Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

My proposed Constitional Amendment: Making the 2nd Amendment Stronger

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • My proposed Constitional Amendment: Making the 2nd Amendment Stronger

    The 2nd Amendment is being interpreted to apply to individuals' right to bear arms by the Supreme Court. But the wording of the 2nd is still considered vague enough by both the court and many politicians that enough restrictions can be but in place to create de facto blanket bans on firearms in certain places (NYC, DC, Chicago, Hawaii, etc). The court is also 1 justice away from overturning DC v. Heller and allowing both the states AND the federal government to ban and confiscate all firearms.

    I wonder, if a 28th Amendment would be the best way to cement the individual right to bear arms. The 2nd seems pretty clear, but there's so much disinformation and flat out falsehoods about it (and guns in general), that a lot of people are brainwashed about it. I would propose the 28th to read something like this:

    Article 1: The 2nd Amendment of the Constitution shall be understood by all federal, state, and local government entities to protect the right of all individual citizens and legal permanent residents to bear arms of all kinds for all legal purposes including hunting, sport shooting, defense of self, others, and property, as well as defense of state and nation when necessary.

    Article 2: No federal, state, or local government and/or law enforcement entity shall deny a law abiding citizen or legal permanent resident the right to keep firearms in his home, or to carry a firearm concealed in public, for any reason other than by current standing court decision that the individual, due to conviction of a felony crime, being adjudicated mentally defective, conviction of domestic violence, or having a current restraining order against said person, cannot possess a firearm. Governments or agencies wishing to issue permits for carry must do so within 30 days of application. Governments or agencies wishing to issue permits for carry may not charge an unreasonable fee for a permit, nor may entities require unreasonable steps or actions to acquire a permit, nor may the permit be revoked for any reason other than court decision, nor may the permit be valid for an unreasonably short period of time.

    Article 3: No firearm or firearm accessory shall be prohibited by any federal, state, or local government agency for individual possession and lawful use, nor any limit on the number of firearms or firearm accessories an individual may own. There shall be no limit on ammunition feeding device capacity, nor any limit on the amount of ammunition that an individual may possess or acquire at any given time, nor any kind of rifle or pistol ammunition prohibited for individual possession. Exceptions to this article shall be destructive devices including grenades, grenade launchers, rocket and missile launchers, and pistol ammunition specifically designed to defeat the highest level of individual armor protection. The federal government may also have the ability to regulate the sale and possession of weapons specifically designed for fully automatic fire.

    Article 4: Any law abiding citizen or legal permanent resident may purchase any kind of long gun or handgun in any state or United States territory provided a proper background check can be performed.


    There, it's a nearly impenetrable wall against all forms of unreasonable gun control. It gives everyone the right to bear any kind of arms, including the dreaded "assault weapons" (which, as we know, are not), it keeps the ban on felons possessing firearms, allows background checks, and it allows governments to put some kinds of restrictions on machine guns (though it still allows for private ownership). It's free, but it has "reasonable" gun control. It's immigrant friendly, too. If a convention was called in each state, I have little doubt such an amendment would pass in at least the 38 states needed for ratification. It's getting it through Congress with 2/3 votes that would be the problem...
    "If the police have to come get you, they're bringing an @$$ kicking with them!"
    -Chris Rock

  • #2
    The Second Amendment was hotly contested when it was originally debated and passed and it remains so over 200 years later. There's no current issue with the "militia" aspect, but the liberal bastions of gun control want exactly that - control. I'm not sure you'd get that through Congress, and I think getting 2/3 of the states would be stretching it.
    NRA Life Member

    The police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence. - Sir Robert Peel

    Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats. - H. L. Mencken

    Comment


    • #3
      The entire Constitution was hotly debated and was the object of much compromise. I agree with the sarge; you are being way too optimistic in your anticipated ratification umbers.

      Comment


      • #4
        It all depends on if the states were to use their legislature or a convention to ratify an amendment. Even still, I believe that most states would vote for such an amendment, especially with the opinion really starting to swing against gun control. If done with a convention, I think most there would be a pretty good pro-ratification crowd in most states, except maybe CA, NY, NJ, CT, MA, and MD. Even some of the traditionally blue states are pro-gun (VT for example) and would mostly elect pro-gun delegates.
        "If the police have to come get you, they're bringing an @$$ kicking with them!"
        -Chris Rock

        Comment


        • #5
          Although I think that what you wrote is fantastic, there is NO WAY that even a single politician would allow the average citizen to have that much freedom, especially in this context. That text represents not a laundry list of what we can do, but a list of what the politicans *can not* do to exercise control over us.

          That being said, I'd vote for it!

          Comment


          • #6
            This would never pass.
            This show is awesome, wrapped in supercool and smothered in bitchin. The only way it could be cooler is if he was riding a unicorn or something.

            M-11

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by -Erik- View Post
              This would never pass.
              True.
              Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley
              Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. -- Albert Einstein

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by DAL View Post
                True.
                Ditto.

                Plus too, we need to be very careful allowing changes to the Constitution. God forbid, we get an energized group making a change some of us can't live with. Toying with that document can have bad results. We shouldn't be eager to convene an assembly to change it.

                It's interesting to note how it can be changed and we need to all be aware of the legal way to do it. I'll give up the floor to someone more knowledgeable to explain the legal way to do it, but according to what I understand, it could be dangerous to attempt it because it could easily not go the way the people trying it intended.
                "Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince" - Unknown Author
                ______________________________________________

                "That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves." - Thomas Jefferson
                ______________________________________________

                “There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by the sword. The other is by debt.” - John Adams

                Comment


                • #9
                  I'd be happy if the courts started enforcing the 10th Amendment.
                  Talk sense to a fool, and he will call you foolish - Euripides

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by DAL View Post
                    True.
                    This proposed amendment is just more Liberal big government taking power from the states....
                    This show is awesome, wrapped in supercool and smothered in bitchin. The only way it could be cooler is if he was riding a unicorn or something.

                    M-11

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Why is it okay to have the same rights to speech, freedom from unlawful search and seizure or not being compelled to give incriminating statements in all 50 states, but not the same rights to self-defense? It should be the same across the country.
                      NRA Life Member

                      The police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence. - Sir Robert Peel

                      Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats. - H. L. Mencken

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Sgt. Slaughter View Post
                        Why is it okay to have the same rights to speech, freedom from unlawful search and seizure or not being compelled to give incriminating statements in all 50 states, but not the same rights to self-defense? It should be the same across the country.
                        Apples to oranges.

                        Everyone, or at least everyone, should feel its ok to speak freely or to not have your privacy invaded upon by the government. Reason being that these are universal freedoms experienced and shared everyone. But not everyone is a gun activist. Some areas of this country would function just fine with more gun laws then these types of gun laws.
                        This show is awesome, wrapped in supercool and smothered in bitchin. The only way it could be cooler is if he was riding a unicorn or something.

                        M-11

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          It's not "apples to oranges". They're all Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

                          Self preservation isn't (nor should it be) dependent upon the person being a "gun activist". It's a basic, human right.
                          NRA Life Member

                          The police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence. - Sir Robert Peel

                          Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats. - H. L. Mencken

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Sgt. Slaughter View Post
                            It's not "apples to oranges". They're all Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

                            Self preservation isn't (nor should it be) dependent upon the person being a "gun activist". It's a basic, human right.
                            No one, barring legal reasons, is denied their right to own a firearm. Their are limitations placed on all freedoms and rights. Some people need to get over the 2nd. While its great and all, "arms" does not mean today what it meant 235 years ago.
                            This show is awesome, wrapped in supercool and smothered in bitchin. The only way it could be cooler is if he was riding a unicorn or something.

                            M-11

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              That's one of the most obtuse things I've read for gun control. Care to define "legal reasons"?

                              For the rest of your post, it's just inane.
                              NRA Life Member

                              The police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence. - Sir Robert Peel

                              Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats. - H. L. Mencken

                              Comment

                              What's Going On

                              Collapse

                              There are currently 7541 users online. 305 members and 7236 guests.

                              Most users ever online was 19,482 at 11:44 AM on 09-29-2011.

                              Working...
                              X