Fathers could never have anticipated what we have now. And weaponry will change that much and more in the future. The strength of the constitution IS its flexibility, but if we take that away the constitution will simply be weaker and easier to exploit with new technology that may fit with an old definition. This is why many programmers are against internet legislation--at the rate of technological advancement we're experiencing, any legislation will not only be obsolete in 3 years, but may make legitimate things illegal (or bad things expressly legal) simply because we could not anticipate what would develop. Best bet is just to leave it as-is and handle it the way we've done so far.

Yes, well even if we leave it as it is now, we are leaving ourselves open for gross exploitation at the hands of gun manufactures, and lobbyists.
Honestly the NRA owns at least half of our Senate! We cannot just sit back and let people be exploited all for the sake of perceived rights!

What gross exploitation do you feel is going on? Be specific.

Ratification is a long road... And another constitutional convention would put the whole thing up for renegotiation.

Besides giving up rights won't make us any safer.

And you sure as hell can't give up my rights.

This post was edited by Skinned on May 8 2013 11:21am

It is only vague for those of you who can't comprehend its intent, or have refused to look at the Federalist Papers or other writings of the period (contemporaneous, @ JEB90).

When the first amendment was written, the idea that any Joe Schmoe with a computer and an internet connection could publish anything he wanted was a pipe dream. We should abolish the first amendment and require people to get permits to publish anything on the internet.

Now how dumb does that sound? About as dumb as the OP proposal. It's not a Bill of Needs, it's a Bill of Rights. Get used to it.

I just don't believe in the watered down judge modified version. It says what it means, and the only reason it means anything else is because people interpreted it differently.
We should remove the option to interpret it and just put down what it means.

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed? Okay, I'm okay with that.

Keep in mind all males over 18 register for the selective service and are available for conscription, which constitutes a well regulated militia.

Not sure what you're argument is.

It isn't judge-modified, lol. The intent is covered in extensive detail here: http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html which includes links to numerous sources that indicate that fact that the 2nd amendment is very much an individual right, not a group right.

I think he means he's in favor of total legalization of all guns, as it states "shall not be infringed".
/e
Or more accurately, that he doesn't believe in legislation that interprets the constitution; that the constitution should say exactly what it means without the need for interpretation.

Which of course would wreck its scalability.

This post was edited by BardOfXiix on May 8 2013 11:48am