Official Constitution website is VERY anti-2A!

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Drjones

member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
2,803
Constitution website is VERY anti-2A!

I'm so mad right now....

From: http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_2nd.html


The question, then, is do we have to adhere to both tenets of the amendment today? If we decide to do away with the individual ownership aspect of the Amendment, reinterpreting the amendment to allow highly restricted gun ownership, we seem to open the door to radical reinterpretation of other, more basic parts of the Constitution. If we decide to do nothing, and allow unrestricted gun ownership, we run the risk of creating a society of the gun, a risk that seems to great to take. So the real question seems to be, can we have the a constitutional freedom to bear arms, and still allow restriction and regulation?

Reasonable restrictions do seem to be the way to go, acknowledging the Amendment, but molding it, as we've done with much of the Constitution. After all, we have freedom of speech in the United States, but you are not truly free to say whatever you wish. You cannot incite violence without consequence; you cannot libel someone without consequence; you cannot shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater without consequence. Why cannot gun ownership by similarly regulated without violating the Constitution?

The trick is finding that balance between freedom and reasonable regulation. Gun ownership is indeed a right - but it is also a grand responsibility. With responsibility comes the interests of society to ensure that guns are used safely and are used by those with proper training and licensing. If we can agree on this simple premise, it should not be too difficult to work out the details and find a proper compromise
Click to expand...

WARNING: I hope you all have your barf bags ready, and you may want to make sure you aren't near any firearms, as you will probably want to shoot your computer after you read this next part.

Recognizing that the need to arm the populace as a militia is no longer of much concern, but also realizing that firearms are a part of our history and culture and are used by many for both personal defense and sport, this site has proposed a new 2nd Amendment - an amendment to replace the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. This proposed text is offered as a way to spark discussion of the topic.

Section 1. The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2. The right of the people to keep arms reasonable for hunting, sport, and personal defense shall not be infringed.

Section 3. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

This proposed amendment is a truer representation of how our society views our freedom to bear arms. The reasonableness test and the ability of the Congress to enforce the amendment would give the courts the ability to strike down unreasonable laws affecting gun ownership. The militia is removed from the equation, greatly clarifying the purpose of the amendment.
Click to expand...

They also have LOTS of links to the BRADY BUNCH and HCI's pages!!!


:cuss: :cuss: :cuss:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ya know, I used to be anti-gun, but I did my research.

And dammit, if 90% of crime is commited without guns, but the VAST majority of crime is prevented with guns, then MAYBE, just MAYBE, the founding fathers had the right idea!

DUR!

just remember, 2.5 million times a year...
 
The second article of amendment
Click to expand...
Is that something like the second article of clothing? This guy doesn't even know that the Second Amendment is not an "article". How can he propose to rewrite it?

If he wants to rewrite it to remove the reference to the Militia, why not use this? "The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
 
"Section 2. The right of the people to keep arms reasonable for hunting, sport, and personal defense shall not be infringed."


OK, I think I could agree with this proposed change. Granted of course that I get to decide what's "reasonable" for personal defense. Think I could every get any of these twits to fall for that stipulation?
 
I'm really not that incensed by this.

The author does acknowledge that guns are an important part of our heritage and culture, and that they are often used in self defense.

His proposed amendment is, in effect, the way the right is treated today.

Don't get me wrong - I think we should be able to own machine guns if we want them.

To me, this guy just doesn't sound like a foaming-at-the-mouth anti.
 
"After all, we have freedom of speech in the United States, but you are not truly free to say whatever you wish. You cannot incite violence without consequence; you cannot libel someone without consequence; you cannot shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater without consequence. Why cannot gun ownership by similarly regulated without violating the Constitution?"

Does anyone else see the fallacy in this argument?

We don't say, " you can't speak, because you
might libel somebody, or incite violence, or shout "fire" in a crowded theater."
We punish the actual actions that are injurious.

Yet the author, and others of his ilk, want to say, "you can't own this or that, or any gun, because you might shoot someone with it unjustifiably."

BTW, the 2nd amendment is not about hunting, sport, or even personal defense. It's about the ability of the people to resist tyranny.
 
To me he sounds like someone trying really hard not to sound like a foaming-at-the-mouth anti...

I don't care which amendment he wants to repeal, the fact that he even emtertains altering the Bill of Rights is sickening...
 
Section 2. The right of the people to keep arms reasonable for hunting, sport, and personal defense
Click to expand...
"Reasonable" is a word subject to wide latitude of the Schumer variety. Unlike the other rights, it would be subject to simple majority votes. Your AR15, M1A, SKS, AK47/74, FN-FALs would not be considered reasonable, now might semi-auto shotguns or even pump shotguns with the necessary balance in Congress.

Also, the term "sporting use" is the basis for gun control since early 1900, through 1930s in Germany and 1968 with our own Gun Control Act of 1968.

Words mean things. Read them.

Rick
 
It seems like I've been seeing much more of this lately, people who seem reasonable on the surface. Peel away the veneer, however, and the true colors shine through. I think some anti's are finally realizing that they've not only lost forward momentum, but are sliding backwards at an ever-increasing pace. I would strongly warn against allowing the antis to parlay under the flag of "reasonable" restrictions.
 
AZRick got it.

I didn't think I'd have to point it out, but his choice of the word "reasonable" is what is frightening.

Some think a total ban on firearms is "reasonable."

Some think banning all but black-powder muzzle-loaders is "reasonable."

Etc, etc.

And whoever pointed it out is right: while this isn't the official constitution website, ( :eek: ) it darn sure looks "official" and could be very misleading to a lot of people.
 
from their website

Many who frequent this board are fans of the NBC series "West Wing." That series touches on many constitutional issues. Discuss those issues, as well as characters and plot lines, here
Click to expand...

nuff said:barf:
 
Section 1. The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Click to expand...

To even entertain the notion that the gov't would be allowed to continue past this point is silly.
 
Jimpeel,

"Is that something like the second article of clothing? This guy doesn't even know that the Second Amendment is not an "article". How can he propose to rewrite it?"

Actually what we refer to as the Second Amendment is properly called the Second Article of the Amendments to the Constitution, or the Second Article to the Bill of Rights. So he was not incorrect to refer to it as an Article.

here's the House.gov page on the Bill of Rights

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html

Here's a page on the twelve articles originally proposed for the Bill of Rights

http://www.usconstitution.net/first12.html



But Y'all might wanna look at this

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/

It's findlaw.com's page about the second amendment. Much more troubling to me than someone's personal site about hsi views of the Constitution. Doubly troubling cause it's an accurate assesment of how the second amendment is treated by most courts today.
 
Web site designed and maintained by Steve Mount.
© 1995-2003 by Steve Mount. All rights reserved
 
Publicola

Yeah, I know. I was PMed about that but I let it stand. I don't mind being proven wrong; and I don't usually try to cover my tracks when I am. I learn from those around me and try not to make the same errors twice. That part doesn't always work either.

Thanks,

J
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
Rights Are Not Granted (see the Ninth Amendment)
Replies
15
Views
882
U.S.SFC_RET
U
M
  • Locked
Supreme Court Rulings
2
Replies
32
Views
1K
flatrock
F
2
  • Locked
The Second Amendment and the Preamble to the Bill of Rights
Replies
7
Views
416
Combat-wombat
C
U
  • Locked
The Preamble to the Bill of Rights.
Replies
8
Views
1K
USAFNoDAk
U
S
  • Locked
What OTHER Article ensures the right to keep arms???
Replies
0
Views
383
shield20
S
Back
Top