Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 50

Thread: A growing movement to amend the Constitution (Bill of Federalism) - Also Pro-2A!

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Kent County, Michigan
    Posts
    757

    A growing movement to amend the Constitution (Bill of Federalism) - Also Pro-2A!

    I'd like all members of OpenCarry.org to be aware of a strong movement to amend the Constitution dubbed the "Bill of Federalism" authored by law professor Randy Barnett. This proposed series of amendments, like the original "Bill of Rights", is not a prank, but instead a well-organized, thought-out and rational document that seeks to redress certain imbalances in power between the Federal government and the States. For the most part, the "Bill of Federalism" seeks to shift the balance of power back to the States, as was the original intent of the Founding Fathers.

    The adoption of the aptly named Amendment II (Limits of Commerce Power) would finally confine Congress's powers under the original Commerce Clause to their intended scope, i.e commerce between the States and other Nations. This would go a long way to limit the Federal ability to enact gun-control laws on the national level.

    Likewise, Amendment IV (No Abuse of Treaty Power) would prevent foreign treaties from being used to advance gun control measures here in the United States.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Federalism

    There seems to be overwhelmingly positive feedback to these amendments, however there is a controversy over the ratification strategy as the Constitution provides two methods, each with their pros and cons. Personally, either method is fine with me.

    Please feel free to copy this post to other gun-rights forums and help spread awareness!

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    My thoughts:

    Amendment I - Section 2 would need to take effect immediately to stop Congress from passing a bunch of new taxes just before the five-year point. I would be highly concerned but would still support this amendment without the change.

    Amendment V - Contributions not made known to the public should not be considered "speech," because they give the appearance of a being bribe. Therefore, this amendment should protect only contributions made in full sunshine by persons or by organizations for whom all the persons who control it (officers, directors, owners, shareholders, etc.) are known. Sunshine is a wonderful cleanser. I could not support this amendment unless it protected only contributions made in full sunshine.

    Amendment VII - I would prefer shorter limits, but can support these.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Kent County, Michigan
    Posts
    757
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    My thoughts:

    Amendment I - Section 2 would need to take effect immediately to stop Congress from passing a bunch of new taxes just before the five-year point. I would be highly concerned but would still support this amendment without the change.

    Amendment V - Contributions not made known to the public should not be considered "speech," because they give the appearance of a being bribe. Therefore, this amendment should protect only contributions made in full sunshine by persons or by organizations for whom all the persons who control it (officers, directors, owners, shareholders, etc.) are known. Sunshine is a wonderful cleanser. I could not support this amendment unless it protected only contributions made in full sunshine.

    Amendment VII - I would prefer shorter limits, but can support these.
    I'm sure that Amendment V would still allow 'sunshine' as is apparently the practice now in campaign finance law (I can't cite this, it is just my presumption). I agree wholeheartedly that any speech in the form of campaign contributions will be allowed so long as the sources are fully transparent. To see the political games being played now (i.e. MoveOn.org and the conservative equivalents) makes it obvious that the efforts to 'control' campaign contributions are a complete failure and only make matters far worse. The intent of the amendment, I believe, is just to let an 'informed' public sort everything out i.e. keep politics out of the election (ha, I can't believe I just said that) or at least keep Congress from further meddling with campaign finance law. That is why I'm certain that transparentness would still be constitutional. However, it is a good point. It will be addressed I'm sure as I understand that these amendments are a work-in-progress.

    That said, let's please try to keep this thread's discussion on the Pro-gun aspects of amendment II and IV. There is just too much to cover otherwise and we'd go off topic rather quickly otherwise, thanks!
    Last edited by OC4me; 11-26-2010 at 11:21 AM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , , Kernersville NC
    Posts
    783
    I like anything that keeps our Gov. at bay and limits its power, but I must say Barry doesnt give a damn what our constitution says, neither does any other liberal marxist. They are sworn to uphold and protect the constitution and they failed (on purpose) I might add. This is why elections matter! The best thing to do is to impeach Barry and the rest of the left.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by OC4me View Post
    I'm sure that Amendment V would still allow 'sunshine' as is apparently the practice now in campaign finance law (I can't cite this, it is just my presumption). I agree wholeheartedly that any speech in the form of campaign contributions will be allowed so long as the sources are fully transparent. To see the political games being played now (i.e. MoveOn.org and the conservative equivalents) makes it obvious that the efforts to 'control' campaign contributions are a complete failure and only make matters far worse. The intent of the amendment, I believe, is just to let an 'informed' public sort everything out i.e. keep politics out of the election (ha, I can't believe I just said that) or at least keep Congress from further meddling with campaign finance law. That is why I'm certain that transparentness would still be constitutional. However, it is a good point. It will be addressed I'm sure as I understand that these amendments are a work-in-progress.

    That said, let's please try to keep this thread's discussion on the Pro-gun aspects of amendment II and IV. There is just too much to cover otherwise and we'd go off topic rather quickly otherwise, thanks!
    I will say one more thing and then leave it alone: I am not saying that the amendment should allow sunshine. It should require the brightest of sunshine for the contributions to be considered "protected speech."

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    You do realize that once a constitutional convention is called the whole document is up for grabs? And that there are a whole lot more of "THEM" out there who would like to make fixes to stuff than there are of "US"? And then there is the vast group in the middle that sorta-kinda feels (notice I did not say "thinks" or "believes") that it might need tweaking but is no sure just where or just how, so is ready to be swayed either way.

    If you want to make adjustments to a document that is, generally speaking, working well I suggest we stick with the slow, cumbersome and irritating method provided within the document itself. It still comes down to mob rule, but it makes it more difficult for the mob.

    stay safe.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    If you want to make adjustments to a document that is, generally speaking, working well I suggest we stick with the slow, cumbersome and irritating method provided within the document itself. It still comes down to mob rule, but it makes it more difficult for the mob.stay safe.
    +1

    Might as well stick with what has been worked on (or worked over, as some would argue) for 220+ years.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Kent County, Michigan
    Posts
    757
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    You do realize that once a constitutional convention is called the whole document is up for grabs? And that there are a whole lot more of "THEM" out there who would like to make fixes to stuff than there are of "US"? And then there is the vast group in the middle that sorta-kinda feels (notice I did not say "thinks" or "believes") that it might need tweaking but is no sure just where or just how, so is ready to be swayed either way.

    If you want to make adjustments to a document that is, generally speaking, working well I suggest we stick with the slow, cumbersome and irritating method provided within the document itself. It still comes down to mob rule, but it makes it more difficult for the mob.

    stay safe.
    There are two (2) ways to amend the Constitution.

    Only the second way involves the 'feared' Constitutional Convention. Historically, Congress has been very afraid of a Constitutional Convention for the very same reasons, which is why Congress has tended in the past to propose amendments directly to the States for ratification (thereby avoiding a Constitutional Convention). Such a direct proposal by Congress is the other (and preferred) way to amend the Constitution as it limits the amendment process to just the amendments put forth for ratification and nothing more.

    Ironically, a push for a Constitutional Convention is exactly what is needed to force Congress into action on this issue. Why else would they put forward a 'Bill of Federalism' that largely limits their powers. To get these amendments passed, we must not argue over which ratification procedure to use, but push for both procedures. Odds are almost certain that Congress would forestall a Constitutional Convention by proposing the 'Bill of Federalism' directly to the states for ratification.

    Even in the unlikely event that Congress does nothing, and a Constitutional Convention is called, whatever the outcome of the convention may be, it would have to be ratified by the States (not an easy task). So I'm comfortable pushing hard for ratification by either method.

    Nothing is impossible. Remember that the Constitution has been amended 27 times, all during the pre-internet, if not during horse-and-buggy times. What took decades back in the old days could only take a few years now.

    Listen folks, we have to fix the system somehow. Elections merely result in either runaway spending (and erosion of rights) by one party or another at worst, or grid-lock at best. So voting isn't going to work. The judiciary has devolved into a rubber stamp for unconstitutional laws via judicial creep or outright activism.

  9. #9
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    You do realize that once a constitutional convention is called the whole document is up for grabs? And that there are a whole lot more of "THEM" out there who would like to make fixes to stuff than there are of "US"? And then there is the vast group in the middle that sorta-kinda feels (notice I did not say "thinks" or "believes") that it might need tweaking but is no sure just where or just how, so is ready to be swayed either way.

    If you want to make adjustments to a document that is, generally speaking, working well I suggest we stick with the slow, cumbersome and irritating method provided within the document itself. It still comes down to mob rule, but it makes it more difficult for the mob.

    stay safe.
    And this is exactly what concerns me as well. Once that door is opened (a Constitutional Convention), anything can slip in... or out. There was a move afoot some years ago proposed by Ted Kennedy and a few others of his ilk, to open a Constitutional Convention. Can you imagine the damage that could have been done to our Founders design with the likes of those illiterates operating on the host?
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Kent County, Michigan
    Posts
    757
    Folks, let's get back on topic. This really shouldn't be a debate over the ratification process (remember that the Constitution has been amended a whopping 27 times and the feared Constitutional Convention either never happened or proved to be an issue).

    We hear what-if arguments all the time from the likes of anti-gunners and other anti-this and anti-that groups so get alarmed if you wish, but I think that its about time that we Citizens put some checks on the run-away power of the Federal government.

    Anyway, I thought it would be nice to point out that the amendment proposals II and IV are very favorable to the original Second Amendment and that ratification of the same would prevent a future anti-gun Congress from meddling with our rights on the national level.
    Last edited by OC4me; 11-26-2010 at 02:57 PM.

  11. #11
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524
    Why is everyone so scared of a Con-con? It will still take 38 states to ratify either by convention or legislature. That is a great hurdle to overcome.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    492

    so right

    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    You do realize that once a constitutional convention is called the whole document is up for grabs? And that there are a whole lot more of "THEM" out there who would like to make fixes to stuff than there are of "US"? And then there is the vast group in the middle that sorta-kinda feels (notice I did not say "thinks" or "believes") that it might need tweaking but is no sure just where or just how, so is ready to be swayed either way.

    If you want to make adjustments to a document that is, generally speaking, working well I suggest we stick with the slow, cumbersome and irritating method provided within the document itself. It still comes down to mob rule, but it makes it more difficult for the mob.

    stay safe.
    exactly!. A+. Thumbs up. 100%. etc. Quality takes time.

    while some would advance the amending process by whatever means, only a fool could think that a constitutional convention would be a good idea at this point in time. with the likes of the elected criminals in dee cee at the moment I would strongly oppose the convention method.

    I don't want the current crop of low-life types in dee cee having even a remote chance of tinkering with the first, second, forth, fifth, or tenth amendments. Actually, I don't like the idea of them having a chance to screw around with any of the constitution right now. With the attitude of the feds at the moment, we might not want them to have a chance to delete the third amendment either!!

    If the direct to the states method is used, then perhaps I might support that. However, I recall the cry and hue when certain pro gun owner rights types got all in a blather when there was talk of the feds not allowing the states to freely ignore the second amendment. The argument was that such a course of action would violate states rights. Of course that is not true at all if what the federal government was doing was preventing a state from systematically prohibiting the citizens of that state from enjoying the freedom enumerated in the second amendment.

    A state is free to enact its own laws about one thing or another, but not free to violate the constitutional rights of citizens, hence, the states rights arguement was a red herring it seems to me.

    Lastly, what makes anyone think that a new amendment would stop congress from ignoring the constitution. They already ignore it, so logically, they would ignore the new amendment(s) as well. Why not just pass a law saying that it is illegal to break the law????

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Convention not Troubling

    The proposal is not for a convention. It is for congressionally passed amendments passed on to the States.

    The convention is mentioned as a backup plan: "If Congress won't pass the amendments, we'll get the States to call a convention."

    Yes, once the convention is called, the convention is free to propose any changes it chooses, up to and including a whole new constitution.

    This is not troubling in the least. Whatever is proposed, either way, still has to gain the approval of 38 of the 50 States. A completely rewritten constitution will not pass this hurdle unless it is substantially similar to the current one.

    I think we face more danger from constitutional erosion than from a constitutional convention.

  14. #14
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,627
    Quote Originally Posted by rodbender View Post
    Why is everyone so scared of a Con-con? It will still take 38 states to ratify either by convention or legislature. That is a great hurdle to overcome.
    Not so great a hurdle! Very close to it and it doesn't expire.

    Be careful what you demand.

    Thirty-two (32) other states have already called for a Con Con (allegedly to add a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution). 34 states are all that is required, and then Congress MUST convene a Convention.

    http://www.thenewamerican.com/index....stitution/3610

    http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/22504
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Not so great a hurdle! Very close to it and it doesn't expire.

    Be careful what you demand.

    Thirty-two (32) other states have already called for a Con Con (allegedly to add a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution). 34 states are all that is required, and then Congress MUST convene a Convention.

    http://www.thenewamerican.com/index....stitution/3610

    http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/22504
    The 38 State requirement for final passage is the same hurdle amendments have to clear. Yes, the convention can propose massive changes to the Constitution, but the danger is mitigated by an increased reluctance for States to adopt changes they weren't looking for--making the hurdle higher.
    Last edited by eye95; 11-26-2010 at 11:24 PM.

  16. #16
    Regular Member One_Shot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Uncertain, Texas, USA
    Posts
    68
    http://www.associatedcontent.com/art..._of.html?cat=9


    Iceland is redoing their constitution!

    "The constitutional assembly will be made up of 25 to 31 delegates, the final number to be determined by a gender and equality ratio. It will be made up of regular citizens elected by direct personal voting. Anyone is eligible to stand for election, with the exceptions of the president, lawmakers and the committee appointed to organize the assembly.

    With the strength of the Tea Party movement now might be a good time for the U.S.A. consider this. All of the Tea Party people I know are strong 2nd amendment supporters and would clarify and strengthen the wording of any re-written 2nd amendment.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by One_Shot View Post
    With the strength of the Tea Party movement now might be a good time for the U.S.A. consider this. All of the Tea Party people I know are strong 2nd amendment supporters and would clarify and strengthen the wording of any re-written 2nd amendment.

    At this point who knows what the strength of the "tea party" movement is...we will see in the coming years. My guess is that it will drop off the map and we will be back to voting one side or the other. I see a day where there will be a viable third party, they just have to get over the hurdle of being too conservative or too liberal. The tea party is conservative, turning a lot of pro-2nd Amendment liberals off.

    I think they have a couple of specific items they are running on. A"strict reading of the Constitution" for example, is to sophisticated for and requires too much time to investigate for the average voter to consider in their vote. Then again, maybe most voters want it both ways, they want all the services, and all of the cuts, at the same time.

    Back to the topic:

    I think it's a bad idea to start messing with a 220 year work in progress. But if enough people support it, go for it, but be prepared to end up with the same issues the current Constitution has, it being a work in progress and also a younger document that all laws will have to be held against to determine constitutionality.

    I have to say, after giving some thought to whether I should post this or not: it figures that people who claim to support the Constitution would argue that the Constitution be rewritten to suite their ideological ends. Let me guess, if the next one doesn't work out for you, you are just going to argue for another one to be written?

    The Constitution is part of our system of Democracy. There are plenty of Commie countries out there that have no Constitution, just the heavy hand of a military government that exerts its power through fear and brainwashing. I understand "no Constitution" is not being proposed. I just think that it's a waste of time to "start over." As generally nostalgic the past is for some people, the past was also wrought with immorality and unconstitutionality.
    Last edited by Beretta92FSLady; 11-27-2010 at 05:57 PM.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605
    REPEAL The Sixteenth Amendment. REPLACE it with FairTax.
    REPEAL The Seveenth Amendment. REPLACE it with Elective Responsibility of Federal Senators, as Reserved to The State Legislatures, in an effort to Restore State Sovereignty.
    AMEND The Commerce Clause, to DEFINE such as, '... [T]hree or more States(non-Adjoining by Common Border) involved in such Commerce, or [F]oreign Commerce with any other Nation. CONSTITUTIONAL OVERRIDE of UNCONSTITUTIONAL FEDERAL LAWS, to include Federal Firearm Laws!
    CLARIFY that NO Ex Post Facto Law can be made by NO STATE OR FEDERAL Legislature, i.e. Domestic Violence Firearm Ban, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)/(n)(8) OR 18 U.S.C. 922(g)/(n)(9).
    ADD Twenty-Eighth Amendment, PROHIBITING OUR INVOLVEMENT in Foreign Affairs, except in Case or War (when Declared by Congress) AND PROHIBITING UNITED NATIONS in our Country, and OUR TROOPS under 'Their' Command.
    ADD Twenty-Ninth Amendment, CONCERNING TERM LIMITS for All Elected Officials, to PREVENT Corruption of Power, to INCLUDE Federal AND State Electees.
    CLARIFY Second Amendment, in Light of Heller and McDonald, so as to Maintain INDIVIDUAL NOT COLLECTIVE RIGHT.
    CLARIFY Fourth Amendment to EXPAND RIGHT TO BE FREE from UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES.
    Last edited by aadvark; 11-28-2010 at 02:25 PM.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Kent County, Michigan
    Posts
    757
    Quote Originally Posted by aadvark View Post
    REPEAL The Sixteenth Amendment. REPLACE it with FairTax.
    REPEAL The Seveenth Amendment. REPLACE it with Elective Responsibility of Federal Senators, as Reserved to The State Legislatures, in an effort to Restore State Sovereignty.
    AMEND The Commerce Clause, to DEFINE such as, '... [T]hree or more States(non-Adjoining by Common Border) involved in such Commerce, or [F]oreign Commerce with any other Nation. CONSTITUTIONAL OVERRIDE of UNCONSTITUTIONAL FEDERAL LAWS, to include Federal Firearm Laws!
    CLARIFY that NO Ex Post Facto Law can be made by NO STATE OR FEDERAL Legislature, i.e. Domestic Violence Firearm Ban, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)/(n)(8) OR 18 U.S.C. 922(g)/(n)(9).
    ADD Twenty-Eighth Amendment, PROHIBITING OUR INVOLVEMENT in Foreign Affairs, except in Case or War (when Declared by Congress) AND PROHIBITING UNITED NATIONS in our Country, and OUR TROOPS under 'Their' Command.
    ADD Twenty-Ninth Amendment, CONCERNING TERM LIMITS for All Elected Officials, to PREVENT Corruption of Power, to INCLUDE Federal AND State Electees.
    CLARIFY Second Amendment, in Light of Heller and McDonald, so as to Maintain INDIVIDUAL NOT COLLECTIVE RIGHT.
    CLARIFY Fourth Amendment to EXPAND RIGHT TO BE FREE from UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES.
    Hi Aardvark, I just wanted to clarify for the forum that the above is not the 'Bill of Federalism' that is being discussed. I presume it is your own wish list of amendments, which is fine, but I just wanted to clarify for the readers. The actual proposed amendments are here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Federalism

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    45

    Restricted commendt to 2A

    Completely ridiculous that we need an amendment to the constitution to protect an amendment to the constitution...Especially one that reads that this right shall not be infringed.

    Anyone who has studied elementary grammar should take note that the sentence ends with a period. There is no listed exception...no "but" "however" "except" "unless" "if we pass this law.."

    The founding fathers today would be standing around scratching their heads and asking themselves how they could have been more clear in their message, and in total disbelief that we cant seem to comprehend such a grammatically simple sentence.

  21. #21
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by P229Sig357DAK View Post
    The founding fathers today would be standing around scratching their heads and asking themselves how they could have been more clear in their message, and in total disbelief that we cant seem to comprehend such a grammatically simple sentence.
    Absolutely spot on the money. The English is perfect and very easy to understand by any grade schooler from my generation. The more recent ones who seem to have a problem with its structure? Well, clearly they never received a classic education.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Kent County, Michigan
    Posts
    757
    Quote Originally Posted by P229Sig357DAK View Post
    Completely ridiculous that we need an amendment to the constitution to protect an amendment to the constitution...Especially one that reads that this right shall not be infringed.
    I agree it is ridiculous but it is what it is....unfortunately it is necessary. At any rate, the Founders anticipated the need for amendments so they wrote the ability to do so right into the document. It is not like The Bill of Federalism is attempting to modernize the Constitution in order to bring it up to speed with the 'enlightened' modern world. On the contrary, it is designed and intended in fact to restore the balance of power to the States as was originally intended by the Founding Fathers so long ago.
    Last edited by OC4me; 11-29-2010 at 01:49 PM.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605
    I apologize for my Language, in the aforementioned Post.
    However..., it is Alarming how MANY People think that The Second Amendment applies ONLY to The Federal Government, not The People.
    Heller and McDonald need to be made more Clear...,
    ..., [I] was just voicing my Opinion... [...]
    Last edited by aadvark; 11-29-2010 at 01:57 PM.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by aadvark View Post
    I apologize for my Language, in the aforementioned Post.
    However..., it is Alarming how MANY People think that The Second Amendment applies ONLY to The Federal Government, not The People.
    Heller and McDonald need to be made more Clear...,
    ..., [I] was just voicing my Opinion... [...]
    I think that the ruling they made was a first of many steps through the court that will be made. First, SCOTUS found that individuals have a right to own firearms for self-defense, if I remember from what I read(e) right, it was more a general statement of a right to self-defense, but only covered self-defense within the home...correct me if I am wrong.

    "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."

    Infringed; (not trying to cherry pick, just picked one) to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another infringed

    Is the red tape we have to go through violating our fundamental right to purchase and bear a firearm? At what point does red tape become so much of a hassle that it violates our to bear arms. What if either way the end result is you are able to purchase and bear a firearm? The process doesn't infringe on your right, it merely make the exercise of that right a pain in the butt, but possible.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  25. #25

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    My thoughts: . . .

    Amendment V - Contributions not made known to the public should not be considered "speech," because they give the appearance of a being bribe. Therefore, this amendment should protect only contributions made in full sunshine by persons or by organizations for whom all the persons who control it (officers, directors, owners, shareholders, etc.) are known. Sunshine is a wonderful cleanser. I could not support this amendment unless it protected only contributions made in full sunshine.

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •