Well, pirates generally don't compromise. But, I wasn't suggesting repeal as a compromise, more as my starting position. Mar's starting position is leave it as is. Somewhere in between those two positions is a compromise. I'm offering him the chance to give me something of real value; otherwise I'll board him and make him walk the plank off his own ship. barfo
If you don't know why did you vote in the poll? My concern is that you voted that you would break the law.
for those who keep asking as·sault ri·fle NOUN a rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use.
The problem with your amendment @MarAzul, as I see it, is that it is too specific - "fully automatic weapon" for instance. That term will likely be dated within a few decades as other forms of arms come into being. That's one reason why the Amendments are short and sweet. They need to be (re)- interpreted by each generation. But I like the sentiment of your Amendment. It's better than what we have now, that's for sure.
>>> Perhaps this is True, and at the same time the need for the distinction between weapons to be distinguished as appropriate for defense by individuals and those deemed to be for offensive action, appropriate only by sovereign States, is also newly apparent since the first writing. This is the line draw here. Perhaps the day will come when it does need too be redrawn and the law rewritten, and processed for approval all over again. >>> And on this I can not agree. The amendment process is rightfully designed to require a super majority for approval by all the States. A (re)- interpreted by each generation, is not the amendment process requiring the super majority, there by too easy. It is just a simple majority of a few judges, and as you know, with careful selection, the few can be manipulated to not even be representative of the majority. That body is not designed to be representative of the people, not being elected so not answerable to the people. Their body is designed to interpreted the law as written for the original meaning. Not to (re)- interpret for a virtual rewrite, especially not to accommodate political change. I did not detect a suggested change, that I could agree to include, but one more specific might be agreeable even though it may not stand the test of eternity.
Interesting definition. It does not include mine as it was not designed for infantry use, nor has it been used by any infantry. I believe the same can be said about the AR-15. I do find mine useful for protecting what I want from predators though, both varieties, two legged, and four.
If a ban is signed into law a definition will be written as to what weapons will be included. I'm sure you can find another means of "protection" if yours is considered one of the band weapons. I have never owned a gun and never been in a situation where I needed "protection". That word seems to be something the NRA loves to promote.
So this is our fundamental disagreement, and the essence of what the Court deals with as well - Scalia vs. Ruth Ginsberg, etc. Of course Amendments are interpreted in light of modern times and ethics. Did you know that the right to have a gun per the 2nd Amendment was practically nil in the 1930s and only became a "right" due to a new interpretation by this Court a decade ago? I disagree with the outcome, but agree that each Court must interpret the Constitution as a living document, not per some standard from the 1700s.
So abolishing slavery, civil rights and the women's suffrage movement aren't in your log of historical changes I take it?
