Please remember that this is a poll, not a debate. It is o.k. to ask for clarification, but please take the debating to Great Debates.
What’s to fix?
Keep.
If I’m the one who gets to fix it, then ‘fix’, otherwise leave it alone.
BTW, I think you’re overly optomistic if you think this isn’t going to turn into a great debate/trainwreck.
In my perfect world, I’d fix it by updating it and clarifying it.
I voted ‘fix’ but only because I get tired of the nitpicking merry-go-round that goes with it. My fix would be to keep it consistent with the recent Supreme Court rulings and firmly cement individual gun ownership rights in strong(er), more modern, language so that there is no reason for confusion. Under no circumstances should it be repealed but that isn’t going to happen anyway because of the impossible measures that would take.
Get rid of it, it’s an archaism that has been badly misinterpreted and causes little but harm, both to America and other nations that are subjected to our flood of guns. It endangers civil rights in general both by making it easy for the thug element to arm itself, and by serving as a distraction from the rights that actually matter. I find pretty consistently that people who support the Second Amendment have very little concern for anything or anyone else; they are willing to endanger themselves and others and to see every other civil right gutted if it means they can keep their precious guns.
Keep. I’ve lived in countries with restricted firearms. Crime sucks. Heck, I’ve lived in Michigan before it became a unified shall-issue state. Crime sucks a lot less now.
FWIW, I don’t own a single firearm, but won’t sacrifice my right to do so if I want to. Which I might do. Saw a headline today that a single act by a single maniac is now provoking our government leaders to “solve the problem” which doesn’t really exist.
And by fix I mean clarify and by clarify I mean allow ownership of full auto to anyone qualified to own semi-autos.
The “thug element” doesn’t care about it. Loughner didn’t care about it. What would happen if guns were illegal and possession were subject to jail? If you’re going to murder, it seems trivial at that point, and banning them now won’t make them go away. And what Shagnasty said.
ETA: You can own full auto it’s just a PITA, and nothing made after 1986.
I voted fix.
My general theory is that a law-abiding US citizen should be able to own a gun if he or she wants to. But I don’t necessarily think it should be a casual thing you can just do on a whim. So I have no problem with things like background checks, mandatory training, etc… and I have a strong suspicion that the rabid opposition to such things in the modern US is not so much “wow it would be terrible if that were in effect” but “if we allow that, that’s step one down the slippery slope towards confiscation. So we must fight against that!”. (Not to say that that’s necessarily an irrational approach, btw.)
I think that the more dangerous the weapon, the more it’s reasonable to be cautious before selling it to someone. So if I want to buy a single shot .22, it’s entirely reasonable to me that that be much easier than buying an AK-47. But if I’m a law abiding citizen and by gum I really really really want to own an AK-47, I should in fact have that right.
never mind. OP said no debate.
I’ll have to default to “keep” because “fix” could mean “alter beyond recognition” in a way I wouldn’t like.
Thank you(and everyone else so far).
I’m sort of hoping people who vote “fix” will clarify.
I think it might work out for awhile if some posters put their “Them thar’s fightin’ words!” attitude on hold. I’ve always been of the opinion that Dopers can rise to the occasion more often than not.
Didn’t vote on it. I simply don’t give a crap about guns or the 2nd amendment one way or the other.
[Moderator Note]This is called “thread shitting”. Don’t do it again.[/Moderator Note]
Voted Keep
If Fix were the only option, it would be to require gun ownership, including frequent target shooting/training
I voted “fix” in order to clarify language and settle the debate over the meaning once and for all. I’ve lived in countries with restricted gun laws, and I definitely came to a conclusion that I prefer a society where guns are restricted. However, maybe I’m a defeatist, but I think it’s too late for that here in the US, and I support the right to gun ownership (although I do not currently own a gun), as long as the right is well-regulated.
Is a bayonet “ordinary military equipment”?
Is a sword (historically) “ordinary military equipment”?
Try walking down the main street of your town with one on your hip!
FIX.
CMC fnord!
1st & 2nd Amendment absolutist.
Fix, agreeing with MaxTheVool’s post.
And how would you phrase this “2nd Amendment 2.0”?