Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Amending the 2nd Amendment

  1. #1
    Regular Member Lord Sega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Warrenton, Oregon
    Posts
    317

    Amending the 2nd Amendment

    At least those who wish to appeal or amend the 2nd amendment have my respect.
    I don't agree with them, just respect them. Note, I'm not a Constitution Law expert, so corrections are welcome.

    Article V The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
    They are at least following the Constitution and it's rules and are not trying to legislate around the Bill of Rights with a ban.
    Of course, a right is a right; recognized (not granted) by the Constitution, and cannot be amended, appealed, or legislated away.

    5 USC § 3331 - Oath of office An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: “I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” This section does not affect other oaths required by law.
    If only there were penalties to forswearing their oath of office... Sen. Feinstein & all who vote for the weapons ban should be immediately fired for perjuring their oath.

    We all need to contact our Congressmen and Representatives, remind them that:
    1) there is only one way to legally change the Constitution and Bill of Rights, ie Article 5.
    2) that a weapons ban at any level is unconstitutional and will tie everyone up in the courts.
    3) and remind them of their oath to support and defend the Constitution.

    We should not have to argue stats, charts, and numbers to show a ban is worthless, although they do show that it is.
    All it should take is one member of the House and/or Congress to stand up and make the motion that the Feinstein ban is unconstitutional on its face, and motion that it must be handled as a constitutional amendment under Article 5.
    Last edited by Lord Sega; 01-07-2013 at 09:55 PM.
    "Guns are not the problem … crazy is the problem” ... “We cannot legislate our society to the craziest amongst us.” - Jon Stewart
    “I do not love the bright sword for it's sharpness, nor the arrow for it's swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend." - Tolkien

  2. #2
    State Researcher lockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Elgin, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    1,202

    Amending the 2nd Amendment

    Repeal of the second amendment would not repeal your fundamental right to keep and bear arms. It would just show that congress and 3/4 this of the states agree not to be bound to protect your rights. If the government won't enforce your rights, then you must protect your own.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    It would repeal the enumerated Right to Keep and Bear Arms. It would not repeal the underlying God-given (or natural, if your prefer) right to defend yourself. Those two rights are not the same right, but often confused.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Tennessee, ,
    Posts
    695
    I saw recently that a constitutional amendment resolution to repeal term limits for the presidency was introduced as well.

    I honestly don't see either getting very far, but as was said before I at least respect the fact that they understand the idea of constitutional boundaries.

  5. #5
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    The constitution is a document that checks the federal government in any attempt to infringe upon a enumerated natural right. Thus, the natural right to self defense is not enumerated in the constitution and therefore can not be repealed. The 2A, in my view, enumerates that a specific type of tool is considered a fundamental component of our efforts to protect our right to life, liberty, and happiness. The 2A checks the efforts of the federal government to remove that fundamental component.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  6. #6
    Regular Member Lord Sega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Warrenton, Oregon
    Posts
    317
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    The constitution is a document that checks the federal government in any attempt to infringe upon a enumerated natural right. Thus, the natural right to self defense is not enumerated in the constitution and therefore can not be repealed. The 2A, in my view, enumerates that a specific type of tool is considered a fundamental component of our efforts to protect our right to life, liberty, and happiness. The 2A checks the efforts of the federal government to remove that fundamental component.
    THAT ^^^ is as perfect as I have ever heard it stated, thank you.
    "Guns are not the problem … crazy is the problem” ... “We cannot legislate our society to the craziest amongst us.” - Jon Stewart
    “I do not love the bright sword for it's sharpness, nor the arrow for it's swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend." - Tolkien

  7. #7
    Regular Member Keylock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    OKC
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    The constitution is a document that checks the federal government in any attempt to infringe upon a enumerated natural right. Thus, the natural right to self defense is not enumerated in the constitution and therefore can not be repealed. The 2A, in my view, enumerates that a specific type of tool is considered a fundamental component of our efforts to protect our right to life, liberty, and happiness. The 2A checks the efforts of the federal government to remove that fundamental component.


    Here is a point that most of us in the gun community may seem to be overlooking that came to mind today...

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
    An operative word of the 2A is the word arms. I've yet to see any bill that uses the legal term 'arms'. The last AWB used 'firearms', 'weapons', etc. I was unable to find 'arms' in the text.

    The point is this. Those tools in our gunsafes are by design and intent the very 'arms' that the Founders mention and wrote into the amendment and that state ratifiers voted in favor. Thus, these nonenumerated, unconstitutional "laws" (viz Article 1, Section 8 and Article 6, second paragraph ["... made in Pursuance thereof;..."]) are not talking about arms, but things that none of us possess. I'm no lawyer, but in legal language, words have definite meanings. 'Firearms & weapons' are not the same as 'arms' mentioned in the 2A.

    The only option left to the fed.gov would to be to write the law to read 'arms'... a clear violation of the 2A. They will not use the term 'arms' in whatever unconstitutional, unenumerated "law" they concoct and attempt to enforce.

    Thus, I will from this point onward refer to those tools in my gunsafe as 'arms' on every gun forum or other place where I talk about these tools. They are not guns, not firearms, not weapons, not sabers, not swords, not knives, etc... but arms.

  8. #8
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Sega View Post
    THAT ^^^ is as perfect as I have ever heard it stated, thank you.
    Thanks be to you, Good Sir. [insert blushing emoticon]
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    If we had a right to keep and carry birds, wouldn't a law against keeping or carrying ducks violate that right? The law would not have to use the word "birds" for it to infringe on the right. You wouldn't have to resort to calling your ducks "birds" to protect them.

    Firearms such as ARs and AR clones are the very kind of arms that the 2A is talking about. Even if the antis play word games, we don't need to. We should win the argument with logic or, worst case scenario, if and when it comes down to it, with those very protected arms. We ain't there yet, but it is becoming harder and harder to see a path from our current place back to Liberty that does not go through using the right--to the max--to protect the right and all the others.

  10. #10
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by Keylock View Post
    Here is a point that most of us in the gun community may seem to be overlooking that came to mind today...

    <snip>

    Thus, I will from this point onward refer to those tools in my gunsafe as 'arms' on every gun forum or other place where I talk about these tools. They are not guns, not firearms, not weapons, not sabers, not swords, not knives, etc... but arms.
    I must confess that I too fall prey to the habit of narrowly defining "arms", as is used in the 2a, to firearms. My hunting blades are arms, though I instinctively refer to them as tools and not arms.

    Illumination and understanding.....thank you Good Sir.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •