2nd amendement modification?

Except for somewhere along the way it was deemed necessary to write a Constitutional Ammendment to give women the right to vote.
 
I don't feel particulary controlled in my daily life.
Click to expand...

That’s because you have come to accept the laws and regulations as being normal.. I won’t go off into the weeds but few aspects of your life do not have some legislation covering them even if it isn’t actively enforced or isn’t at this time being actively enforced against you individually.

3,000,000 people a year hurt in auto accidents and yet no one’s hollering for car control and outlawing of cars and yet vehicles have no constitutional standing... Maybe felons shouldn’t be able to drive cars either.

Under the Patriot Act you can be subject to wiretaps without judicial order and lets not forget the National Security letters, you cant even see a lawyer without violating the law, nor complain to anyone else...

My point isnt to put on the tin hat or even debate these items, far be it.... My point known to you or unknown to you lots of laws are effecting you in negative ways everyday... Can you even go and buy milk direct from the farmer? not so much anymore... Its not that all laws are bad but we as a nation have driven over some cliff...

Certainly government is bigger and more powerful than ever intended, maybe its time to add some new amendments to the bill of rights and create safeguards against the tidal waves of new law passing.... Its all up to us with our votes...
 
Last edited:
Well, actually there has been a lot of legislation concerning the safety of cars, you know. It is a pity the constitution failed to address cars.

The problem, of course, it people. There are a lot of them and most have little self control. But read the Bible if you want some old rules. Perhaps you could begin by listing specific laws you would like eliminated.
 
Ill throw this in for you, according to the militia act of 1903, which to my understanding is still on the books and legal. Every able bodied male age 17 on up is militia whether he signs up or not. This is my understanding of it as it sits now, please correct me if im wrong.
 
Crankgrinder said:
Ill throw this in for you, according to the militia act of 1903, which to my understanding is still on the books and legal. Every able bodied male age 17 on up is militia whether he signs up or not. This is my understanding of it as it sits now, please correct me if im wrong.
Click to expand...
You're close, but not correct. The Milita Act is still on the books. The definition of who is in the militia is at 10 USC 311:

10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Click to expand...
 
It bothers me a little to think that most of us are probably too old. At least it bothers me to know that I'm too old.

I was once a member of a military unit that was descended from a militia unit that fought (badly) in the War of 1812 at the Battle of Bladensburg. After that the White House was burned.
 
I believe, that while there have been many arguments going in all kinds of directions, that the most simple and straight forward answers are often the best and most accurate. When they wrote the Constitution they couldn't have envisioned very many of the things that have happened within our Federal Government and the restrictions that they have placed on our every day lives. Won't go into them as they have mostly been covered.

Republican/Democrat/Tea Party/Libertarian - doesn't matter, the Federal Government has way overstepped their bounds because "We the People" have allowed it too! The 2A was designed to allow the people to protect themselves FROM the governement! When it got too radical and the elected officials stopped listening to "We the People", it was time to change the people representing us. Nowadays we do it in a "civilized" manner through elections, but back in those days, maybe not so much. They gave "We the People" the power to use whatever means necessary to take control of the government back, to the people. That is the part that our elected officials have forgotten, they are there for "all the people" and not themselves or their special interest groups!
 
Firstly, the 2nd ammendment does not need any modification. People need enough education to understand what words mean without having a judge or lawyer "translate" it for them. Secondly, any "modification" of the Bill of Rights will require a Constitutional Convention to be convened. The problem with that is our current idiot politicians could completely rewrite the entire Constitution. If that doesn't scare the crap out of you then I don't know what to tell you. The Bill Of Rights are just fine as written. Interpretation is our problem today. I am personally sick and tired of the Justice Dept. telling us what the Founding Fathers "meant" when they wrote it. It's written in plain English.
 
I disagree that we can leave the Bill of Rights as is and still have our rights preserved. Why?


  1. The SCOTUS on takes a handful of cases a year and infringements of all kinds of rights are passed in very many bills yearly.
  2. Until the SCOTUS can find a way to handle more cases or we define an absolute limitation on the size and power of bills that can be passed no amount of rulings is ever going to catch up.
  3. To my mind someone who is much better at words than I am needs to formulate an amendment that prohibits the re-instatement of laws with one or two word changes that cause the entire case to have to be fought through court over and over again... -see Chicago, California etc..
  4. States and mayors seek to defy rulings and law and they feel they can tell you what your rights are at will with no repercussions... unless we place some number of the military under SCOTUS control there is no way to enforce any ruling if our politicans choose to ignore it.
  5. The number of laws on the books is so vast that no one can know them all and that alone is a threat to freedom...
  6. Presidental imperial decree known as executive order could be used at any point to create a variety of gun rights problems... I believe this should be unconstitutional, laws need to be passed by congress, not the president. Its just a symantics game as is...
 
Last edited:
So you are suggesting that some of the military are under the control of the executive branch of the govt. and some are under the control of the judicial branch? What happens when they go head to head? Civil war. The SCOTUS is appointed for life. Basically as an Emperor or King to call the shots of all our lives. Not a good idea if you ask me. As it is now we can oust the politicians with our votes if used correctly. SCOTUS is in for life (as are many criminals haha). This is why your vote for President is more important than many people realize. The President appoints Supreme court justices for life so they are in power far longer than the prez that appointed them.

I believe executive orders should be more limited than they obviously are, because as we see they can be abused.
 
Silly me! I thought the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to protect the United States (the security of the free state).
 
__________________
What happened to: "We, the People are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts — not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution.’’
— Abraham Lincoln
 
BlueTrain said:
Silly me! I thought the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to protect the United States (the security of the free state).
Click to expand...

That's because you insist on seeing the prefatory clause as the singular meaning, a view which is not and has never been the majority opinion of the writers, ratifiers, courts or majority of Americans.
 
I often wonder what is to be gained by limiting citizen's access to firearms. Often the idea of public safety comes up based on the actions of people who seek to engage in criminal or harmful activity. But in the end, these ideals are fruitless as those targeted are the least likely to adhere to these ideals. And so we end up removing the rights of the masses to address the actions of the few, which I believe is really the true intent.
 
One of my most basic ideas is "If you ain't doin' somethin' wrong then you don't need to worry about me and my gun." This is why I am suspicious of anyone advocating gun control laws.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top