(11-16-2017, 11:02 PM)TJBender Wrote:

(11-16-2017, 04:17 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: You just said that the 2nd Amendment needs to change.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but you seem to contradict yourself here.

I don't believe that a firearm registry or limits on the number and type of weapons that can be owned violate the Second Amendment. I don't recall the Second Amendment making any reference to a bump stock, tracer rounds, full auto vs. semi auto vs. DAO vs. SAO or suppressors/silencers. So in some ways, yes, I do believe that gun laws in the United States can and should change without a Constitutional amendment. I don't see a law banning assault weapons, suppressors, bump stocks as unconstitutional in the least, nor do I think a Constitutional amendment is required to limit an individual to X number of firearms and X rounds of ammunition that can legally be kept on hand, requiring all firearms be registered, and passing criminal liability to the registered owner of the weapon unless they've previously reported it stolen. The Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, not the right to overthrow Guatemala.

If we interpreted every shred of the Constitution as literally as possible, we'd all be seated on juries for every idiot that sued Pizza Hut because he paid $20 and his pizza was cold.