2nd amendement modification?

Well great idea or not the SCOTUS does need a way to take action to ensure that laws that are struck down are not being enforced despite the rulings. Chicago being a prime example of where SCOTUS seems to need some kind of physical enforcement..

Im open to other ideas but as things are it seems hardly acceptable that Chicago can endlessly add or subtract a word or two and then it takes another decade of court battles.... For rights to have meaning they need to be usable in the majority of your life.... not decades after you have turned to dust.
 
Call me simplistic, but in my mind, a well regulated militia means a militia that shoots well. So a law that impedes the use of arms, or practice of the shooting public is just wrong. It's all the little rule makers that make this place
the PITA that it can be.
 
BGutzman: I agree that it is not right for laws to be tied up for years in court before enforcement or enforced at the discretion of the executive branch of the govt. such as immigration laws that we have heard so much about in recent times. Wish I had a good answer for the problem, but I know I don't.
 
You are simplistic. That was one of the problems of the militia. As a military force, they had their shortcomings. Whether or not they could shoot straight is one thing but standing up in battle is where they came up short.
 
The problem with that is our current idiot politicians could completely rewrite the entire Constitution.
Click to expand...
Please tell us exactly how they could do that. There is no mechanism to "rewrite" the Constitution short of another Convention. Even if that were an option, you'd never get a majority of states to agree to it.

Let's stop with the hyperbole and general politics and stick with the question at hand.
 
I posted a couple of links to youtube 911 tapes of women on the 911 line as a home invasion was taking place.One was protecting her baby.Both shot and killed the invader .

I realize many folks have the good sense to not click on every link presented,no telling what you will get.

My point,these women were not included in any definition of militia,yet were in situations of gravest extreme,and and exemplify the most fundamental meaning of the Second Amendment.I am in my home and some SOB broke in to do me or my child harm.I had a shotgun,I used it.I am alive,they are dead.

This drivel about militia is irrelevant.Those who advocate corrupting the Liberty to Keep and Bear Arms also are advocating these women and others like them be defenseless.

Whether or not they had training to meet some bureacrats expectation and get their ticket punched,they were armed when seconds count and the police were minutes away.They knew,one way or another,to call 911 and excersize appropriate restraint,yet acted when the situation became grave.

With red tape infringement,likely we would have three victims and perhaps a couple more murder/rapers walking the streets.

Our Bill of Rights is about limiting government and preserving individual liberty.

Wrong decisions by SCOTUS and other corruptions aside,the purpose of the Bill of Rights is preservation of INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY.

Its not about "for the greater good" its not about "the collective justice"

I hope you all will remember that.
 
But I'm missing the part of where the milita was edited out and now includes everyone. I dont have a problem with people carrying as long as they are qualified, tested, and checked.. But how are people determining they have the right?
Click to expand...
Are you from New Jersey or California or just a life long liberal Democrat? The second amendment does NOT need changing, editing or reinterpreting.
 
"Well great idea or not the SCOTUS does need a way to take action to ensure that laws that are struck down are not being enforced despite the rulings. Chicago being a prime example of where SCOTUS seems to need some kind of physical enforcement.."

That would entail a police force for the SCOTUS. Once SCOTUS has ruled, they are done with it until another case is presented to them and accepted for adjudication. The proper way to enforce a SCOTUS decision is to file civil suit against the offending agency. That is what groups like the NRA do and they seem to do a darn good job.

There are slips, but overall the civil suit route is usually successful as not many judges will scoff at SCOTUS.
 
I have yet to see a cogent argument that can convince me the Second Amendment is about the military having the right to have weapons.
 
Qtiphky said:
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.
Click to expand...
I sort of disagree with what I think your premise is here. Certainly the Founders could not have envisioned the specifics of much of what we encounter today. Things like telephones (wiretaps), computers (search warrant to download your hard drive), cell phones (does a cop need a warrant to look at your cal registry?) and a lot of other technology were clearly not on the radar. But ... there is really nothing in the Bill or Rights that's technology-dependent. The fundamental concept of the Constitution was to place limits on the power of the Federal government. The Federal government was not supposed to do anything not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. And the Bill of Rights was not intended to be an exhaustive list of the rights of the People. It was a list of the most important rights, but by enumerating those rights the Founders certainly did NOT intend to cancel all other fundamental human/civil rights.

And for that reason I think the Constitution as amended by the Bill of Rights does what it intended to do very well. The problem isn't the Constitution; the problem is judges who can't read, and judges who deliver creative/expansionist rulings in order to further their personal agendas.

Case in point: Marijuana. The Constitution assigns to the Federal government the task/role of regulating interstate commerce. Fine -- that's all well and good. But it took a VERY tortured application of the interstate commerce clause for the Supreme Court to rule that marijuana grown in a state, sold in the same state, and consumed in that same state was nonetheless in INTERSTATE commerce because by NOT importing marijuana from out of state, the growers and vendors in that state AFFECTED interstate commerce by NOT engaging in it.

Huh? :confused:

And that's the problem. The Founders never envisioned a government and a judiciary that is so corrupt and so morally and intellectually bankrupt that such a ruling could ever be handed down.
 
Why couldn't they? There were already state governments and some might suggest that state governments are more corrupt than the federal government ever would be. I also question any suggestion of moral bankruptcy without further description of what is meant.

The military isn't mentioned in the 2nd amendment; the militia is, which were state troops. Remember also that militias had existed long before there was a national government. Remember too, there was a national government before there was the constitution.
 
Aguila, that is exactly what I was getting at. The founding fathers couldn't have foreseen all of the technology etc. . . therefore they couldn't get specific with their wording. Everything you said is what I was getting at. Obviously you said it much better and more detailed, but I am on the same page. It was written to protect individual freedoms from the oppression of government. That's what they fought for.

The problem is that with using such vague wording, interpretations can change over time and intentionally or not, enforcement is then changed.
 
Qtiphky: It's good they were not more specific because then instead of "arms" they have said "muskets" or "swords" etc. Then we'd be stuck with using muskets. As a matter of fact, I have heard anti's argue that we only have right to muskets, etc as it is.
 
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

Sec. 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...

Where does it leave us old geezers like me being 60?
Tain't between the age of 17 & 45
 
Most cities/towns/counties in Florida willfully violated FS790.033 since it's approval in 1987.
Now Florida is headed in the right direction and in 2011 the Legislature passed HB45 that imposes fines on counties and municipalities that do not adhere to FS790.033 and that do not repeal local gun laws that conflict and to stop enforcing their own firearms and ammunition ordinances by Oct. 1 2011. Mayors and council and commission members will risk a $5,000 fine and removal from office if they “knowingly and willfully violate” the law. Towns that enforce their ordinances that conflict with FS790.033 risk a $100,000 fine.

Florida also passed the "Castle Law" (FS776.013) that expanded our rights of self protection.
 
BlueTrain said:
The military isn't mentioned in the 2nd amendment; the militia is, which were state troops. Remember also that militias had existed long before there was a national government. Remember too, there was a national government before there was the constitution.
Click to expand...
The military isn't mentioned because there wasn't one. The Founders were adamantly opposed to the concept of a Federal, standing army.

And the colonial militias were not "state troops." They were local, regional groups.
 
No, the colonial militias were state troops, there being no regional governments. Whatever the founders thought of a regular army, they only managed without one for less than ten years.
 
No, the colonial militias were state troops, there being no regional governments. Whatever the founders thought of a regular army, they only managed without one for less than ten years.
Click to expand...

Actually you both are correct. They were regional troops within the state. Most militia units were men banded together from the same county, towns, group of towns, etc. That is part of the reason why there is not just one state militia from each state.

For example, men of SW Virginia did not serve in the same units as NE Virginians. (I'm using Virginia as a state, not a specific example). But men from both regions were still part of the Virginia militia.



And another argument when someone mentions that militia meant the U.S. military. Explain to them that the Constitution says the Federal Government must create an Army and Navy. It says nothing about Federal Militias. Hence, the 2nd amend. is not oriented at military personnel because they would be a different entity. or something like that
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top