Do you support the second amendment?

[Fredulus]

guns can act as a deterrent as well.
i dont think the shooters would shoot up a school knowing that the teachers are armed. they choose schools because they know they're "gun free zones"
ever see a mass shooting at a police station?

they choose schools because they want to shoot up a bunch of kids, derp

[Ad Bot]

[Bisjac]

they choose schools because they want to shoot up a bunch of kids, derp

then why are they also shooting malls and theaters?

your logic is fail.

its clear they look for gun free areas where there are plenty of people

[(Frankie)]

they choose schools because they want to shoot up a bunch of kids, derp

Do you really think they would still try to knowing teachers are armed and trained to use firearms?

[Fredulus]

then why are they also shooting malls and theaters?

your logic is fail.

its clear they look for gun free areas where there are plenty of people

they look for areas with plenty of people
which happen to be gun free
i'm sorry but there aren't enough people carrying to be an actual deterrent, even here in bible and gun-humping utah

Do you really think they would still try to knowing teachers are armed and trained to use firearms?

that's never going to happen for a thousand reasons

[Bisjac]

that's never going to happen for a thousand reasons

many counties are already starting that now

[hankyje]

[Snackbar]

I generally agree, but the Supreme Court has already made pretty clear that the Constitution should be interpreted to mean that people have the right to bear arms separate of the right to be in a militia.

And also, at least in the past, it would appear that Congress does not rewrite the Constitution, instead they make void a past part. This would make an even weirder situation when you read Amendment 2 and it says one thing and then Amendment 28 says that Amendment 2 is void and the new Amendment is "people have the right to have arms." And if they did just actually rewrite the second amendment, there would be so much fear throughout the voting population that it would probably never happen.

But if it could be rewritten, that would be really nice.

In regards to your first statement, District of Columbia v. Heller the majority did not make an exactly convincing case for their decision to overturn two hundred years of judicial precedence, as I briefly explained in my previous post on the subject.

In regards to your second statement, there are no restrictions on what Congress can do with an amendment. A hypothetical twenty-eighth amendment could read "The language in the Second Amendment shall be changed so that it will read 'The right to bear arms for self-defense purposes shall not be restricted'" if that's what Congress wanted to do. The Alabama legislature actually tried to do something very similar with the language of one of their 856 amendments (specifically, the Republicans attempted to remove some tribal language, that, in addition to removing references to the segregation of schools, would also remove the obligation for the state to provide public education).

[IkeTheGeneric]

that's never going to happen for a thousand reasons

Explain five reasons.

[Doomonkey]

-snip-

First of all, "It was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.[2]" - Wikipedia. Meaning, if Wikipedia isn't misleading me, they didn't go against any precedence at all. There was no precedence.

Second of all, I didn't say they couldn't rewrite an amendment, I said that in the precedence they haven't.

[Mounds Bar]

then why couldnt the police protect sandyhook? stuff even if the cops had better weapons, they didnt even show up on time anyways.

We need faster response teams and more counseling.

[The Tavros Nitram]

We need faster response teams and more counseling.

i think he's trying to say that they wouldnt have known if it was going on at the time due to the fact that it was a school and it would be harder to report a crime at a school until its over

[Mounds Bar]

i think he's trying to say that they wouldnt have known if it was going on at the time due to the fact that it was a school and it would be harder to report a crime at a school until its over

Oh...

Why don't they have a metal detector?

[The Tavros Nitram]

Oh...

Why don't they have a metal detector?

That would work, except for metal zippers and metal objects that students would be carrying to school for work.

[Snackbar]

First of all, "It was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.[2]" - Wikipedia. Meaning, if Wikipedia isn't misleading me, they didn't go against any precedence at all. There was no precedence.

What do you call United States v. Cruikshank and Presser v. Illinois? Both very clearly stated that if a state so chose, they could take away your guns. Only the federal government is limited by the Second Amendment. There's a reason why District of Columbia v. Heller was the first to decide that it protected an individual's right to bear arms; because everything before it stated that there was no individual right to do so.

Furthermore, as I pointed out in my earlier post, I doubt the Framers of the Constitution has such an interpretation in mind when they designed the Constitution. There is abundant evidence of similar amendments that provided for protecting an individual's right to keep arms for the purposes of self-defense, yet the Framers did not model the Second Amendment off of any of them.

Second of all, I didn't say they couldn't rewrite an amendment, I said that in the precedence they haven't.

Then what's your point? I clearly misunderstood what you trying to say with that statement.