[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Re-write the 2nd Amendment. (Page 1 of 3)
Posted: 8/27/2010 1:17:07 PM EDT
|
The year is 2020. After much debate as to the wisdom of holding a Constitutional convention for the purposes of rewriting the 2nd Amendment, the party currently in power decides such action is necessary to help prevent future restrictions and solidify the original intent of the 2nd Amendment.
You are the head of the Congressional committee proposing the new Amendment to the United States Constitution. You have heard arguments from your peers on what the Amendment should and should not contain. Now it's up to you to write it. Your proposal, should it be ratified, will become the 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which will supersede the 2nd Amendment which has been in effect for over 200 years. Don't screw it up. Good luck! Originally Posted By The Founding Fathers:
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. |
|
Quoted:
Originally Posted By The Founding Fathers:
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. I think that about sums it up. If your looking for something that evil men cannot corrupt, it does not exist. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Originally Posted By The Founding Fathers:
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. I think that about sums it up. If your looking for something that evil men cannot corrupt, it does not exist. This one has worked well at the state level... although most of that is probably from our SC judges not being NEARLY as creative as the ones in DC. Pennsylvania: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. Art. 1, § 21 (enacted 1790, art. IX, § 21).
|
|
Originally Posted By The Founding Fathers:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear any and all Arms, shall not be infringed. This is all that I would change. The government has no right to have things that the people does not. |
|
IMHO, the Indiana State Constitution says it best. Article 1, Section 32: The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State. For an amendment to the US Constitution, I'd write it as: The people shall have the right to keep and bear arms. |
| 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. Additionally any suit or law applying to guns shall apply to police agencies for 2 years before it can be applied to citizens. If significant exceptions are made for the police, the law shall be considered unconstitutional. Any court lawsuit seeking to uphold or tear down a ban or restriction on firearms shall translate all firearm related terms into the closest possible equivalent term for books, and those must be used at all times. (EX: an "AK-47" must be referred to as "Mein Kampf", "The Little Red Book" or similar, while the terms "fully automatic" or "assault weapon" must be replaced with "automated printing press" or "Xerox Docucenter") Any violation of this will result in a retrial at full government expense, or a removal of the restriction/ban/etc. |
|
The right to possession of Weapons any and all types shall be granted to the PEOPLE, lawful US citizens, and cannot be modified, changed, usurped or challenged by any International, Federal, State and Local governments and Judicial entities including citizen organizations and NGO's.
|
|
Quoted:
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. Additionally any suit or law applying to guns shall apply to police agencies for 2 years before it can be applied to citizens. If significant exceptions are made for the police, the law shall be considered unconstitutional. Any court lawsuit seeking to uphold or tear down a ban or restriction on firearms shall translate all firearm related terms into the closest possible equivalent term for books, and those must be used at all times. (EX: an "AK-47" must be referred to as "Mein Kampf", "The Little Red Book" or similar, while the terms "fully automatic" or "assault weapon" must be replaced with "automated printing press" or "Xerox Docucenter") Any violation of this will result in a retrial at full government expense, or a removal of the restriction/ban/etc. Kangaroo court! 
If they set a precedent of doing dumb shit like this, the whole legal system in the United States would crumble. |
|
Quoted: The year is 2020. After much debate as to the wisdom of holding a Constitutional convention for the purposes of rewriting the 2nd Amendment, the party currently in power decides such action is necessary to help prevent future restrictions and solidify the original intent of the 2nd Amendment. You are the head of the Congressional committee proposing the new Amendment to the United States Constitution. You have heard arguments from your peers on what the Amendment should and should not contain. Now it's up to you to write it. Your proposal, should it be ratified, will become the 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which will supersede the 2nd Amendment which has been in effect for over 200 years. Don't screw it up. Good luck! Originally Posted By The Founding Fathers: 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. 'The right of the people to keep and bear weapons which are capable of being carried by a single person without mechanical assistance and operated by the same single person - and all activities reasonably connected to the same - shall not be significantly impaired by any act of Congress, Regulation, or by any Act of any state or political subdivision thereof, except that this Amendment shall not be seen to present a right to keep or bear any nuclear, biolotical, or lethal/disfiguring-chemical weapon, nor any sort of guided missile, nor shall it apply to person who's civil rights have been forfeit by conviction of a felony or equivalent infamous crime. |
|
Quoted: If the Government can own it, so can the Citizens. No ifs ands or buts. If you don't like it, go fuck yourself. No. Absolutely not. Nuclear weapons have no place in private hands. While I don't see anything wrong with PERMITTING private ownership of any other conventional weapons (as we do now), the 2A protection should only apply to individual small arms. |
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. And if you can't figure out that "shall not be infringed" means you can't make any anti-gun laws, then go fuck yourself and die.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
If the Government can own it, so can the Citizens. No ifs ands or buts. If you don't like it, go fuck yourself. No. Absolutely not. Nuclear weapons have no place in private hands. This, Dave, is a prime example of why people make fun of you... You take shit too seriously and/or don't commit to common sense. I highly doubt he was thinking about nuclear fucking warheads. 
|
|
Quoted: 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. And if you can't figure out that "shall not be infringed" means you can't make any anti-gun laws, then go fuck yourself and die. Shall not be infringed is not as airtight as you wish it were... It allows plenty of room for 'non-infringing regulation' - essentially, translating 'significant impairment' in modern terms... If you are not very, very specific, there's wiggle room. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
The year is 2020. After much debate as to the wisdom of holding a Constitutional convention for the purposes of rewriting the 2nd Amendment, the party currently in power decides such action is necessary to help prevent future restrictions and solidify the original intent of the 2nd Amendment. You are the head of the Congressional committee proposing the new Amendment to the United States Constitution. You have heard arguments from your peers on what the Amendment should and should not contain. Now it's up to you to write it. Your proposal, should it be ratified, will become the 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which will supersede the 2nd Amendment which has been in effect for over 200 years. Don't screw it up. Good luck! Originally Posted By The Founding Fathers:
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. 'The right of the people to keep and bear weapons which are capable of being carried by a single person without mechanical assistance and operated by the same single person - and all activities reasonably connected to the same - shall not be significantly impaired by any act of Congress, Regulation, or by any Act of any state or political subdivision thereof, except that this Amendment shall not be seen to present a right to keep or bear any nuclear, biolotical, or lethal/disfiguring-chemical weapon, nor any sort of guided missile, nor shall it apply to person who's civil rights have been forfeit by conviction of a felony or equivalent infamous crime. You fail again, if Joe Schmuck wants a tank, Joe Schmuck should be able to have a tank. I might draw the line at nukes, but thats about it. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
If the Government can own it, so can the Citizens. No ifs ands or buts. If you don't like it, go fuck yourself. No. Absolutely not. Nuclear weapons have no place in private hands. While I don't see anything wrong with PERMITTING private ownership of any other conventional weapons (as we do now), the 2A protection should only apply to individual small arms. I would call nuclear weapons a completely different category. 
|
|
The right of the people to own, use, transport, manufacture, buy and sell weapons and ammunition shall not be infringed, diminished, regulated, taxed or prevented. Any person enjoying the exercise of any other right shall not be prevented the exercise of this right. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If the Government can own it, so can the Citizens. No ifs ands or buts. If you don't like it, go fuck yourself. No. Absolutely not. Nuclear weapons have no place in private hands. This, Dave, is a prime example of why people make fun of you... You take shit too seriously and/or don't commit to common sense. I highly doubt he was thinking about nuclear fucking warheads. Who the fuck in this country could actually afford a nuclear warhead? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. And if you can't figure out that "shall not be infringed" means you can't make any anti-gun laws, then go fuck yourself and die.
Shall not be infringed is not as airtight as you wish it were... It allows plenty of room for 'non-infringing regulation' - essentially, translating 'significant impairment' in modern terms... If you are not very, very specific, there's wiggle room. Geez, you a robot or something? Pointy ears? Get confused with Spock every now and then? It was a joke, lighten up ok? 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. Additionally any suit or law applying to guns shall apply to police agencies for 2 years before it can be applied to citizens. If significant exceptions are made for the police, the law shall be considered unconstitutional. Any court lawsuit seeking to uphold or tear down a ban or restriction on firearms shall translate all firearm related terms into the closest possible equivalent term for books, and those must be used at all times. (EX: an "AK-47" must be referred to as "Mein Kampf", "The Little Red Book" or similar, while the terms "fully automatic" or "assault weapon" must be replaced with "automated printing press" or "Xerox Docucenter") Any violation of this will result in a retrial at full government expense, or a removal of the restriction/ban/etc. Kangaroo court!
If they set a precedent of doing dumb shit like this, the whole legal system in the United States would crumble. Bit late for that. ETA: Protip, dave, we are aware that you think it's just peachy for the Federal nitwits to pretend up is down, and down is up. This does not make up down, nor does it make down up. |
|
The interstate commerce clause and the general welfare clause both being operative clauses hereby allow the federal government power to ban all firearms, ammunition, sharp pointed knives and any screwdrivers with a shank longer than 1/2 inch. 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
How's that for today's interpretation? We all know the US Constitution is a living document. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The year is 2020. After much debate as to the wisdom of holding a Constitutional convention for the purposes of rewriting the 2nd Amendment, the party currently in power decides such action is necessary to help prevent future restrictions and solidify the original intent of the 2nd Amendment. You are the head of the Congressional committee proposing the new Amendment to the United States Constitution. You have heard arguments from your peers on what the Amendment should and should not contain. Now it's up to you to write it. Your proposal, should it be ratified, will become the 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which will supersede the 2nd Amendment which has been in effect for over 200 years. Don't screw it up. Good luck! Originally Posted By The Founding Fathers: 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. 'The right of the people to keep and bear weapons which are capable of being carried by a single person without mechanical assistance and operated by the same single person - and all activities reasonably connected to the same - shall not be significantly impaired by any act of Congress, Regulation, or by any Act of any state or political subdivision thereof, except that this Amendment shall not be seen to present a right to keep or bear any nuclear, biolotical, or lethal/disfiguring-chemical weapon, nor any sort of guided missile, nor shall it apply to person who's civil rights have been forfeit by conviction of a felony or equivalent infamous crime. You fail again, if Joe Schmuck wants a tank, Joe Schmuck should be able to have a tank. I might draw the line at nukes, but thats about it. You fail at understanding the difference between 'protected' and 'permitted'. If Joe Schmoe wants a tank - AND he has a place to store it where it is not in violation of code, where he can operate it without damage to public roads, and so on, he is presently permitted to have a tank... And there's nothing wrong with that... However, Joe does NOT have the *right* to own a tank, merely the privledge - an issue that comes into play when you have to tell him that NO, he cannot drive it down city streets, he cannot park it in front of his suburban house, nor can he store HEAT rounds in his basement, and that yes, running an un-muffled tank engine (esp a turbine) in town is a noise violation... The standard of protection for individual weapons that don't fire explosive ordnance should be extremely strict... Other things require allowing regulation - regulation that is NOT acceptable for small arms. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The year is 2020. After much debate as to the wisdom of holding a Constitutional convention for the purposes of rewriting the 2nd Amendment, the party currently in power decides such action is necessary to help prevent future restrictions and solidify the original intent of the 2nd Amendment. You are the head of the Congressional committee proposing the new Amendment to the United States Constitution. You have heard arguments from your peers on what the Amendment should and should not contain. Now it's up to you to write it. Your proposal, should it be ratified, will become the 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which will supersede the 2nd Amendment which has been in effect for over 200 years. Don't screw it up. Good luck! Originally Posted By The Founding Fathers:
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. 'The right of the people to keep and bear weapons which are capable of being carried by a single person without mechanical assistance and operated by the same single person - and all activities reasonably connected to the same - shall not be significantly impaired by any act of Congress, Regulation, or by any Act of any state or political subdivision thereof, except that this Amendment shall not be seen to present a right to keep or bear any nuclear, biolotical, or lethal/disfiguring-chemical weapon, nor any sort of guided missile, nor shall it apply to person who's civil rights have been forfeit by conviction of a felony or equivalent infamous crime. You fail again, if Joe Schmuck wants a tank, Joe Schmuck should be able to have a tank. I might draw the line at nukes, but thats about it. You fail at understanding the difference between 'protected' and 'permitted'. If Joe Schmoe wants a tank - AND he has a place to store it where it is not in violation of code, where he can operate it without damage to public roads, and so on, he is presently permitted to have a tank... And there's nothing wrong with that... However, Joe does NOT have the *right* to own a tank, merely the privledge - an issue that comes into play when you have to tell him that NO, he cannot drive it down city streets, he cannot park it in front of his suburban house, nor can he store HEAT rounds in his basement, and that yes, running an un-muffled tank engine in town is a noise violation... No, I don't. sans nukes, it should all be 'permitted' and 'protected', but unlike you, I don't believe the government is the "be all, end all", the people are. ETA: to address your ETA. I beleive he does, and does not need the .gov "Permission" for a tank any more the he needs it for a can, an SBR, a MG aCWP or any thing else the government thinks we need to beg them for. |
|
2) 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.
2A This is an individual right to own military and police grade small arms. 2B Any person, regardless of their office, who supports laws contrary to the Second Amendment shall be stripped of all rights and protections under the Constitution, and the law including, but not limited to, the right to life, liberty, and property. Any citizen finding them within the borders of the United States may, beat, shoot, stab, torture, maim, fold, spindle mutilate, enslave, sodomize, rape, rob, pillage, burn or otherwise harass the offender at will and on sight. No court or government official may act to defend such an offender from his just punishment. Any who do so, knowing that the offender is in fact a Second Amendment violator, shall also suffer the sanctions of this section. |
|
Originally Posted By The Founding Fathers:
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....ever...in any shape,form, or manner....ever. Wanna go to the range after work? |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If the Government can own it, so can the Citizens. No ifs ands or buts. If you don't like it, go fuck yourself. No. Absolutely not. Nuclear weapons have no place in private hands. This, Dave, is a prime example of why people make fun of you... You take shit too seriously and/or don't commit to common sense. I highly doubt he was thinking about nuclear fucking warheads. Who the fuck in this country could actually afford a nuclear warhead? A nuclear armed Microsoft would certainly have made the anti-trust hearings more interesting. |