Do you believe that the Second Amendment is arcane?

[Amanda Huggenkiss]

It always blows my mind how blindly and willingly the American people accept that mass shootings just happen once in a while because the founding fathers wrote a vague sentence on a piece of paper some 250 years ago.

Constitutions are supposed to provide a framework for the government's actions. A constitution is supposed to be a very practical document. In the United States, however, it has become a sacred text, as the founding fathers have evolved into godlike figures with a superior moral authority that never existed in reality. That is why the US constitution is rarely changed or even amended, unlike the constitutions of most other democracies.

I understand that the fundamental scepticism against the government and a general focus on the individual is part of the American culture. But the second amendment is, just like many other parts of the US constitution, impractical and must be changed.

[cris01us]

It always blows my mind how blindly and willingly the American people accept that mass shootings just happen once in a while because the founding fathers wrote a vague sentence on a piece of paper some 250 years ago.

Constitutions are supposed to provide a framework for the government's actions. A constitution is supposed to be a very practical document. In the United States, however, it has become a sacred text, as the founding fathers have evolved into godlike figures with a superior moral authority that never existed in reality. That is why the US constitution is rarely changed or even amended, unlike the constitutions of most other democracies.

I understand that the fundamental scepticism against the government and a general focus on the individual is part of the American culture. But the second amendment is, just like many other parts of the US constitution, impractical and must be changed.

How should it be changed?  What other parts [like many other parts of the US constitution] should be changed?

[brucejoel99]

It always blows my mind how blindly and willingly the American people accept that mass shootings just happen once in a while because the founding fathers wrote a vague sentence on a piece of paper some 250 years ago.

Constitutions are supposed to provide a framework for the government's actions. A constitution is supposed to be a very practical document. In the United States, however, it has become a sacred text, as the founding fathers have evolved into godlike figures with a superior moral authority that never existed in reality. That is why the US constitution is rarely changed or even amended, unlike the constitutions of most other democracies.

I understand that the fundamental scepticism against the government and a general focus on the individual is part of the American culture. But the second amendment is, just like many other parts of the US constitution, impractical and must be changed.

How should it be changed?  What other parts [like many other parts of the US constitution] should be changed?

Not who you were replying to, but: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed."

Or, at the very least, revive the uniform legal understanding that existed for over 200 years after the adoption of the 2nd Amendment: that it doesn't place any limit on either federal or state authority to enact gun control legislation. There's a reason that the Supreme Court unanimously held in 1939 that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun: because that weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of "a well regulated militia."

[Mr. Reactionary]

It always blows my mind how blindly and willingly the American people accept that mass shootings just happen once in a while because the founding fathers wrote a vague sentence on a piece of paper some 250 years ago.

Constitutions are supposed to provide a framework for the government's actions. A constitution is supposed to be a very practical document. In the United States, however, it has become a sacred text, as the founding fathers have evolved into godlike figures with a superior moral authority that never existed in reality. That is why the US constitution is rarely changed or even amended, unlike the constitutions of most other democracies.

I understand that the fundamental scepticism against the government and a general focus on the individual is part of the American culture. But the second amendment is, just like many other parts of the US constitution, impractical and must be changed.

How should it be changed?  What other parts [like many other parts of the US constitution] should be changed?

Not who you were replying to, but: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed."

Or, at the very least, revive the uniform legal understanding that existed for over 200 years after the adoption of the 2nd Amendment: that it doesn't place any limit on either federal or state authority to enact gun control legislation. There's a reason that the Supreme Court unanimously held in 1939 that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun: because that weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of "a well regulated militia."

Miller was a default judgment that frankly was moot when SCOTUS heard the case as Miller died prior to oral arguments and his lawyer didn't bother going all the way to DC to defend his successful Circuit court victory as his client was no longer paying him. SCOTUS accepted the entirety of the government's argument in toto since no one rebutted a single argument. Even if you were to accept that the only weapons protected must be militia weapons, Miller makes no logical sense as the same act the Court upheld in Miller banned militia weapons (machine guns). And thats again assuming that short barrel shotguns have no militia purpose which is frankly absurd as they are trench clearing weapons.

There were multiple SCOTUS cases in the 1800s that say the 2nd amendment is an individual right and is not in any way linked to government service. There were multiple saying the same thing after Miller. Miller is the aberration and again that's because literally only 1 side presented arguments so SCOTUS accepted many incorrect things as true because the opposing party didn't rebut anything.

By your own logic, if only weapons used by the militia are protected, how in the hell is it OK to ban machine guns which are undeniably militia weapons? I don't know of a single founder who would agree that the 2nd amendment is very permissive of gun bans as long as they were being applied to people not actually mustered for militia dury. That's just an absurd take. All a tyrant would have to do is disband the militia from active duty, confiscate their private weapons, and then when called out on derp back that "muh you only have rights while actively fighting in my name". One of the many selling points of the militia is that since they provide their own private weapons there is less need for government supply lines. You are arguing that the moment the militia is disbanded, all private gun ownership ceases and the militia can totally be deprived of their guns even though that literally makes the militia useless at the next muster as everyone's weapons were taken in between deployments. How can you show up with your own private weapons if private weapon ownership is otherwise banned. That's stupid.

Plus the State regulation thing is obviously a red herring as incorporation of the bill of rights didn't begin until the 20th century. That states might could ban muskets in 1840 has no more bearing on 2nd amendment jurisprudence than the fact that states could also ban speech in 1840 has to 1st amendment jurisprudence. And there is zero legitimate argument that amendments 1 and 3 - 8 are individual rights to be treated on par with each other but not #2. None.

The Constitution is actually very clear, there is a right of all people to own and carry arms. Fixating on the non-modifiers in the prefratory clause at the expense of the plain language of the operative clause is a tortured reading. If there was an amendment that read "A well informed electorate being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed. " are you really arguing that the amendment only applies to the subset of persons who are eligible voters (electorate) and only then to read books about news and politics that keep them informed about policy issues? That's absurd.

[lfromnj]

Yup the 2nd amendment totally isn't needed in the constitution, We can let you repeal it, and I know y'all won't touch guns because it was never needed actually.

[MarkD]

The Second Amendment as a whole is not arcane or archaic, but one of the theories about its purpose certainly is. The theory of purpose i'm referring to is that the the right to bear arms is needed so that the people can protect themselves from their own government should their government become tyrannical. That theory no longer has any utility; it's archaic. Our government has nuclear weapons, for Pete's sake. If our citizenry had to go to war against their own government, like a revolution, it is easy to see who would lose.

If you think the federal government is going to deploy nuclear weapons against civilians in the heartland you are either crazy or explaining why in the hell we need guns to shoot bureaucrats in the first place. If they nuke civilians here, they are so fundamentally evil that they should clearly be violently overthrown and its rather defeatist to just say "well if the government ever does become Fascist we should just accept it because Fascists are mean and will hurt us". Besides, the idea that you can police individual neighborhoods and hearts and minds with nukes is lunacy. We arent just going to line up in straight lines in matching uniforms in open fields and await the US Army like a bunch of redcoats. Guns let you shoot the bastard operating the tank from a distance when he gets out to pee. Guns let you shoot the bureaucrat lawyers illegally taking people to court. Guns let you shoot patroling foot squads from a rooftop. If you can get close enough, guns let you assassinate officers and politicians running the fascist machine. And there are 350 million of them in private hands so they can never just round up all the guns. I'm not trying to be rude but Ive always found the "we can never beat dictatorships through guerrilla warfare because NUKES!" argument stupid and ignorant of reality. Look at the politics of the bulk of soldiers. You really telling me they are gonna obey orders to kill american civilians?

Fine, forget about nuclear weapons. The nuclear arsenal exists to serve as deterrant anyway, not in order to be deployed. Nevertheless, the U.S. Military has weaponry and firepower far superior to that of armed citizens, even not including nuclear weapons. Whether you look at the Civil War or at the Branch Davidian cult in Waco, people who have tried to internally fight the military might of the U.S. have ended up losing. People who think that the United States has turned into a tyranny instead of democratic republic and who intend to shoot at all the tyrants are going to end up with the same fate as Timothy McVeigh. The theory that we need to keep and bare arms so we can defend ourselves from criminals still has utility, but not the theory that we need to defend ourselves from our own government.

[Amanda Huggenkiss]

It always blows my mind how blindly and willingly the American people accept that mass shootings just happen once in a while because the founding fathers wrote a vague sentence on a piece of paper some 250 years ago.

Constitutions are supposed to provide a framework for the government's actions. A constitution is supposed to be a very practical document. In the United States, however, it has become a sacred text, as the founding fathers have evolved into godlike figures with a superior moral authority that never existed in reality. That is why the US constitution is rarely changed or even amended, unlike the constitutions of most other democracies.

I understand that the fundamental scepticism against the government and a general focus on the individual is part of the American culture. But the second amendment is, just like many other parts of the US constitution, impractical and must be changed.

How should it be changed?  What other parts [like many other parts of the US constitution] should be changed?

For example by simply in implementing a senctence that allows the federal government to regulate the arms market as long as it still allows people to defend themselves properly.

The stict separation of powers in the United States, which has its roots in the creation of the United States and the fear of a overpowerful government, produces political stalemates that are unique in the west. Every western democracy knows separation of powers, but not to such an extent. It is clear that the judiciary, which decides on the constitutionality of the laws, must be independent, but there is no need for congress to work against the president and vice versa.

Thomas Jefferson himself stated: "No society can make a perpetual constitution ... The earth belongs always to the living generation and not to the dead .… Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years."

It is thus useless to follow the guidelines of some men 250 years ago who formed to US constitution in a way to prevent threats that were ultimately prevented - that is the transformation of the United States into some form of elective monarchy.

[cris01us]

For example by simply in implementing a sentence that allows the federal government to regulate the arms market as long as it still allows people to defend themselves properly.

The strict separation of powers in the United States, which has its roots in the creation of the United States and the fear of a over-powerful government, produces political stalemates that are unique in the west. Every western democracy knows separation of powers, but not to such an extent. It is clear that the judiciary, which decides on the constitutionality of the laws, must be independent, but there is no need for congress to work against the president and vice versa.

Thomas Jefferson himself stated: "No society can make a perpetual constitution ... The earth belongs always to the living generation and not to the dead .… Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years."

It is thus useless to follow the guidelines of some men 250 years ago who formed to US constitution in a way to prevent threats that were ultimately prevented - that is the transformation of the United States into some form of elective monarchy.

All interesting and valid points, and put very succinctly.  I wonder if you might tease out how separation of powers might be changed and what the consequences of that (positive and negative) might be?

[Amanda Huggenkiss]

For example by simply in implementing a sentence that allows the federal government to regulate the arms market as long as it still allows people to defend themselves properly.

The strict separation of powers in the United States, which has its roots in the creation of the United States and the fear of a over-powerful government, produces political stalemates that are unique in the west. Every western democracy knows separation of powers, but not to such an extent. It is clear that the judiciary, which decides on the constitutionality of the laws, must be independent, but there is no need for congress to work against the president and vice versa.

Thomas Jefferson himself stated: "No society can make a perpetual constitution ... The earth belongs always to the living generation and not to the dead .… Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years."

It is thus useless to follow the guidelines of some men 250 years ago who formed to US constitution in a way to prevent threats that were ultimately prevented - that is the transformation of the United States into some form of elective monarchy.

All interesting and valid points, and put very succinctly.  I wonder if you might tease out how separation of powers might be changed and what the consequences of that (positive and negative) might be?

Doesn't relate to the topic of the thread, but sure: I would primarily change the relation between the legislative and the executive branch, as this is the intersection that creates the most gridlock. Legislative midterm elections especially lead to political stalemates. Thus, I would propose a system similar to the system in France, that is to elect the President and the members of congress simultaneously with terms of equal length. There should also be a greater accountability of the executive branch to the legislative branch. The president for example could be obligated to select a prime minister who reflects the parliamentary majority and organizes government business. In addition, the role of the senate should be evaluated.

[lfromnj]

https://mobile.twitter.com/WhiteHovse/status/1265854732976832514
But cities have cops within 5 minutes and order is always there.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

For example by simply in implementing a sentence that allows the federal government to regulate the arms market as long as it still allows people to defend themselves properly.

The strict separation of powers in the United States, which has its roots in the creation of the United States and the fear of a over-powerful government, produces political stalemates that are unique in the west. Every western democracy knows separation of powers, but not to such an extent. It is clear that the judiciary, which decides on the constitutionality of the laws, must be independent, but there is no need for congress to work against the president and vice versa.

Thomas Jefferson himself stated: "No society can make a perpetual constitution ... The earth belongs always to the living generation and not to the dead .… Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years."

It is thus useless to follow the guidelines of some men 250 years ago who formed to US constitution in a way to prevent threats that were ultimately prevented - that is the transformation of the United States into some form of elective monarchy.

All interesting and valid points, and put very succinctly.  I wonder if you might tease out how separation of powers might be changed and what the consequences of that (positive and negative) might be?

Doesn't relate to the topic of the thread, but sure: I would primarily change the relation between the legislative and the executive branch, as this is the intersection that creates the most gridlock.

Gridlock is not inherently a problem. The only reason it can be one now is that we expect government to do more than was expected several centuries ago.

[RINO Tom]

Arguments over gun rights aside, I don't necessarily think it is helpful to have it in the constitution. I have trouble considering the right to bear arms, if it exists, to be so important that it must be constitutionally protected while other things, like gender equality, aren't. The 2nd amendment is unique to America yet I don't think we're any less susceptible to tyranny or an overreaching government when compared against the rest of the world.

I mean, I would argue that the baked-in makeup of our nation makes us incredibly unique compared to other nations to the point that we felt the need to safeguard more extensively than most places.  People aren't "Americans" in the sense that they're "Greeks."  Greek people have a bond that they might attribute to the Ancient Greeks and all of their great gifts to humanity or the spiritual legacy of the Byzantine Empire or their ethnic group's struggle for liberation form Ottoman Rule ... Americans don't have a story that is based on being "a people."  We purposely created a nation - one of the first of its kind in the modern world - based on ideas rather than a shared ethnic story. 

Germany is called "Germany" because of how Julius Caesar described Germanic barbarians from thousands of years ago.  England is called "England" because of centuries of history of the Anglo-Saxons that have shaped who they view themselves as.  "America" was formed as an *idea* of what a state should be and what it should and should not be able to do to its citizens, and it's influenced our collective thought process ever since - including perhaps overextending the number of freedoms we felt that all generations from that point forth must enjoy in our country.  You can soundly argue that this is outdated or should be reassessed, but Denmark doesn't need our Constitution, because ... frankly ... it's more predictable what *Danes* will do, for better (safer, more secure, less clunky acting as one) or worse (less innovative, less diverse, less dynamic).

[Former President tack50]

Voted yes because its structure is incredibly arcane regardless of whether you think there should be a right to bear arms or not.

I actually think that a constitutional right to bear weapons is absolutely insane and crazy but that is the standard foreigner position on the issue

[Kleine Scheiße]

The second amendment is poorly phrased, but is not itself a problem or outdated. We need to regulate and have oversight on the trade of firearms, not shove them into a dark hole and pretend they aren't real.

Ideally, gun education and safety training would be enough, but we don't live in a world where things work out so neatly.

[VBM]

it's nice to see that even on this lean left political message board with many non-American posters that a small person's right to defend themselves against big people is still respected.

Lol dude if the government really wants you dead, owning an AR-15 ain’t gonna save you.

The 2nd Amendment was written back when the only guns were muskets and pistols. Why tf should it apply to ALL guns? Did the founders even think of the possibility of fully automatic guns being created?

[dead0man]

it's nice to see that even on this lean left political message board with many non-American posters that a small person's right to defend themselves against big people is still respected.

Lol dude if the government really wants you dead, owning an AR-15 ain’t gonna save you.

I didn't mention the govt, so strawman fail

The 2nd Amendment was written back when the only guns were muskets and pistols. Why tf should it apply to ALL guns? Did the founders even think of the possibility of fully automatic guns being created?

The 1st Amendment was written back when the only communication were slow mail and the printing press. Why tf should it apply to ALL forms of communication? Did the founders even think of the possibility of the internet being created?

[VBM]

it's nice to see that even on this lean left political message board with many non-American posters that a small person's right to defend themselves against big people is still respected.

Lol dude if the government really wants you dead, owning an AR-15 ain’t gonna save you.

I didn't mention the govt, so strawman fail

The 2nd Amendment was written back when the only guns were muskets and pistols. Why tf should it apply to ALL guns? Did the founders even think of the possibility of fully automatic guns being created?

The 1st Amendment was written back when the only communication were slow mail and the printing press. Why tf should it apply to ALL forms of communication? Did the founders even think of the possibility of the internet being created?

Lol imagine thinking that this is a good comparison. Letting people communicate faster is totally comparable to letting people kill people faster. Also haven’t there been laws passed that address free speech rights online?

I was really hoping that this pandemic would at the very least kill off crazy American libertarianism, but  it looks like there’s still some holdouts

[Mr. Reactionary]

it's nice to see that even on this lean left political message board with many non-American posters that a small person's right to defend themselves against big people is still respected.

Lol dude if the government really wants you dead, owning an AR-15 ain’t gonna save you.

I didn't mention the govt, so strawman fail

The 2nd Amendment was written back when the only guns were muskets and pistols. Why tf should it apply to ALL guns? Did the founders even think of the possibility of fully automatic guns being created?

The 1st Amendment was written back when the only communication were slow mail and the printing press. Why tf should it apply to ALL forms of communication? Did the founders even think of the possibility of the internet being created?

Lol imagine thinking that this is a good comparison. Letting people communicate faster is totally comparable to letting people kill people faster. Also haven’t there been laws passed that address free speech rights online?

I was really hoping that this pandemic would at the very least kill off crazy American libertarianism, but  it looks like there’s still some holdouts

Legally its a perfect comparison. You dont get to arbitrarily declare some parts of the Bill of Rights less deserving of protection than others just because you personally don't like the right.

BTW I've purchased 12 guns in the last 3 months, none with federal paperwork. Suck it.

[VBM]

it's nice to see that even on this lean left political message board with many non-American posters that a small person's right to defend themselves against big people is still respected.

Lol dude if the government really wants you dead, owning an AR-15 ain’t gonna save you.

I didn't mention the govt, so strawman fail

The 2nd Amendment was written back when the only guns were muskets and pistols. Why tf should it apply to ALL guns? Did the founders even think of the possibility of fully automatic guns being created?

The 1st Amendment was written back when the only communication were slow mail and the printing press. Why tf should it apply to ALL forms of communication? Did the founders even think of the possibility of the internet being created?

Lol imagine thinking that this is a good comparison. Letting people communicate faster is totally comparable to letting people kill people faster. Also haven’t there been laws passed that address free speech rights online?

I was really hoping that this pandemic would at the very least kill off crazy American libertarianism, but  it looks like there’s still some holdouts

Legally its a perfect comparison. You dont get to arbitrarily declare some parts of the Bill of Rights less deserving of protection than others just because you personally don't like the right.

BTW I've purchased 12 guns in the last 3 months, none with federal paperwork. Suck it.

So when do you expect the world to randomly turn into 1984? The government is never gonna try to take away your rights.

[Mr. Reactionary]

it's nice to see that even on this lean left political message board with many non-American posters that a small person's right to defend themselves against big people is still respected.

Lol dude if the government really wants you dead, owning an AR-15 ain’t gonna save you.

I didn't mention the govt, so strawman fail

The 2nd Amendment was written back when the only guns were muskets and pistols. Why tf should it apply to ALL guns? Did the founders even think of the possibility of fully automatic guns being created?

The 1st Amendment was written back when the only communication were slow mail and the printing press. Why tf should it apply to ALL forms of communication? Did the founders even think of the possibility of the internet being created?

Lol imagine thinking that this is a good comparison. Letting people communicate faster is totally comparable to letting people kill people faster. Also haven’t there been laws passed that address free speech rights online?

I was really hoping that this pandemic would at the very least kill off crazy American libertarianism, but  it looks like there’s still some holdouts

Legally its a perfect comparison. You dont get to arbitrarily declare some parts of the Bill of Rights less deserving of protection than others just because you personally don't like the right.

BTW I've purchased 12 guns in the last 3 months, none with federal paperwork. Suck it.

So when do you expect the world to randomly turn into 1984? The government is never gonna try to take away your rights.

Lol. 1984 started last month dude. Try to keep up.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

No, it just doesn't mean what Republicans like to pretend it means.

[sparkey]

No, it just doesn't mean what Republicans like to pretend it means.

Grant us your arcane knowledge of its true meaning, Wise One.

[VBM]

it's nice to see that even on this lean left political message board with many non-American posters that a small person's right to defend themselves against big people is still respected.

Lol dude if the government really wants you dead, owning an AR-15 ain’t gonna save you.

I didn't mention the govt, so strawman fail

The 2nd Amendment was written back when the only guns were muskets and pistols. Why tf should it apply to ALL guns? Did the founders even think of the possibility of fully automatic guns being created?

The 1st Amendment was written back when the only communication were slow mail and the printing press. Why tf should it apply to ALL forms of communication? Did the founders even think of the possibility of the internet being created?

Lol imagine thinking that this is a good comparison. Letting people communicate faster is totally comparable to letting people kill people faster. Also haven’t there been laws passed that address free speech rights online?

I was really hoping that this pandemic would at the very least kill off crazy American libertarianism, but  it looks like there’s still some holdouts

Legally its a perfect comparison. You dont get to arbitrarily declare some parts of the Bill of Rights less deserving of protection than others just because you personally don't like the right.

BTW I've purchased 12 guns in the last 3 months, none with federal paperwork. Suck it.

So when do you expect the world to randomly turn into 1984? The government is never gonna try to take away your rights.

Lol. 1984 started last month dude. Try to keep up.

No it didn’t. Even if it did, then it happened under a Republican president who claims to support the 2nd Amendment

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

No, it just doesn't mean what Republicans like to pretend it means.

Grant us your arcane knowledge of its true meaning, Wise One.

I mean, it's not some special wisdom I alone possess; the historical facts are what they are  If you look at the wording of most similar laws passed by the states at the time and the way that language would've been widely interpreted at the time, then the inescapable conclusion is that the Second Amendment referred specifically to state militias and did not create any sort of Constitutional right for private individuals to own guns, much less to do so without substantial government regulation.  

Now, you could argue for a living tree approach and argue that the meaning of the words in the Constitution should evolve with society and use such legal reasoning to argue that it has become a recognizable individual right under the Constitution were you so inclined.  However, this would fly in the face of one of the main originalist legal philosophies that have long been held up by the right as the model for jurisprudence.  

To admit so overtly that textualism is little more than a meaningless pretext for conservative judges to impose their personal beliefs and partisan interests on everyone else would be akin to screaming the quiet part at the top of one's lungs.  And even so, you still get nonsense like the majority holding like D.C. v. Heller that are really a grievous affront to textualism on a substantive level.  Incidentally, that case is a great way to see if someone claiming to be a textualist is a true believer or a pretextualist hack who really just wants to see right-wing legislating from the bench,

[S019]

it's nice to see that even on this lean left political message board with many non-American posters that a small person's right to defend themselves against big people is still respected.

Lol dude if the government really wants you dead, owning an AR-15 ain’t gonna save you.

I didn't mention the govt, so strawman fail

The 2nd Amendment was written back when the only guns were muskets and pistols. Why tf should it apply to ALL guns? Did the founders even think of the possibility of fully automatic guns being created?

The 1st Amendment was written back when the only communication were slow mail and the printing press. Why tf should it apply to ALL forms of communication? Did the founders even think of the possibility of the internet being created?

Lol imagine thinking that this is a good comparison. Letting people communicate faster is totally comparable to letting people kill people faster. Also haven’t there been laws passed that address free speech rights online?

I was really hoping that this pandemic would at the very least kill off crazy American libertarianism, but  it looks like there’s still some holdouts

Legally its a perfect comparison. You dont get to arbitrarily declare some parts of the Bill of Rights less deserving of protection than others just because you personally don't like the right.

BTW I've purchased 12 guns in the last 3 months, none with federal paperwork. Suck it.

That serves as an indictment on your character and no one else's. The smart thing to do would be to immediately return all of your guns, otherwise you are complicit in the scheme of the NRA to hide behind the guise of the Second Amendment to do nothing about gun violence.