Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: If you could re-write the Second Amendment

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    16

    Post imported post

    I have long felt that many of the abuses of the 2nd amendment could have been averted had the language been a little more specific, and less open to misinterpretation.

    My personal take would be thus:

    A well regulated militia, defined as the whole of the people, individually and collectively, being necessary to the security of a free State, and the right to individual defense being necessary to thesecurity of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,the inalienable right of the people, individually and collectively to keep, possess, manufacture, transfer, convey, transport and use weapons, arms and ammunitionof the type in common use by the military and civillan citizens, specifically firearms,including those weapons which have yet to be developed, shall not ever be restricted, abridged, infringed, removed, ignored, curtailed, or otherwise denied. This right shall not apply to weapons of mass destruction, defined as weapons designed to be used for destruction on a mass scale such as nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, not to be misinterpreted so as to include firearms that operate by the chemical action of propellents. The purpose of this amendment is to clearly define the right ofthe peopleto defend themselves individually, and their nation collectively from attack, and to arm themselves individually with weapons to that end.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    West Haven, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    25

    Post imported post

    The right of the people to bear arms in their own defense and the defense of the State shall not be infringed.


    Or perhaps:

    Congress shall make no law concerning the manufacture, sale, or possession of weapons, armor, or any weapon of war suitable for the defense of the individual or the State.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    16

    Post imported post

    Wow, much more concise. I suppose I am most worried that future generations could distort the original intent. For instance, "Congress shall make no law" does not exclude local jurisdictions from making laws against it.

    I do feel that individuals ought not to have access to weapons of mass destruction, on the basis that a nuke (for example) is completely useless against a car jacking or home invasion, and the potential for disasterous misuse is too great.If it were legal for every citizen to own WMD, all an enemy state would have to do is get a citizen to buy one and use it. However, a well regulated militia of the people should have access to any and all technology, including WMD that could aid in the defense of the State.

    It's a line in the sand, I know.The gov. determined that RKBA doesn't extend to newly manufactured machine guns. I (along with many other gun enthusiats) believe that the average citizen can be trusted to own machine guns. But I'm not so sure about WMD's. Unfortunately, it might be impossible to deal in absolutes. Can we really be comfortable allowing anyone with the money and resources to develop WMD's?

    Additionally, that would not exclude Congres from making laws governing the transportation or use of said weapons, and the intent could be twisted to exclude ammunition, thereby rendering weapons useless.

    I believe that the wisdom and foresight of our founding fathers was unparralleled for it's time, but I also suspect that if you could go back in time and give them the last year's worth of newspapers to look over, our Constitution would be a much longer document.


  4. #4
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    How about: "The right of the people to keep and bare arms for self-defense, hunting game, and the common defense shall be infringed by neither Congress nor the several states except for clear and compelling justification.Such infringments shall be narrowly tailored and expire bi-annually unless duly reenacted by the Congress or the legislature of a state."

  5. #5
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bedford, Texas, USA
    Posts
    834

    Post imported post

    The right of the people to keep and bear arms is absolute and irrevocable.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    16

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    How about: "The right of the people to keep and bare arms for self-defense, hunting game, and the common defense shall be infringed by neither Congress nor the several states except for clear and compelling justification.Such infringments shall be narrowly tailored and expire bi-annually unless duly reenacted by the Congress or the legislature of a state."
    Also concise, and I really like the idea about expiration. Still, I would have to take issue that there can never be justification for infringing my right of self defense. The bill of rights does not grant rights. We are endowed with these rights by our Creator. The Bill of Rights is there to acknowledge them, to the end that they are not infringed.

    One could go so far as to say that the concept of "resistingarrest" as a crime is faulty. In the extreme example of resisting tyrrany, it would be considered "illegal" by the tyrant, but a God-given right by the oppressed. (I in no way mean to suggest that the average police officer is a tyrant, nor do I intend to suggest that the average criminal is an oppressed,freedom-fighting patriot, only to give examples of how it is difficult to deal in absolutes where defense is concerned.)

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    147

    Post imported post

    Bloencustoms wrote:
    Wow, much more concise. I suppose I am most worried that future generations could distort the original intent. For instance, "Congress shall make no law" does not exclude local jurisdictions from making laws against it.

    I do feel that individuals ought not to have access to weapons of mass destruction, on the basis that a nuke (for example) is completely useless against a car jacking or home invasion, and the potential for disasterous misuse is too great.If it were legal for every citizen to own WMD, all an enemy state would have to do is get a citizen to buy one and use it. However, a well regulated militia of the people should have access to any and all technology, including WMD that could aid in the defense of the State.

    It's a line in the sand, I know.The gov. determined that RKBA doesn't extend to newly manufactured machine guns. I (along with many other gun enthusiats) believe that the average citizen can be trusted to own machine guns. But I'm not so sure about WMD's. Unfortunately, it might be impossible to deal in absolutes. Can we really be comfortable allowing anyone with the money and resources to develop WMD's?

    Additionally, that would not exclude Congres from making laws governing the transportation or use of said weapons, and the intent could be twisted to exclude ammunition, thereby rendering weapons useless.

    I believe that the wisdom and foresight of our founding fathers was unparralleled for it's time, but I also suspect that if you could go back in time and give them the last year's worth of newspapers to look over, our Constitution would be a much longer document.
    I'm sorry i cannot cite my source, but i read an intresting and convincing argument that anything the military owns, nukes etc, are actually ownable by a citizen due to the wording of the constitution that the government has no rights, only priveleges, and any privileges it excersies, are truely rights of the people

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member OC-Glock19's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Woodbridge, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    561

    Post imported post

    Why we have the Second Amendment.



  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    The core of the problem lies somewhere near the fact that the Constitution, outside of the parchment in the Hall of Archives, exists only in our collective agreement as a people. In a sense, the Constitution doesn't exist. It only exists to the degree that we agree on what it means. Tothe extent thatpeoplealter the meaning, teach the altered meaning, ignore the meaning, etc., we lose the meaning.

    I consider that a freedom is different from a right. I consider that a freedom exists as an absence of barrier, and thata right is a freedom thatis acknowledged and agreed to by others. For example, bank robbershave the freedom to rob a bank;but most other people will not acknowledge or agree to them having that freedom. To the degree that others refuse to acknowledge a freedom, we lose their agreement, and therebythat "right." Their willingness to acknowledgeand agree to a freedom for another will, I think, be controlled directly by their own understanding of the necessityof that freedom. There are other factors like fear, courage, responsibility, and compulsive need to control. But their understanding and willingness to acknowledge afreedom will begin with themeaning they think it has.

    I think to prevent altered meanings the 2nd Amendment would need to bewritten in the simplest terms without leaving anything implied. I think you would have to spell out the exact relationship between the individual and society and howdefendingcollective society necessarilymust mean the individualdeserves defense. Include personal responsibility, not as an obligation, but as something which cannot be interfered with.Include some historical perspective about tyranny. Include the necessity for military arms being available to civiliams.List those ineligible to arms: felons, mental defectives, drug users, etc. Make the intent unmistakeable, un-alterable.

    Then re-write all of the first ten Amendments in like fashion.

    And then make an amendment to criminalize byautomatic impeachment any government official at any level whoproposesa law that requires an altered or ignored meaning--take the judgement out of it, make itautomatic.

    Then make an ArmorAmendment that neither the first ten Amendments nor theimpeachment amendment can be altered or repealed. That only by dissolution of the Constitution in its entirety can the first ten Amendments, the impeachment amendment, or the Armor Amendment itself be made null andvoid.

    The nextjob would be getting it understood and building the agreements within society--the collective agreement.

    Ithink we all have seen plenty of examples in everyday life of how meanings can be misunderstood or altered. I think we are justseeing200+ years ofcumulative alterations of meanings and intents of the entire Constitution.

    Which is why it is so important that we continue our own educationson the subject, andoutreach and steer those understandings in others back in the direction of the original meanings and intents. The Founders knewwhat they were talking about.The more I read, the more their wisdom and understanding of their fellow manevokes my admiration. I'll follow their lead a long way, and lead others to their writings and ideas if I can.

    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    Brigdh wrote:
    I'm sorry i cannot cite my source, but i read an intresting and convincing argument that anything the military owns, nukes etc, are actually ownable by a citizen due to the wording of the constitution that the government has no rights, only priveleges, and any privileges it excersies, are truely rights of the people
    A good source for that argument eould be the Declaration of Independence. Since it lays out in no uncertain terms that the people have the right to decide whether of not a government has any authority over them, and that in fact that government exists only at the people's pleasure, it follows that governments our artificial constructs with no rights. People, on the other hands, certainly do possess rights, "inalienable ones" according to the Declaration.

    ("Silly government, rights are for people!")

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    Back on topic:

    All this talk of re-wording the 2A is kind of pointless, since it's been demonstrated that governments only obey ammendments or constitutional passages that are politically popular in the context of the issue in question.

    For example, banning cigarette smoking or transfats is politically popular, so the government may blow off any constitutional restraints imposed by the 9th ammendment with ease. The 9th and 10th amm., are almost completely useless for anything, even though they are well understood.

    Same goes for silencing hate speech. In this case, the 1st amm. is often seen as being well-protected or at least obeyed by governments at all levels, but if you publish or speak something unpopular or socially repugnant enough, you may not be as protected as you think.

    Most Americans think we have some sort of right to possess firearms, so the powers-that-be haven't got around to completely ignoring the 2nd Amm., and there is some indication that things have been going our way more often in the last few years.

    So, then, is a constitution good for anything? I think so, it at least lays a foundation for us to start arguing from when our position on self defense or any other freedombecomes unpopular and isunder attack.

    The 2nd Amm. is just fine as written, as far as I'm concerned. But we could have used a clause or ammendment in the Preamble to the Constitution or the BOR stating exactly what is the definition of an inalienable right (anything that doesn't impose on another individual, eg.), and who possesses them (individuals, not states). Too often rights are thought of as "collective", making them absolutely useless in fact.

    EDIT: I just read the above post, and I have to agree on the part about the "armor ammendment". The founding principles of freedom must be set in stone before tinkering with the rest of the document.

    Which kind of makes it sound like a religious document...but a "religion" based on individual liberty may not be a bad thing for a religious animal like mankind.


  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    25

    Post imported post

    The second ammendment is incredibly clear because the terms 'the people' and 'arms' are not 'interpretable' as far as we've attempted to do so with case law to date.

    "the people" (perhaps in the context of a militia, even though the militia clause actually has no bearing on "the people") exists elsewhere in the Constitution where it could clearly say "federal-" or "state-" "-militia" or "-government". How could the writers be so inconsistent when the STATE OF THE NATION would be at stake? It is a group of persons that are the citizens of the US.

    Arms are simply implements for defense and offense. A bullet, a vest, a nuclear bomb are all arms protected by the second amendment.

    The second amendment does not protect use of arms for illict acts. For example, a bullet or nuclear bomb, used to harm without licit provocation, is covered under a 'illict killing' act. We don't need to 'interpret' the 2nd amendment to prevent illicit killing; we have illict killing laws on the books for that specific action.

    Blatant ignorance of the second amendment to further an agenda has become an accepted accuse. It's too bad, really. "Security", "loathsome to the family", "dangerous to the view of any person", "arms owners automatically turn into killers"...

    Some people implicate a rewrite that only restrict Congress from lawmaking. When most every amendment BUT a few says it restrict "Congress from passing any act", we should come to the conclusion that it was not meant for Congress but to preempt all lawmaking bodies.

    Otherwise above, someone has called the right absolute and irrevocable. That imposes on the rights of other private individuals to control over their domain.

    The second amendment does not need to be rewritten...just observed.

  13. #13
    State Researcher lockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Elgin, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    1,202

    Post imported post

    I believe the wording is appropriate and does not limit the right. The courts and legislative bodies just have to accept the plain meaning of the words as they are written.

    The Unabridged Second Amendment
    by J. Neil Schulman
    Reprinted from the Sept. 13, 1991 issue of The New Gun Week.

    If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you’d ring up Carl Sagan, right? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwarzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?

    That was the question I asked A.C. Brocki, editorial coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers—who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of American Usage and Style: The Consensus.

    A little research lent support to Brocki’s opinion of Professor Copperud’s expertise.

    Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.

    He’s on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster’s Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud’s fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher’s Humanities Award.

    That sounds like an expert to me.

    After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter:

    “I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.

    “The text of the Second Amendment is, ‘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.’

    “The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, ‘A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,’ is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.’

    “I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary.”

    My letter framed several questions about the text of the Second Amendment, then concluded:

    “I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance.”

    After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the following analysis (into which I have inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):

    [Copperud:] “The words ‘A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,’ contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying ‘militia,’ which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject ‘the right,’ verb ‘shall’). The right to keep and bear arms is asserted as essential for maintaining a militia.

    “In reply to your numbered questions:

    [Schulman:] “(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to ‘a well-regulated militia’?”

    [Copperud:] “(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.”

    [Schulman:] “(2) Is ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms’ granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a pre-existing right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right ‘shall not be infringed’?”

    [Copperud:] “(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.”

    [Schulman:] “(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact, necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed’ null and void?”

    [Copperud:] “(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.”

    [Schulman:] “(4) Does the clause ‘A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,’ grant a right to the government to place conditions on the ‘right of the people to keep and bear arms,’ or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?;”

    [Copperud:] “(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia.”

    [Schulman:] “(5) Which of the following does the phrase ‘well-regulated militia’ mean: ‘well-equipped,’ ‘well-organized,’ ‘well-drilled,’ ‘well-educated,’ or ‘subject to regulations of a superior authority’?”

    [Copperud:] “(5) The phrase means ‘subject to regulations of a superior authority;’ this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.”

    [Schulman:] “If at all possible, I would ask you to take into account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated.”

    [Copperud:] “To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: ‘Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.’”

    [Schulman:] “As a ‘scientific control’ on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence:

    “‘A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.’

    My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be:

    “(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment’s sentence?; and

    “(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict ‘the right of the people to keep and read Books’ only to ‘a well-educated electorate’—for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?”

    [Copperud:] “(1) Your ‘scientific control’ sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

    “(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation.”

    Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: “With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion.”

    So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people’s right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.

    As I write this, the attempted coup against constitutional government in the Soviet Union has failed, apparently because the will of the people in that part of the world to be free from capricious tyranny is stronger than the old guard’s desire to maintain a monopoly on dictatorial power.

    And here in the United States, elected lawmakers, judges, and appointed officials who are pledged to defend the Constitution of the United States ignore, marginalize, or prevaricate about the Second Amendment routinely. American citizens are put in American prisons for carrying arms, owning arms of forbidden sorts, or failing to satisfy bureaucratic requirements regarding the owning and carrying of firearms—all of which is an abridgement of the unconditional right of the people to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Constitution.

    And even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), staunch defender of the rest of the Bill of Rights, stands by and does nothing.

    It seems it is up to those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms to preserve that right. No one else will. No one else can. Will we beg our elected representatives not to take away our rights, and continue regarding them as representing us if they do? Will we continue obeying judges who decide that the Second Amendment doesn’t mean what it says it means but means whatever they say it means in their Orwellian doublespeak?

    Or will we simply keep and bear the arms of our choice, as the Constitution of the United States promises us we can, and pledge that we will defend that promise with our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor?

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Princeton, West Virginia, USA
    Posts
    152

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    ("Silly government, rights are for people!")
    Haha I like that, *steals it for own use*.

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    , Illinois, USA
    Posts
    778

    Post imported post

    I think anyone with an 8th grade education that would read the actual text of the 2A would come to the same conclusion as to its meaning. It is not unclear.

    Those who equivocate over its meaning do so not because they do not understand what it says, or what it means, but rather because they are intellectually dishonest and are attempting to twist the meaning in some way to suit their own political beliefs.



  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    West Haven, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    25

    Post imported post

    As far as WMDs go, I am unwilling to yield. The primary rationale by the founders was to prevent the government from dominating the people. Prohibiting the People from possessing weapons which the government has creates an imbalance that is untenable. I believe that it is folly to prohibit posession of any weapon in any case: the criminals will never obey, and therefore the only people disarmed are the lawful.

    I'm actually not entirely against the States having their own rules. If New York wants to forbid their citizens from owning guns, that is fine with me. I will choose never to live there. As far as my right to possess firearms in NY while travelling interstate, that is a Federal matter, and therefore the State of NY can suck it up.

    The real problem is that any exception you give creates a lever for the courts and legislatures to chip away at the right you are trying to protect. Look at the language in the various State constitutions and contrast that with the law.

    In my opinion, the real problem with our governments (federal and state) is that the people have dropped the ball and let the system down. All rights not granted to the government are reserved to the People, and through action and inaction, we just keep giving them away. Asking the judiciary to protect our rights by carefully wording statutes is a good idea, but it does not solve the problem.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    West Haven, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    25

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    I think to prevent altered meanings the 2nd Amendment would need to bewritten in the simplest terms without leaving anything implied. I think you would have to spell out the exact relationship between the individual and society and howdefendingcollective society necessarilymust mean the individualdeserves defense. Include personal responsibility, not as an obligation, but as something which cannot be interfered with.Include some historical perspective about tyranny. Include the necessity for military arms being available to civiliams.List those ineligible to arms: felons, mental defectives, drug users, etc. Make the intent unmistakeable, un-alterable.
    Unfortunately, that is virtually impossible. If you look at all of the creative things that the Supreme Court of the United States has done with phrases like "due process" or "interstate commerce" you should see the fallacy of this argument. There is nothing you can write that judges cannot "interpret" to mean whatever they like, and that is assuming that they don't just "look beyond the Constitution" as a "living document" and roll their own.

    At the end of the day, the citizenry is responsible for preventing tyrrany. The citizens of this country have turned their back on their rights, and thus the government runs unchecked. There is not that much different from ink on a piece of paper and chalk on the wall of the barn. Thus, while "...all men are created equal," "Some animals are more equal than others."

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    nrawling wrote:
    In my opinion, the real problem with our governments (federal and state) is that the people have dropped the ball and let the system down. All rights not granted to the government are reserved to the People, and through action and inaction, we just keep giving them away. Asking the judiciary to protect our rights by carefully wording statutes is a good idea, but it does not solve the problem.
    Iagree with nrawling and his next post. I was addressing re-wording the 2nd Amend. as part of the actual topic; but it does go much deeper.Thus my partial analysis on freedoms and rights.

    Watching the local, state, and federal legislative and executive branches is crucial--stay on top and get out ahead. But I think we will be fighting this action for a long time, with thepossibility oflosing, if we don't change the attitudes of society.

    One big reason we OC is to let others become again comfortable with honest citizens having arms.

    I'mconcerned that moreneeds to be done to address society. I'll be less concerned when it happens that Dem's take over a branch of gov't and nobody needs to worry about infringements. Or Republicans.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    , Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    450

    Post imported post

    Along a similar thread to nrawling's second suggestion:

    "Congress shall make no law concerning the manufacture, distributionor ownership by born or naturalized citizens of the United States of America of weapons, ammunition or hardware necessary for their use, with intent to regulate, restrict or tax their aquisition or use. It is the obligation of this Government touphold the right of thepeople to ensuretheir own freedom and liberty from tyranny, through force of arms, independant of any organized military or government agency."

    molonlabetn

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    Right, so it sounds like we all agree on this:

    What you write down on a piece of parchment means nothing unless the people who live by it actually believe in the idea behind it and support it.

    So, the question is, do Americans believe in the RKBA? If not, what do we do about it? That should be our focus as pro-liberty activists. Once possessing and carrying a firearm becomes as socially accepted as carrying a cellphone or a set of car keys, all this talk of rewriting the Bill of Rights becomes redundant, anyway.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    West Haven, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    25

    Post imported post

    That's actually why I think that opencarry.org is so important. Every person carrying openly in an open carry state helps to socialize the other people to the presence of guns. The irony is that the guns have always been there anyway, but people prefer to think "out of sight, out of mind". In Switzerland or Israel, the presence of firearms (even select-fire) is commonplace. Here in Connecticut, I'm not allowed to leave my home with a pistol without a permit from the State, and I can't even imagine what would happen if I walked around the block with my deer rifle slung on my shoulder.

    There are those that will try and draw distinctions between the security needs of Switzerland and Israel with those of the United States, but I cannot agree with them. The reality is that we face an even more subtle and pervasive threat in this country than the historic enemies of Switzerland, one that increasingly similar to the terroristic attacks in Israel.

    I am more than willing to concede that concealing your weapons can give you a tactical advantage, but I suspect that open carry can provide a much stronger detterent to offensive acts in the first place. I think that the work of Mark Solomon and Oleg Volk on concealed carry and firearms is very beneficial to the RKBA community, but one of the most audacious moves for public acceptance of RKBA is simply the open carry of weapons.

Posting Permissions

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