The Time Has Come to Upgrade 2A

[rocknanchor]

First order of business, , 2A’s vision, was for her countrymen not to grieve, IMHO. But, the mischievous care of bearing arms today is. Furthermore, is an intent to bring down the 2A!

The year is 2025, a year well on its way to stake claim on another year for gun violence’s ugly portfolio. The United States in 2025, a world of professional behavioral scientist’s inability to stem it, really? Look at who is performing the work for the anti-2A crowd military or not, it ain’t patriots!​

• Grand Blanc Township church attack (Genesee County, Michigan): September 28, 2025
  A man rammed a vehicle into a church and then opened fire, killing two people and injuring eight others before setting the church on fire. The responding officers killed the gunman. An additional two bodies were later found inside the burnt church, but their cause of death has not been verified.​
• Southport, North Carolina shooting: September 27, 2025
  A man on a boat opened fire at an outdoor bar, killing three people and wounding five others.​
• El Paso, Texas shooting: September 24, 2025
  A gunman killed his girlfriend and another woman before taking his own life. A third victim was critically wounded.​
• North Codorus Township, Pennsylvania shooting: September 17, 2025
  A man ambushed and killed three police officers investigating a harassment report before being fatally shot by an injured officer. The ex-girlfriend's family dog was also shot and killed.​
• Annunciation Catholic Church shooting (Minneapolis, Minnesota): August 27, 2025
  A person opened fire at a church during morning mass, killing two children and injuring 21 other people before committing suicide. Note: This meets the 3+ fatalities criteria when including the shooter.​
• Anaconda, Montana shooting: August 1, 2025
  A man is suspected of opening fire at a bar, killing four people, before fleeing.​
• Midtown Manhattan shooting (New York, New York): July 28, 2025
  A man killed four people and fatally shot himself in a corporate building. Five people died in total and four others were injured.​
• Lexington, Kentucky shootings: July 13, 2025
  A man shot and killed two women at a church after first shooting a state trooper. The suspect was killed by police.​

Chicago, Illinois shooting: July 2, 2025
A drive-by shooting outside a restaurant killed four people and wounded 14.​

None of these mentally disturbed individuals had the nation’s interest and protection in mind. So how do you vet the patriotic citizenry from the above unfit? The current background check is a joke and grants huge leeway for the unstable,

‘’Criteria for Denial, Mental health issues (only if declared by a court).’’

Thanks for your comments!​

 

[rocknanchor]

To upgrade, only one stands out to head the following suggested list of professionals to update our current background check, the last one:​

• Legal scholars and constitutional law experts would establish the legal boundaries and precedents for independent power, ensuring the checklist aligns with constitutional principles and protects against abuses of authority.
• Ethics professionals and government ethics officials from offices such as the U.S. Office of Government Ethics (OGE) would be crucial for establishing and interpreting the ethical standards that individuals must uphold. They would focus on preventing conflicts of interest and ensuring decisions are made impartially.
• Political scientists and social scientists would be instrumental in understanding the dynamics of power and trust. They could research and model how citizens' views are shaped by institutional accountability and how to build public confidence.
• Background investigation and vetting experts from agencies like the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) would contribute their knowledge of personnel vetting for high-risk and sensitive positions. They would inform the criteria for assessing a candidate's history related to financial responsibility, conduct, and reliability.
• Accountability and oversight experts from congressional research and civilian oversight groups could provide insight into building systemic checks and balances. Their expertise would ensure that any granted power includes effective monitoring and accountability mechanisms to prevent corruption and misconduct.
• Technology and data security specialists would design systems for transparent record-keeping and continuous evaluation, leveraging secure data management to monitor behavior without invading privacy. This would address how information is collected, stored, and used responsibly.
• Psychologists and behavioral scientists could help develop methods to assess a candidate's character, judgment, stability, and potential biases. Their insights would go beyond a simple background check to evaluate the psychological fitness for a position of great power. - AI

The prescribed psychiatric and psychological medications have shown repeatedly to be at the heart of many attacks, would be a no-brainer to refuse passing applicants.

Under the current custodial 2A care, we have allowed the expansion of unfit use and reduction of where the patriot could appear. How so very backwards is that?

Your thoughts appreciated!​

 

[asquirrel]

uhhh. so the goal of 2A was this:

1. Most citizens would be armed and know how to fight at least on a basic level, but NOT be formally indoctrinated into a standing army (like we have now). This means that if someone wants to start a war, they have to convince everyone to join them. It creates INCREDIBLE inertia for warmongers to overcome.
2. Weapons and systems are designed for people first, and the government buys what's left. So none of this having to wonder how you'd ever fight an F-35. None of this extraordinary waste and overspending. Things would have to be economically viable first (like drones) and useful to war second.
3. The people are better armed than the government. So when authoritarianism tries to rise up, it can be swatted down quickly. How many of those 'bad' cop interactions would be more chill if the person being talked to had their hand on their gun like the cops did? Exactly. Intimidation goes both ways.

We've forgotten why that exists, and what purposes it *actually* was meant to serve.

 

[Richard T]

Just to put something on the table. How about requiring insurance for guns? Let the private insurance markets decide who can afford to carry and for what price. They understand how to estimate risks as good as anyone and they could compete with others for business. It seems unlikley that most companies would get political about this. Such insurance could go toward helping to pay the victims too of gun violence.

 

[rocknanchor]

Just to put something on the table. How about requiring insurance for guns? Let the private insurance markets decide who can afford to carry and for what price. They understand how to estimate risks as good as anyone and they could compete with others for business. It seems unlikley that most companies would get political about this. Such insurance could go toward helping to pay the victims too of gun violence.

Correct me if wrong but, sounds like you're willing to hand the power and presence of ethical constrictions to the power of an affluent sector? But going back to the insurer, same thing. You do realize since passing the IRA (Inflation Reduction Act) under Democratic leadership of course in 2022, in 2023 a senior's health insurer premium might have been in the single digits (teaser). Now, three years later, that same insurer now has just imposed a triple digit increase for a 2000% higher premium. Is the Republican regulatory insurance guidelines up for such a new 2A task to include all Americans?

 

[rocknanchor]

How many of those 'bad' cop interactions would be more chill if the person being talked to had their hand on their gun like the cops did? Exactly. Intimidation goes both ways

Hello 'asquirrel', welcome to CF! Nice to see you go there as the Police Academies following the legislator's pen have long outlived their care for the original intent, hence, why I mentioned where the patriot would appear. The slow, calculated, shedding, of the 2A seems at the heart of whatever level of care they wish to call it! There are Patriotic police precincts and conversely, some quite opposed to any sort of weaponry. I would cite the constitutional law experts to help standardize our consensus. That lack, multiple interpretations is what fuels a weak 2A.

 

[Tuur]

When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "Stick to the Devil you know."

- Rudyard Kipling, The Gods of the Copybook Headings

 

[Tuur]

uhhh. so the goal of 2A was this:

1. Most citizens would be armed and know how to fight at least on a basic level, but NOT be formally indoctrinated into a standing army (like we have now). This means that if someone wants to start a war, they have to convince everyone to join them. It creates INCREDIBLE inertia for warmongers to overcome.
2. Weapons and systems are designed for people first, and the government buys what's left. So none of this having to wonder how you'd ever fight an F-35. None of this extraordinary waste and overspending. Things would have to be economically viable first (like drones) and useful to war second.
3. The people are better armed than the government. So when authoritarianism tries to rise up, it can be swatted down quickly. How many of those 'bad' cop interactions would be more chill if the person being talked to had their hand on their gun like the cops did? Exactly. Intimidation goes both ways.

We've forgotten why that exists, and what purposes it *actually* was meant to serve.

Those who call for restrictions piled upon restrictions don't know their history. In the mid 20th Century, you could buy a firearm by mail. Firearms were available in just about every department and hardware store. There were no background checks. There were no waiting periods. You laid you money on the counter and walked out with a firearm. Fast-forward almost seventy years, and now firearms are found in only a few department stores. The same for hardware stores. There are background checks and waiting periods. The curious thing is that back when we had none of these things, the events like happen now didn't exist.

They also don't remember their history of the years following the ACW, when there was an effort to disarm blacks. That was enforcing laws that were already on the books. Why the former Confederate states would want to disarm the recently freed slaves is left as an exercise to the reader.

The US government also had a history of disarming or attempting to disarm Indians on reservations when there were fears of an uprising. Make of that what you will.

 

[Richard T]

Correct me if wrong but, sounds like you're willing to hand the power and presence of ethical constrictions to the power of an affluent sector? But going back to the insurer, same thing. You do realize since passing the IRA (Inflation Reduction Act) under Democratic leadership of course in 2022, in 2023 a senior's health insurer premium might have been in the single digits (teaser). Now, three years later, that same insurer now has just imposed a triple digit increase for a 2000% higher premium. Is the Republican regulatory insurance guidelines up for such a new 2A task to include all Americans?

Gun insurance seems simpler than health. Like other lines such as property and casualty, it would be regulated by the government. Usually most are limited in profits and seek to generate profit that is above what is paid out withouot gouging the consumer. Like hurricane insurance though, some insurers would not write policies in a place like Memphis where gun crime is high, so that might be an issue. The NRA itself offers liability insurance through various insurers.

Coverage too could be debated. Like liability if your weapon is stolen and used by a criminal. or other liability for the use of your firearm. To require the insurers to pay out for a criminal when they commit a crime though would be different. Your auto insurance is void if you use the vehicle during criminal activity. Here the government would have to say that you insure that whoever you carry on a policy does X that Y is the payout. Then you split the risk up by class and group.

Of course criminals do not care if they have insurance and convicted criminals can't by one legally. But gun insurance would take that a step fruther and red flag those have the characteristics of someone who might di something bad with a gun. That a proof of insurance requirement would be a step toward gun ownership, transfer and even the ability to buy ammunition. I imagine too that like a car driven 30k versus 10k, that rates could vary based on what one discloses to the insurer. LIke concealed carry would cost more than a gun locked only in a safe at home. I doubt the NRA would approve and I probably would not like it either, but in theory the acturial tables could be drawn up as to who is and isn't high risk in owning an gun. This is similar to actuarial tables that predict a person who is a poor driving risk. Better rates too for those with gun courses in the proper care and use etc. Lastly, insurers would make registation required and track the serial numbers of every insured gun. So while an idea I would not probably like, it has some advantages to the current system in reducing gun crime while also paying something when their are bad results?

 

[rocknanchor]

Gun insurance seems simpler than health. Like other lines such as property and casualty, it would be regulated by the government. Usually most are limited in profits and seek to generate profit that is above what is paid out withouot gouging the consumer. Like hurricane insurance though, some insurers would not write policies in a place like Memphis where gun crime is high, so that might be an issue. The NRA itself offers liability insurance through various insurers.

Coverage too could be debated. Like liability if your weapon is stolen and used by a criminal. or other liability for the use of your firearm. To require the insurers to pay out for a criminal when they commit a crime though would be different. Your auto insurance is void if you use the vehicle during criminal activity. Here the government would have to say that you insure that whoever you carry on a policy does X that Y is the payout. Then you split the risk up by class and group.

Of course criminals do not care if they have insurance and convicted criminals can't by one legally. But gun insurance would take that a step fruther and red flag those have the characteristics of someone who might di something bad with a gun. That a proof of insurance requirement would be a step toward gun ownership, transfer and even the ability to buy ammunition. I imagine too that like a car driven 30k versus 10k, that rates could vary based on what one discloses to the insurer. LIke concealed carry would cost more than a gun locked only in a safe at home. I doubt the NRA would approve and I probably would not like it either, but in theory the acturial tables could be drawn up as to who is and isn't high risk in owning an gun. This is similar to actuarial tables that predict a person who is a poor driving risk. Better rates too for those with gun courses in the proper care and use etc. Lastly, insurers would make registation required and track the serial numbers of every insured gun. So while an idea I would not probably like, it has some advantages to the current system in reducing gun crime while also paying something when their are bad results?

Agree that much of that could be super beneficial!!

NOT be formally indoctrinated into a standing army (like we have now).

Member 'Tuur' has good cause to bring your historical perspectives into question. All of George Washington's Continental Army would take particular issue with your findings. In fact, that indoctrination has run quite counter to yours. I have been battling AI too, as it also is spewing out this old slow-drip indoctrination far, far from the Founder's intent. When I asked, ,

Where is the original ‘well-regulated militia’ (the Founders insured) to appear after such a centuries-long indoctrination, subverted to accept an insidious disruption to the protections granted within the 2nd Amendment’s normal functioning if an unapologetic tyrant were to secure the reigns of the highest power?

AI Overview

The user's query is based on the unfounded premise that there is a slow, insidious indoctrination subverting the Second Amendment's function, preventing patriots from emerging. In reality, the Second Amendment has, , misinformation from all sides''

 

[ChubbyCherub]

I think the answer is to not engage with the dialogue which seeks to conflate constitutional rights with extremist actions and views.

2A needs to be approached in the same way Christianity needs to be approached.

Both things are weaponized by factions with agendas.

There is a lot of white noise that just needs to be ignored.

 

[rocknanchor]

I think the answer is to not engage with the dialogue which seeks to conflate constitutional rights with extremist actions and views.

2A needs to be approached in the same way Christianity needs to be approached.

Both things are weaponized by factions with agendas.

There is a lot of white noise that just needs to be ignored.

At best, a conflated handling of the Constitution is under the current care of the ''enlightened''. But don't lose heart, I'll be ready to throw in right along with you as long as I consider those enduring methods of insuring ''liberty'' an agenda, and not a gift.

 

[ChubbyCherub]

At best, a conflated handling of the Constitution is under the current care of the ''enlightened''. But don't lose heart, I'll be ready to throw in right along with you as long as I consider those enduring methods of insuring ''liberty'' an agenda, and not a gift.

Might I request you speak plainly. I'm on cold medicine and lack of sleep from time zone change so not understanding.

Are you saying that you agree or disagree with the 2A? I may have read wrong and so responded in a way that wasn't appropriate to your view.

Thanks.

 

[ChubbyCherub]

Gun insurance seems simpler than health. Like other lines such as property and casualty, it would be regulated by the government. Usually most are limited in profits and seek to generate profit that is above what is paid out withouot gouging the consumer. Like hurricane insurance though, some insurers would not write policies in a place like Memphis where gun crime is high, so that might be an issue. The NRA itself offers liability insurance through various insurers.

Coverage too could be debated. Like liability if your weapon is stolen and used by a criminal. or other liability for the use of your firearm. To require the insurers to pay out for a criminal when they commit a crime though would be different. Your auto insurance is void if you use the vehicle during criminal activity. Here the government would have to say that you insure that whoever you carry on a policy does X that Y is the payout. Then you split the risk up by class and group.

Of course criminals do not care if they have insurance and convicted criminals can't by one legally. But gun insurance would take that a step fruther and red flag those have the characteristics of someone who might di something bad with a gun. That a proof of insurance requirement would be a step toward gun ownership, transfer and even the ability to buy ammunition. I imagine too that like a car driven 30k versus 10k, that rates could vary based on what one discloses to the insurer. LIke concealed carry would cost more than a gun locked only in a safe at home. I doubt the NRA would approve and I probably would not like it either, but in theory the acturial tables could be drawn up as to who is and isn't high risk in owning an gun. This is similar to actuarial tables that predict a person who is a poor driving risk. Better rates too for those with gun courses in the proper care and use etc. Lastly, insurers would make registation required and track the serial numbers of every insured gun. So while an idea I would not probably like, it has some advantages to the current system in reducing gun crime while also paying something when their are bad results?

Sounds OK in principle from a layman point of view. However, the government initiatives like profit, DEI, environment etc are intrinsically entwined within insurance. Insurance is not a distinct trade in its own right, contrary to popular belief. The government and insurance agencies are one and the same. Risks are underwritten, not based on loss of profit in the event of claims in isolation, but also based on social engineering.

Case in point, there was an article recently and specifically about Chubb Insurance and their policies and underwriting. You can look this up online but, if you can't find it for some reason, let me know and I'll get a link for you. Link here: Top insurance company in hot seat as blistering new ad campaign exposes 'radical woke ideology'

On this basis, insurers are definitely NOT the industry we want involved in firearm regulation.

 

[ChubbyCherub]

uhhh. so the goal of 2A was this:

1. Most citizens would be armed and know how to fight at least on a basic level, but NOT be formally indoctrinated into a standing army (like we have now). This means that if someone wants to start a war, they have to convince everyone to join them. It creates INCREDIBLE inertia for warmongers to overcome.
2. Weapons and systems are designed for people first, and the government buys what's left. So none of this having to wonder how you'd ever fight an F-35. None of this extraordinary waste and overspending. Things would have to be economically viable first (like drones) and useful to war second.
3. The people are better armed than the government. So when authoritarianism tries to rise up, it can be swatted down quickly. How many of those 'bad' cop interactions would be more chill if the person being talked to had their hand on their gun like the cops did? Exactly. Intimidation goes both ways.

We've forgotten why that exists, and what purposes it *actually* was meant to serve.

I think people who support 2A haven't forgotten.

 

[rocknanchor]

Might I request you speak plainly. I'm on cold medicine and lack of sleep from time zone change so not understanding.

Are you saying that you agree or disagree with the 2A? I may have read wrong and so responded in a way that wasn't appropriate to your view.

Thanks.

Hopefully, the direction of my sarcasm is entirely inappropriate. I just didn't want the handling of the organic 2A being thought of as an overzealous ''agenda''.

 

[ChubbyCherub]

Hopefully, the direction of my sarcasm is entirely inappropriate. I just didn't want the handling of the organic 2A being thought of as an overzealous ''agenda''.

Thanks for responding!

I still don't understand your position i.e. for or against 2A so unable to confirm whether or not the direction of your sarcasm was appropriate or otherwise.

To assist, I strongly and unapologetically support the 2A.

The 'agenda' I refer to is with regards to those who seek to remove it through misinformation etc.