(post withdrawn by author, will be automatically deleted in 24 hours unless flagged)
No. It’s pretty clear what it means, as it’s written.
No, it is very clear to me: “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 agree that the wording makes the intent very clear. Thinking on the fly here, but maybe a Presidential/Congressional Declaration of 2A rights of every state in the union, exempting federal bldgs (or the lockers for firearms at corthouses could work), with states setting carry protocol for public K-12 school zones. I also agree that a repeal/rewrite would probably be nutted up if attempted. Another possibility may be the 3/4 majority of the states vote provided by the Constitution…
Hell no. The question is at what point is enough enough. I’ve been on my soapbox for at least the last 2 years. I have no desire to step down.
Taken from the above link:
“The right (of petition) embraces dissent, and would seem unnecessary to be expressly provided for in a republican government, since it results from the very nature and structure of its institutions. It is impossible that it could be practically denied until the spirit of liberty had wholly disappeared and the people had become so servile and debased as to be unfit to exercise any of the privileges of freemen. Deprivation of it would at once be felt by every freeman as a degradation.”
Maybe several hundred or so of us need to, with several great Constitutional Attorneys, write up demands and grievances to Congress addressing the very things our founders warned us would happen. In a nutshell, stand down against our liberties and freedoms afforded to us under the Constitution or…we will have no choice but to remind them as to ‘who’ is in power!
Perhaps the second coming of the Declaration of Independence. Many people have read the main document, but are unaware of the strongly worded list of grievances to King George III.
“Shall not be F%@#ed with…” is the only way to get the point across these days, unfortunately.
I don’t think we should touch it. Sure, the world & firearms technology has changed dramatically. But, even though I believe we are living in the last days, I don’t think it needs to updated according to societal changes. Will my grandchildren’s generation have to repeal & replace the 2nd Amendment because there are hundreds of millions of stormtrooper blasters in common use? Hyperbole I know but I say all that to say this… Don’t remove the ancient landmarks. That meme above is hilarious & I’m convinced this is not a nation of morons. We have been lulled into false security & complacency. If anything, the politicians (on both sides) have shed their duty of “public servants” & behave as if they are our overlords. They put distinction between themselves & us. Many of them are millionaires & have made “career politician” a real thing…
I’m gonna end this… No DEEP STATE talk
They do sometimes appear to think they’re working for their own gain, and many do just that, but they will do well to remember they are public servants, and work for us, not for themselves!
Never trust a politician. NEVER trust one that want’s to change our rights in the Constitution. Even if they mean well, the swamp will get involved.
Politicians have created cynics. They worked tirelessly to form mistrust.
Represent us? Few of them represent and serve as Public servants, most have taken on the public ‘Official’ title. They are not, nor were ever to officiate over us. Most of them represent only what and who (i.e., lobbyists and corporation monarchs) will keep them in office and their perceived power.
I demand they all represent the Constitution, which defaults directly to we the people. Most of them follow blindly into tyranny.
I think your on to something. If the new 2nd protected everyone that is of sound mind, non criminals, and all inclusive I think there would be a strong backing. But I am not a lawyer so I am just stating my opinion. To me though it is worth a discussion.
I like what you have written about people with disabilities and there are many of us that have them. Please take in full consideration
when we ask (Yes, I am Disabled, but active with back surgeries), when we have Amendments’ made to any of our Constitution, how
may it be written so that the Democrats’ or anyone from trying to change it to their illegal ways and corrupt it ??? You can not
use any firearms’ ! Hard work and many of the right people.
I’m sorry but the fact that you think militias are no longer relevant is laughable. We’ve suffered some public image damage due to some extreme individuals, but we are working on that. The events in Virginia have helped us significantly, and people are taking their training seriously. Whether it’s bug out prep, survival skills or all manner of firearms skills, people are coming together.
Lets leave the 2nd Amendment alone.
No. Because I would never trust the Government to keep it’s promise. I could very easily see a charismatic politician saying “We are going to need everyone to vote on repealing the Second Amendment and replacing it with modern vernacular”. We vote to repeal the 2nd and it never gets replaced.
I’m gonna take NO the another level and say NONE of them should be changed in anyway.
Instead we should go back to those roots and take responsibility for our actions and not have big government telling us what is best for us.
Take care of yourself and your neighbors, do that and this becomes a very special place to live again.
I support public education, and laws, that make it clear people are accountable for their actions and that patriotism isnt a dirty word.
I would support mandatory civil, or military, service right out of high school, or college if you go there first.
Working for what you get, even if in the form of government funded assistance, isn’t a bad idea either.
Absolutely not. The phrasing and order are complete and clear, the confusion arises when the left cherry pick the phrasing. Taking those phrases as absolutes. Such as assuming the well regulated means government oversight which it never has. Or then comes the well regulated militia excuse, which through scotus ruling is defined in Heller s Dc as an individual right. And then comes the no one needs an AR15 excuse. And I respond with what I need is none of your affair and not quantified in the 2A. Thus your approval is not required. Then comes the it’s not protected excuse. Then I bring up the caetano vs Mass where it is established as in common use thus it very much is protected. Then comes the but the courts have upheld bans, I say those bans expired for a reason, they had no effect on crime demonstrated in the statistics. It’s truly endless what they come up with. But we have valid disproval of every excuse they use to try and validate their control issues. Lately I’ve taken a rather aggressive approach. Citing article 6 of the constitution which defies any laws made to violate constitutional rights under color of law either.local, state or federal. Followed by 18 USC § 242 which quotes that any attempt to deprive a right under color of law is a crime, and punishable by up to and including the death penalty. Then it’s crickets. I’ve engaged so many that it’s very predictable anymore. Either they lose it and go all verbally insane, or they go silent.
Leave it the f&$# alone. It’s quite clear, in the sense that we all know what a catch looks like in the NFL, but some boobs can’t see the forest for the trees.
In my opinion, the antigunners are made up of equal parts those completely clueless about firearms and who owns them, and those who want to disarm us because they have far more nefarious ends in mind.
Absolutely not. For three reasons. #1, it’s crystal-clear as written: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Adding anything to that will put conditions that benefit none of us. #2, politicians today are incapable of acting on principle. They’re smarmy and untrustworthy. They don’t have a bit of our Founding Fathers’ wisdom. My final reason is one of pragmatism: getting 2/3 of both houses to agree, or 2/3 of the states, would be nearly impossible.