Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: what would your addition be?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Goldsboro, North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    91

    what would your addition be?

    if you had to add 1 single line to the constitution regarding gun laws what would it be?
    mine would be

    "There shall be no infringement upon a citizen's right to defend himself, with or without arms, or infringement upon a citizens right to carry said arm either visibly or concealed, unless the infringement occurs in a secured area in which substantial effort is made to be free from danger to a citizen's person."


    in other words.... you cant tell me where i can or cant carry, how i can or cant carry.. UNLESS there is reasonable protection availible to me and my family. In other words a court room after metal dectectors, with 15 armed balifs, etc, is considered safe. a stadium with 50000 fans and a handful of security guards is not.


    anyways.. just a conversation peice..

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    8
    Good idea on referring to th right of "citizens" instead of "the people". I would also add something that required any no-carry zone to have lockers available to store guns and that any place that established a no-carry policy would, by doing so, be accepting absolute liability for the safety of those disarmed.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Goldsboro, North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    91
    Quote Originally Posted by c1ogden View Post
    Good idea on referring to th right of "citizens" instead of "the people". I would also add something that required any no-carry zone to have lockers available to store guns and that any place that established a no-carry policy would, by doing so, be accepting absolute liability for the safety of those disarmed.
    i think the version i wrote would cover that in a trial. you had a reasonable expectation for saftey that the government should have provided but didnt..you would win

    Quote Originally Posted by cabbitone View Post
    The right of the People to keep and bear Arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
    i dont agree with this TOTALLY. i think for the most part that we should be able to carry what when where and how we want, but think about it. what if 8 people are in opposing posistion in a room, and they all try to shoot the bad guy...lol

  4. #4
    Newbie crisisweasel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Pima County, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    266
    It isn't that I want something added. It is that I want something removed and a modification of what remains. The Second Amendment should read:

    "The right of individuals to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    Why do I not like the militia bit? Well first I'm sick of hearing people insist over and over that your average gun owner isn't part of what their mental image of a militia is, so therefore what the Second Amendment really means is all guns should be banned. The stock reply is the "unorganized militia" explanation at which time their eyes glaze over.

    Second of all, the point of resistance to tyranny is derived from a larger concept of self-ownership, personal sovereignty, or what-have-you. There is no difference whether or not an armed mugger trespasses upon that right, or the State. For the exact same reasons it is appropriate for individuals to bear arms in resistance to tyranny, so too it is legitimate for individuals to bear arms in resistance to the tyranny of a single other individual (home invader, carjacker), or a gang, or whatever.

    The problem with the Second Amendment is I somehow doubt our framers could have envisioned a scenario where any sane person would say to another, "you have no right to defend yourself against an attacker." This should be so obvious to any rational thinker, that one would think it would never be on the table for discussion. And that is why I don't think it is explicitly mentioned in the Amendment. I think that possessing arms for self-defense was obvious and what they needed to make clear is that government itself was not intended to be omnipotent: that in some cases it would be necessary to overthrow and abolish it, and the Second Amendment protected the means by which that would happen.

    Nonetheless, I cringe a bit every time someone who is otherwise pro-gun explains the Second Amendment as having exclusively to do with tyranny. As written, it appears that way, but the next question (one anti-gun people never seek to ask) is "by what right do you challenge the sovereignty of government?"

    Indeed, tyranny is wrong because it deprives the individual of their birthrights. An armed gang or psychopath does the same, and utilizes the same means: force. One is not more or less wrong than another.

    Clearly the Bill of Rights was written to be concise, but the unfortunate side effect of that is it lacks precision, and the Second Amendment is a perfect example of that. If a man lives very remotely and could not possibly team up with fellow citizens to constitute a militia should that be necessary, could it be argued that in no way does that individual possess arms in the context of a militia, unorganized or otherwise?

    You could make counterarguments but this opens a hole I'd rather not see opened. Whether or not we have militias or even whether we consider ourselves part of an unorganized militia, that should not impact our rights to possess the means of self-defense: If I swear off (I wouldn't, this is hypothetical) any responsibility to an unorganized militia, or any other kind of militia, can my rights therefore be alienated? Fortunately the Supreme Court determined a relationship between the militia clause and the rest of the Second Amendment which worked in our favor, but I'd prefer not to leave questions of rights to the whims of the Supreme Court.

    ---

    This is a mouthful, but I would prefer it:

    For the purpose of self-defense against groups, individuals, or institutions; resistance to tyranny; sporting; collecting; or for any other purpose which does not trespass on the rights of another, the right of individuals to manufacture, keep, stockpile, cache, possess, bear in public or private, or shoot arms of any sort shall not be infringed. Nor shall the government attempt to evade de jure restrictions by pursing de facto circumstances which deprive individuals of their rights: lawsuits against manufacturers, abuse of civil courts, or ordinances against weapons on the basis of their capacity, appearance, carry method, or "intended use." For the purpose of this Amendment, "individual" is defined as all human beings on planet earth, acting alone or in concert with other individuals.
    Last edited by crisisweasel; 03-17-2011 at 05:24 PM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958
    The right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and the state, or for any other lawful purpose shall not be subject to government regulation, nor the contrivance of permit and license in the free exercise thereof. But nothing in this statute shall covey lawful use and/or possession of atomic, chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction.
    Last edited by Sonora Rebel; 03-17-2011 at 05:34 PM.

Posting Permissions

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