The 28th Amendment | a thought experiment

[230RN]

^

Don't do it. The more words and phrases you add, the more opportunities there Will be for misconstrue. The "militia" clause in the Second Amendment has caused enough trouble without adding more opportunities. If anything, get rid of the "militia" clause. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," is about as clear and concise as you can get. Even at that some people will argue the meaning of 'keep', 'bear' and 'arms' to the nth degree!

And even "the people," as we have seen, has been debated. Isn't it odd that some folks thought that "the people" only included the folks in the Federal Government?

ConstitutionCowboy is right. Seems like the number of interpretations possible varies exponentially with the number of words involved. They kept the most important Amendment as short as it is for good reason.

As others have noted, "You can add all the amendments to the Constitution that you want, and as long as the elected officials choose to ignore their oaths of office to obey the Constitution it will mean nothing. We currently have a Constitution. However, it is routinely ignored and violated. Yet no one does anything to stop it."

The main problem is that it may take decades for a Constitutional case on a particular law to come up for review, and the lawmakers know it. That's why they think they can run roughshod over the Constitution, in my opinion.

I sometimes wish there could be some neutral body which could bindingly declare a potential piece of legislation as Constitutional or not before its adoption. But even that would be subject to abuse.

Well, if things were perfect, this would be Heaven. And we all know it ain't Heaven.

Terry, 230RN

 

[Hoppes Love Potion]

Yeah, Congress would just pass a law saying that any citizen attempting to acquire or posses a weapon shall be declared legally insane and thus prohibited under the 28th Amendment from owning a weapon.

 

[mortablunt]

Ideally, this wouldn't be necessary, given the whole "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" business back in 1786. I agree with it wholeheartedly. However, I'd much rather see a 28'th amendment that gives proportional representation, allows for naturalized citizens to become president, grants full adult rights and privileges at age 18, gives a right to higher education, a right to health care, or puts checks on corporate personhood. Anyway, as far as being a thought experiment, it's not really one. It's more a speculative what if question.

 

[230RN]

Hoppes Love Potion remarked,

Yeah, Congress would just pass a law saying that any citizen attempting to acquire or posses a weapon shall be declared legally insane and thus prohibited under the 28th Amendment from owning a weapon.

Well, see, they can do that without a "law." All they have to do is define gun ownership as "insanity" in that Diagnostic Manual the Doctors go by.

That's why I hate the term "common sense regulation" for firearms --or anything, for that matter. By whose "common sense?" Would it not be common sense to ban all firearms that are loud enough to produce hearing damage?

Like President Obama's remarks about "cheap handguns." How do you define cheap? In CPI dollars? By "safety' features? By materials used?

"Oh, you know, those cheap pot-metal guns... and those guns made out of plastic."

Words have meaning, but it depends on whose meaning you want to use, and the antis and socialistas are very adept at adapting meanings to their own ends, as we have seen with "assault weapons," which now seems to have morphed into "guns used by soldiers on the battlefield." Yeah, let's keep those off the streets.

I'm reminded of the famous Slick WIllie response: "It depends on what your definition of 'is' is."

It all depends on definitions.

Like "insanity." Drinking four beers might be defined as "insanity" by a third party group of Doctors not involved with actually making laws.

Let's face it, owing more than three guns must be insanity. If you've got a rifle, a shotgun, and a handgun, what more do you need for "sporting purposes?" Any more than that is just plain crazy!*

And how did "sporting purposes" work its way into the firearms lexicon anyhow? Who framed that as part of the debate?

See how clever they are?

Feh.

Rant over.

Terry, 230RN

* Any anti-gun folks who take that paragraph out of context are just plain out-and-out bald-faced liars.

 

[Just One Shot]

I like the way you think but it doesn't go far enough. There should be something like:

It is the responsibility of the Federal and State Governments to ensure that every U.S. citizen age 10 and over is equiped with at least one firearm and provided the training in how to use it properly.

 

[230RN]

THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS....

Just One Shot proposed:

It is the responsibility of the Federal and State Governments to ensure that every U.S. citizen age 10 and over is equiped with at least one firearm and provided the training in how to use it properly.

I'm sure a lot of antis would go along with that if they could amend it as follows:

It is the responsibility of the Federal and State Governments to ensure that every U.S. citizen age 10 and over is equiped with at least one matchlock firearm and provided the training in how to use it properly.

Just a common-sense addition, no? Gotta keep those "guns used by soldiers on the battlefield" off the streets.

If I recall correctly, that's what they did in Mexico many years ago. They limited private ownership of firearms and ammuniton to only that which is not used by the military. So there went .45ACP, 9mm ("for war") Parabellum, .30-06, .308 WInchester, .30-40 Krag, .30 M1 Carbine, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc.

So you gotta be vigilant about that common-sense phrase about "guns used by soldiers on the battlefield," which is a new one coming from behind us at 6 o'clock.

For, as I have said many times when I've been accused of either over-vigilance, or "paranoia:"

Eternal vigilance is not paranoia.
(Terry said that, and don't you forget it.)

So watch your "political" six, too.

Terry, 230RN

 

[k_dawg]

A fundemental problem is that the citizens can not enforce it directly. Relying upon the government to protect against government violations of one's right is fundementally flawed.

 

[jim243]

through the Civilian Marksmanship Program or a similar organization chartered by the government of the United States.

This is a direct violation of my 2nd Admendment rights, to sell or give property paid for with MY tax dollars to an organization who's requirements do not meet my needs or want's and set's rules for sale that exclude me from obtaining equipment that is not theirs or have any right to it, for their own gain, even if they are a 501 (c) 3. (Not for Profit)

Just sell it to the general public (at auction) as they do all other surplus equipment.

A very bad idea.
Jim

 

[FMF Doc]

I like the promotion of firearm rights as much as anyone else, but this will do nothing to help. Look at the 2A. It seems pretty clear to many of us, but look at how it has been "interpreted". The line about "any lawful purpose" can easily be interpreted to exclude self-defense. We don't need more laws, we need the courts and other officials to respect the ones we already have on the books.

 

[rm23]

I don't think a single state would ratify this amendment.

 

[bearcreek]

A fundemental problem is that the citizens can not enforce it directly. Relying upon the government to protect against government violations of one's right is fundementally flawed.

Can not or will not? Wasn't sure if you're talking about the propsed 28th amendment or the 2nd? Either way, the original intention for the 2nd amendment comes in to play. The whole idea was for the people to be able to enforce the their "God given" rights, as verbalized in the Constitution and BOR. It had nothing to do with hunting and very little or nothing to do with citizens protecting themselves against each other.