Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 51

Thread: How would you have written the 2nd Amendment?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alvin, Texas, USA
    Posts
    14

    Post imported post

    I see lots of flack and bashing about how the Framers worded the 2nd Amendment.

    So I got to thinking about how I would word it.

    This is what I came up with, I am not an attorney, nor do I want to be one.

    The right of a citizen in good standing, to own, posses, carry either openly or concealed, and use a weapon, including but not limited to firearms, knives, and other weapons commonly available, for legal purposes, including but not limited to, challenge of the tyranny of the government, hunting, and self defense, shall not be challenged by, or regulated by the government.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,882

    Post imported post

    "The right of citizens to be secure in their persons from unlawful presumptions upon their liberty and security is absolute, and they shall be justified in obtaining, possessing, and bearing effective means of defense. To this end, the right of the people to be armed shall be held inviolate."

    or something like that... Just a thought.

    -ljp

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    VA Beach, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    558

    Post imported post

    I would have made a very clear distinction between the persons right for private ownership, and the states right to have a militia.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    NoVA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    431

    Post imported post

    The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Each person has a right to the ownership and use of arms to defend: Nation, State, property, progeny, associates, and self.

  5. #5
    State Researcher dng's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,290

    Post imported post

    Here's my version:

    It's my business how many, how large, how automatic or semi-automatic, how many bullets, where I got it, where the guns and bullets are at; it's nothing that corrupt politicians need to worry about. You cannot have my gun, touch it, want it,forcefully takeit, or dream about it. It is mine. You cannot have it even when my hands are dead and cold.

    Bottom line: Government-bug off!

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member Skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Goochland, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    585

    Post imported post

    Don't mess with the people's guns. They have a right to freely acquire, keep , dispose of , carry and use them. The people can also use guns in militias for the defense of liberty:celebrate





  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    12

    Post imported post

    I guess you guys just don't get it. Citizen = slave and slaves have no protection other than what the master wants to give them. People does not equal citizen. If you believe you were born a citizen you better think again. The 14th Amendment states: All persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are United States citizens. What does subject to the jurisdiction thereof mean? Do you even know what the term person means? Tell me how anyone is born a citizen? I was born a man on the land. Citizenship is a choice and if you chose to be citizen then you chose to be subject. Subjects do not have constitutionally protected rights, only civil rights bestowed upon them by there master. Wake up people!!

    If you chose to be citizen you have contracted as slave. It's all about contract.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Tennessee, ,
    Posts
    695

    Post imported post

    option A:

    "A well regulated militia(1), being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed



    footnote 1: for a better understanding of what "the militia" is please refer to teh general militia act of 1792"

    Option B:

    a well regulated militia, comprised of all male citizens of these States, being necessary to the security and continued liberty of a free State, teh right , of the people ( all the people, not just senators, actors, and anti-gun advocates) to keep and bear arms ( and by arms, we are reffering to all arms currently available, and all that could become available) shall not be infringed ( and by infringement, we mean banning, regulation, licensincg etc.)



    Option C:

    " The citizenry is the militia. they are to be able to keep arms for their defense, and te defense of their liberty. you wanna take teir guns, do so bullets first. Molon Labe"

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member Skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Goochland, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    585

    Post imported post

    iamfreeru2 wrote:
    I guess you guys just don't get it. Citizen = slave and slaves have no protection other than what the master wants to give them.
    That is NOT the etymology nor the meaning of the word citizen, except of course perhaps to Socliasts and Communists.

    Citizen is an antonym to both alien and to subject. A subject is closer to slave; but a citizen is not a slave by a long shot.



  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    thorkyl wrote:
    SNIP I see lots of flack and bashing about how the Framers worded the 2nd Amendment.
    The problem isn'thow its worded.

    The problem iswith pro-gunners who respond to the anti-'s attacks by criticizing thewording.

    Behind that is the fact that no matter how it was worded, the anti-s would pick at it and the government would find justifications to get around it.

    Its the motive of the anti's and the people in government that is the problem.
    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.

  11. #11
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713

    Post imported post

    I think Skeptic's version is pretty darn good.

    Honestly though, I think the second amendment iswritten pretty well as it 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.
    [/quote][/quote]

    Almost all of the confusion comes from misinterpretation of the words "regulate" ,"militia","bear", "people", and "infringed"either by not looking atcommon use of the terms at the time of the constitution or simply not understanding them.Another problemmany have is asa misunderstanding of grammer and sentence structure. Citizen is pretty much right in his assessment.

    But if I were to annotate it to avoid all confusion I would say:

    The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, as awell armed populace in a well functioningmilitia isnecessary to the security of a free state.In no wayshould this be construed to deny the use of arms for defense of persons or property. Anyarm which isentrusted to an individual employed by the professionalmilitaryshall be considereda protected arm, but this shall not be construed as a limitation in the use of other arms not employed by the professional military. Arms may not be taxed, registered, or licensed and no restrictions on the types of arms or limitations on the carrying of arms are permissible. This list shall not be construed to permit other ingfringements on the right to bear arms.

    And I'm sureeven thatwouldn't be good enough.





  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Given our 20/20 hindsight, I would have worded the 2A:

    "The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by any governmental unit."
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  13. #13
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713

    Post imported post

    deepdiver wrote:
    Given our 20/20 hindsight, I would have worded the 2A:

    "The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by any governmental unit."
    That is pretty good.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Lancaster County, PA
    Posts
    118

    Post imported post

    Pennsylvania's RKBA statement is very good and how I would prefer it to be for the country.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    12

    Post imported post

    Skeptic wrote:
    iamfreeru2 wrote:
    I guess you guys just don't get it. Citizen = slave and slaves have no protection other than what the master wants to give them.
    That is NOT the etymology nor the meaning of the word citizen, except of course perhaps to Socliasts and Communists.*

    Citizen is an antonym to both alien and to subject.* A subject is closer to slave; but a citizen is not a slave by a long shot.

    Like I said you don't get it. Maybe one day you will. I hope it is not too late. Have a nice day.

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member Skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Goochland, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    585

    Post imported post

    iamfreeru2 wrote:
    Skeptic wrote:
    iamfreeru2 wrote:
    I guess you guys just don't get it. Citizen = slave and slaves have no protection other than what the master wants to give them.
    That is NOT the etymology nor the meaning of the word citizen, except of course perhaps to Socliasts and Communists.

    Citizen is an antonym to both alien and to subject. A subject is closer to slave; but a citizen is not a slave by a long shot.

    Like I said you don't get it. Maybe one day you will. I hope it is not too late. Have a nice day.
    Why, because I actually understand the meaning of the language we are speaking and don't just make it up to suit my agenda?



  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    The right and ability of any person to acquire, possess or carry arms shall not be limited or restricted in any way.

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    The presumption here is not that of the Founding Fathers. They wrote the 2A to enumerate a pre-existing Right integral to all men and didn't limit the infringements to any entity.

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX, ,
    Posts
    496

    Post imported post

    thorkyl wrote:
    I see lots of flack and bashing about how the Framers worded the 2nd Amendment.

    So I got to thinking about how I would word it.

    This is what I came up with, I am not an attorney, nor do I want to be one.

    The right of a citizen in good standing, to own, posses, carry either openly or concealed, and use a weapon, including but not limited to firearms, knives, and other weapons commonly available, for legal purposes, including but not limited to, challenge of the tyranny of the government, hunting, and self defense, shall not be challenged by, or regulated by the government.
    Not bad. Problem is, in the 1790s, concealed carry had the stigma of being what untrustworthy or sinister types did. Until the late 1900s, a concealed weapon was prima facie that you were up to no good. Only relatively recently have the two modes of carry flip-flopped in terms of general acceptance; the current philosophy is "out of sight, out of mind" and a gun on the hip is considered an overt attempt to intimidate. So, if I were in 1790 writing the 2nd Amendment, I would probably have been shouted down had I advocated for protection of concealed carry.

    With that in mind, here is my rendition of the Second Amendment:
    Each person has theright and responsibility to protect himself and to aid in the protection of his community, Stateand Nation; therefore, Congress shall make no law restricting the right of the people to own, carry and use weapons of any kind. However, no person who objects to violence on moral or religious groundsmay be compelled by the Government to own or use weapons.
    This is, I feel, the clearest wording of the natural reading of the Second Amendment, including the "conscientious objector" clause that was eventually struck from the final draft. I re-included that last clause because of my language in the first one; though citizens have the responsibility that the right implies, it should not conflict with a person's right NOT to keep and bear arms, which is, I feel, also God-given as the right to free choice.

    If this were the actual language of the 2A, I think gun control would go nowhere on the Federal level. It would however require a favorable interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and we didn't get that the first time around (read up on the Slaughterhouse Cases; SCOTUS basically read the original intent of the Privileges or Immunities Clause out of existence in interpreting it as applying only to the Fed Gov ).

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    No longer in Alexandria, Egypt
    Posts
    2,798

    Post imported post

    iamfreeru2 wrote:
    I guess you guys just don't get it. Citizen = slave and slaves have no protection other than what the master wants to give them. People does not equal citizen. If you believe you were born a citizen you better think again. The 14th Amendment states: All persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are United States citizens. What does subject to the jurisdiction thereof mean? Do you even know what the term person means? Tell me how anyone is born a citizen? I was born a man on the land. Citizenship is a choice and if you chose to be citizen then you chose to be subject. Subjects do not have constitutionally protected rights, only civil rights bestowed upon them by there master. Wake up people!!

    If you chose to be citizen you have contracted as slave. It's all about contract.
    First - Welcome to OCDO. Do you OC? Whaddya carry?

    Being called a "Man" is supposed to man something other than just male. You were NOT born a man, you were born a drooling helpless male infant like me and it was someone else's responsibility to raise you, to feed you, provide for you, to teach you HOW to hopefully one day become a man of your own actions.I've known many adult males that I would not call a "Man" in my 43 years on earth.Time doesn't make you a man...your words and deeds do!

    Being a "Citizen" is supposed to mean something too, other that just having been born here. And it did mean something before the IRS effectively made us all slaves to the government. Todaythe word "citizen" it has two meanings. The modern usagethat hascome to meananyoneborn in the USA. IMHO, that only makes youaRESIDENT. I've also met many peopleborn and riased here in America that I would not call "Citizen".Accordingly, being born in America shouldn't just make you a citizen...your words and deeds should!

    http://bobcav.blogspot.com/2007/04/r...r-citizen.html

    Once upon a time,being a citizenmeant so muchmore thanbeing born and residing here in America and God willing, one day we will return to those values and ideals that made us once great.It's more than just living on this land under our Stars and Stripes and calling ourselves "American". It doesn't begin and end at the voting booth. It's taking PART in the government, voicing your words,both condemning and praising those in government that deserve it either way, standing watch OVER the governmentensuring it doesn't go astray. That's the problem, too many selfish people today curl up in their homes and do NOTHING but whine, whine, whine and the wonder why the country is where it is today. When was the last time you attended a town hall/town council meeting? Wrote your representatives on something you felt strongly about? Met your representatives?

    Like it or not, we are a nation of laws that are proposed, discussed, legislated and then adjudicated. Don't like the laws? You don't have any right to break them, but here in America we CAN CHANGE THEM. Let your legislators know. Tell THEM, not us. Everyone lives under some form of law, be it the laws of God, the laws of manor the inescapable law of gravity. The laws of God and gravity we can't do much about, but the laws of man that affect our lives and our freedoms for the short time we're here ARE our responsibility. Being an American Citizen is a RESPONSIBILITY and it is hard work. Freedome isn't free by any stretch of the imagination.

    I've traveled around the world and seen many things and I can assure you, we have it so much better than anyone else. Are we perfect? Hell no! But we are the best! We can be so much better and closer to the dream that was envisioned 232 years agoif people - CITIZENS - act responsibly, take a stand andhold government accountable TO THE PEOPLE.

    Hope to see you here more often...this is fun!

    Have a great weekend and God bless!



  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    Liko81 wrote:
    With that in mind, here is my rendition of the Second Amendment:
    Each person has theright and responsibility to protect himself and to aid in the protection of his community, Stateand Nation; therefore, Congress shall make no law restricting the right of the people to own, carry and use weapons of any kind. However, no person who objects to violence on moral or religious groundsmay be compelled by the Government to own or use weapons.
    I think government should have the ability to restrict the use of weapons. Probably not at the federal level, but I have no issue with cities restricting the discharge of firearms, for example.

    That's why I did not include "use" in my rendition.

  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member Skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Goochland, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    585

    Post imported post

    swillden wrote:
    Liko81 wrote:
    With that in mind, here is my rendition of the Second Amendment:
    Each person has theright and responsibility to protect himself and to aid in the protection of his community, Stateand Nation; therefore, Congress shall make no law restricting the right of the people to own, carry and use weapons of any kind. However, no person who objects to violence on moral or religious groundsmay be compelled by the Government to own or use weapons.
    I think government should have the ability to restrict the use of weapons. Probably not at the federal level, but I have no issue with cities restricting the discharge of firearms, for example.

    That's why I did not include "use" in my rendition.
    The problem is, without the right to use weapons, the other rights are pointless.

    If DC or Chicago can imprison me for using my gun to shoot someone killing my family; the right to keep and bear it is meaningless.

    Now, I am not unsure how to handle the case of not wanting your neighbor shooting targets in their backyard at 3 AM.. :celebrate

  23. #23
    Regular Member Flintlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska, USA
    Posts
    1,224

    Post imported post

    thorkyl wrote:
    The right of a citizen in good standing, to own, posses, carry either openly or concealed, and use a weapon, including but not limited to firearms, knives, and other weapons commonly available, for legal purposes, including but not limited to, challenge of the tyranny of the government, hunting, and self defense, shall not be challenged by, or regulated by the government.
    My issue with your version is that when you say a "citizen in good standing", exactly what does that mean and who gets to determine what that is? It is an open door to infringement and prohibition of certain classes of citizens by a governmental entity.

    Secondly, I wouldn't change the wording at all simply because I don't think we should have to dumb down the constitution so that those thatchoose to be uneducated about our rights andliberties can have a better understanding of basic intent by the founders.It means what is says and it says what it means. Period.

    However, for the sake of hypotheticals and for fun, this would be my version if I was forced to write it...

    A well-equiped and well-trained citizenmilitia, composed of all able-bodied Americans of any age, is the proper, natural, and best defense against tyranny, standing armies, foreign invaders, insurrections, rebellions, criminal acts, and terrorism. Therefore, the individual guaranteed right to own, keep, possess, purchase, transport, andcarry both openly and concealed, small arms and ammunitionof both military and police grade, and sporting and relic arms in common use and in collections, and all other weapons a person may wear including blunt objects and stabbing weapons, usedfor his/her protection of themselves, others, their communities, homes, property,businesses, towns or cities, states, and country may not be infringed or abridged in any manner. This right may not be misconstrued by a governmental entity to limit it's useage in allowing licensing andregistration schemes, fingerprinting, nor any record keeping of any firearms purchases.The taking of wild game whilefollowing state and federal laws in pursuing such conservation efforts,and other sporting, training, target, or lawful purposes for armsis soencouraged to maintain readiness.


    Peace through superior firepower

    Luke 11:21
    "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed.

  24. #24
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX, ,
    Posts
    496

    Post imported post

    iamfreeru2 wrote:
    Skeptic wrote:
    iamfreeru2 wrote:
    I guess you guys just don't get it. Citizen = slave and slaves have no protection other than what the master wants to give them.
    That is NOT the etymology nor the meaning of the word citizen, except of course perhaps to Socliasts and Communists.

    Citizen is an antonym to both alien and to subject. A subject is closer to slave; but a citizen is not a slave by a long shot.

    Like I said you don't get it. Maybe one day you will. I hope it is not too late. Have a nice day.
    Miriam Webster:

    1:an inhabitant of a city or town; especially :one entitled to the rights and privileges of a freeman

    2 a:a member of a state b:a native or naturalized person who owes allegiance to a government and is entitled to protection from it

    3:a civilian as distinguished from a specialized servant of the state

    Basically, by equating a citizen with a slave, "iamfreeru2" is challenging the notion of social contract. 99% of the people on this planet belong to a society, however formal. Societies, by their very nature, require rules, codified or informal, by which people must act in order for the society to continue to function. Thisset of rules for interpersonal relations is known as a social contract. A member of a society must agree to the contract; in exchange, that person is allowed to participate in the society, to their long-term net benefit. Breaking the rules invalidates the contract; in more primitive times, the penalty was expulsion from the society. In more modern times, a punishment is ascribed to a violation of the rules and once the punishment is taken, the individual is allowed to continue participating in society. Only the most heinous crimes result in expulsion, either by exile or execution.

    "iamfreeru2" says that by agreeing to the social contract of the United States or of any society, a person becomes a slave. A slave, by definition, is property and totally incapable of accepting or rejecting the contract; they are forced into it, usually at the lowest level. "iamfreeru2" might be able to argue quite eloquently from a metaphorical standpoint that U.S. society does not offer a choice, and that U.S. citizens get the raw end of the deal; he is quite wrong. Any person can choose to totally reject the contract. However, "totally rejecting the contract" requires leaving the country and renouncing citizenship. Even if a person decides to cut off all human contact and go live in the woods, he still has the protection of the U.S. government, and its military and police force, and for that reason is expected to abide by U.S. law, such as it still applies to someone living in the middle of nowhere; he cannot trespass on another's land, cannot kill another person, cannot rape anyone he happens to meet, cannot take something that is not his, etc. In order to be totally exempt from social contract, a person must go live in an area ungoverned by any sovereign nation and devoid of human existence. Good luck; this planet has 6 billion people on it, in every corner capable of sustaining human life, including places the average American would think impossible to survive.

    In addition,"iamfreeru2" does not seem to be considering the other available social contracts he could choose from. Even in the civilized world, many of the liberties and protections we take for granted do not exist. For example, take Japan. Very well-organized, powerful nation. NO rights of the accused. If the police think you did something, you did it, and they will beat, interrogate, isolate, and even starve you for as long as it takes for you to admit it. Coercion is not banned; you quite simply could die if you do not confess to whatever they think you did. Spain, very similar. France, no 8th Amendment; if you commit a crime they throw you in a 1.5m square concrete cell with no bed, no chair, no desk, and no running water; you get a bucket for sanitation. Some prisons do not even allow clothes, as clothes allow prisoners to conceal contraband. Britain, we all know what a mess that is; it's an aristocracy, pure and simple. Rich men get in office, there's about a snowflake's chance in hell of voting them out because THEY decide when to hold elections and so have to be unpopular for a very long time to get voted out, and what they say goes.

    I am a citizen of the United States. I am entitled to the rights and protections guaranteed me by the Constitution, in addition to the privileges that a free society that generates wealthaffords in terms of standard of living,and in return I am obligated to follow the laws laid down by society. I've seen the way it could be, and I'm happy to be here and not in any other country, problems and all. "iamfreeru2" does not seem to notice the hypocrisy of using an Internet forum to criticise the way the nation that built the damn thing works. If he trulyis not a member of any society, then he is a leech, plain and simple; he is using the fruits of society's labor while thumbing his nose at the rules that make those fruits possible.

  25. #25
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX, ,
    Posts
    496

    Post imported post

    swillden wrote:
    Liko81 wrote:
    With that in mind, here is my rendition of the Second Amendment:
    Each person has theright and responsibility to protect himself and to aid in the protection of his community, Stateand Nation; therefore, Congress shall make no law restricting the right of the people to own, carry and use weapons of any kind. However, no person who objects to violence on moral or religious groundsmay be compelled by the Government to own or use weapons.
    I think government should have the ability to restrict the use of weapons. Probably not at the federal level, but I have no issue with cities restricting the discharge of firearms, for example.

    That's why I did not include "use" in my rendition.


    Well, I might agree, but for the argument that Skeptic made. "bearing arms"equates, in modern parlance, to"using weapons". It's not just carry.

    Now, if my interpretation were the way things were, you could still argue that the consequences of the act of using a weapon were illegal.Discharge of a firearm at night is a loud noise; that's disturbing the peace. Discharge of a firearm in a reckless manner is reckless endangerment; if it results in an injury it's assault, if it results in a death it's manslaughter/murder.

    Before you protest, another long-established doctrine in criminal law is the defense of necessity. This doctrine in English common law predates the Second Amendment, and the Framers, learned men, cannot have done otherwise than to consideritwhen writing the Constitution and the BoR.Say you discharge a firearm. That's disturbing the peace. Your affirmative defense is that it was necessary to do so to protect yourself against an aggressive stray dog, or against a robber, etc, thus preventing a far more heinous result than waking someone up. If you shoot another, the same defense applies, and a tie goes to the survivor; if it's you or him, you have a human right to survive, and thus it isjustifiable to kill another person if the alternative is your death.

    Thus, I would argue to keep the prohibition of restrictions on use. There are ways to prohibit andpunish criminal actsgenerally committed with weapons that do not specifically restrict the use of the weapon in and of itself. It is illegal to use a weapon to commit a crime because it is illegal to commit the crime; strongarm robbery has the same result as a robbery at gunpoint, and ifI snap your neck you're just as dead as ifI shot you in the head. However,I make an important distinction between the PROHIBITION of an actinvolving a gun, and the PUNISHMENT of a crime involving a gun. It is unconstitutional to prohibitor restrict the carry of weapons in the belief that you MAY commit amalum in se crime with it.I think however you could defend the constitutionality of a tougher punishment for amalum in se crime involving a gun,because the use of a weapon in a crime is undoubtedly an aggravating factor that increases your chance of successfully committing the crime. That's really a topic for another thread.

    Actually, probably the most worrying thing I could think of about this version of the 2A is that if you could convince 9 learned men sitting on a bench that a person no longer has the responsibility for which the 2A was enumerated, that it doesn't apply anymore. However, I take heart in reading Scalia's closing paragraph:

    We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.


Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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