Proposed Revision of the 2nd Amendment

M

Munro Williams

New member
The Virtual Church of the Blind Chihuahua is a very interesting place. DOGPAC is their political paw.
They have recently started discussing guns. The head honcho there is a physicist who used to make nuclear weapons. His proposed revision of the 2nd is well intentioned and well thought out. I have a mild disagreement with it, but nothing major.
http://www.dogchurch.com

Go to the "Community" section, click on Forums, and then click on DOGPAC discussions.

Enjoy!

[This message has been edited by Munro Williams (edited April 28, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Munro Williams (edited April 28, 2000).]
 
Here's what it says...

An Amendment to the Constitution
Concerning the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Whereas it is now possible for an individual or a group of individuals to acquire or manufacture weapons of mass destruction capable of killing tens to hundreds of thousands of people, a possibility not foreseen by the writers of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, and

Whereas the Right of Revolution implicit in the Right to Bear Arms is abnegated by the use of weapons of mass destruction in such revolution, and the continued existence of the human species demands that any use of weapons of mass destruction be viewed as criminal and abhorrent, and

Whereas in the present time volunteer militias raised by the States are not necessary to the maintenance of a free State, and

Whereas in the present time it remains an unfortunate necessity for many people to retain the ability to defend their persons and property by force, and

Whereas it is desirable that law enforcement agencies and the People choose whenever possible to defend themselves by non-lethal means,

The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed and replaced as follows:

The possibilites of armed resistance to tyranny and to criminal assault being necessary for the maintenance of a free society, the Right of the People to keep and bear arms equivalent in kind to those employed by patrol officers of Federal and State law enforcement agencies shall not be infringed. The States may require registration of arms and licensing of arms owners and bearers as the People deem appropriate. Weapons legally owned shall not be subject to siezure unless the owner is credibly suspected of having used weapons to commit crime, or of knowingly supplying weapons to individuals or organizations for the purposes of crime.

... I have a few quibbles with it. I think the 2nd amendment should be replaced with "The people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be F****ed with"




------------------
Formerly Puddle Pirate.
Teach a kid to shoot.
It annoys the antis.
 
Very strange indeed, I think I have found my people ...

;) While they may be cynical in presenting their opinion, I hate to say it, but I agree.

Thanks for the link.
 
1) DOGPAC may have good intentions but,

1a) “... employed by patrol officers of Federal and State law enforcement agencies
shall not be infringed” could be a loophole. Someone like Clinton could just say BATF is not “really” law enforcement. Just say, “any agent of domestic government or their agencies” (or something similar).

1b) “... unless the owner is credibly suspected of having used weapons to commit
crime...” leaves the government to declare virtually anything is a crime. Wham!
You’re had. Remember, you’re dealing with a government who confuses the word
“is”!

2) If we start changing Amendments, I’m afraid it would start a landslide of
changes to the entire Bill of Rights. Let’s not get Joe Public used to THAT idea!
Unless of course you trust the government to “do the right thing”.
(BWAAAHAAHAAA! :D :D)

3) Too much wording leaves loopholes and points to argue. If a change is to be
made, I like Eric’s personal version best of all, "The people's right to keep and bear
arms shall not be F****ed with". Okay, okay. So we might have to work on
the wording a teeny bit to get the backing of the Soccer Moms. :D :D

------------------
Either you believe in the Second Amendment or you don't.
Stick it to 'em! RKBA!
 
Cool trick.

Your horror at the thought of a nuclear bomb as a weapon capable of mass killing will also be used against semis (also capable of "mass killing").

I agree that the founders could not have imagined the weapons available today. They could not IMAGINE the weapons that a government could use to enslave and intimidate and control the people.

Here, the authors of the site used your fear to think that nukes should be banned. Thing is, nukes are not going away, when you "ban" weapons you say "only our govt. and whoever else should have them" which goes against individual rights.

Just as building a prohibited weapon is a victimless crime, this includes building AND DETONATING (under ground that you own) a nuke.

Do you fear gang-bangers building nukes and doing drive-by nukings?

You may call a "nuke" a bomb or ordnance to try to weasel out of believing that the second, that you hold so dear, covers it.

Has not the war on drugs and the war on guns taught you the dangers of the government being able to throw out all stops in the name of confiscation of a substance/item (and the impact upon the 4th amendment as well)? Or the assault on the first amendment that ensued, trying to prohibit "how to" manuals on how to manufacture "illegal items".

Think about that, you're not allowed to build it, so why should you be allowed to read about how to build it?


Just what is the bill of rights? Just what is an individual right, what is freedom? Your belief in freedom is not tested in things you happen to like, your belief in the first amendment is not tested by watching "the cooking show". It is tested by that which you fear.


Battler.
 
I'll play the 'game' for a minute...

I do not agree to be restricted to law enforcement agency levels of equipment. I and not a law enforcement officer.

I do not agree to be registered to own or licensed for anything unless it is issued to me by the government, state or federal.

Change the language so that I am guaranteed:

"As a member of the unorganized militia, for the good of both common and personal defense, individuals may purchase, own, transfer, and bear, concealed and unconcealed, any weapons, accessories and ammunition which are equivalent to or exceed in capability and capacity the current individual weapons emploeyd by the most advanced units of the state and/or national armed forces. Individuals may also act in concert with other members to purchase, own, transfer and use weapons of a small unit nature as are standard to these armed forces, to help in safeguarding against all enemies of liberty, foreign and domestic, as well as tyrannical government."

"Individuals shall retain these rights unless they have intentionally conspired to act or have acted in a manner which is contrary to the purpose stated in the above article. This is to be determined before a judge and jury who morally and lawfully abide by the original intent of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, thereby acknowledging the God given and/or natural rights of all men and women."

How's that for a pipe dream ;)?

Chris..
 
I so don't agree with their proposed review, although the intentions are, no doubt, noble.

The most macroscopic flaw is with licensing.

A God-given right is either God-given or it isn't.

The word "licensing" or "license" comes from the Latin "licet", meaning "it may be done". If it's a God-given right, we already know that "it may be done" - we don't need a further confirmation by an individual, agency or, worse yet, bureaucracy. May issue Vs Shall issue, anyone?

For anybody to delegate the granting of a supposedly God-given right to an individual, organization or Government is an invitation to, one day, hear "non licet".

The 20th Century has given history the most difinite sample of Government-sponsored atrocities which all started from some kind of "non licet" or another.

The second principle I do not agree with is with the "credibly suspected" business. This is another invitation to disaster. So, if I am "credibly suspected" of having strangled an old lady, although no jury has convicted me of doing so, am I deprived of my God-given right?

I am one of those "radicals" who thinks that unless you are in jail, you should be enjoying all the rights of a free person, including (nay, first of which) the right to keep and bear arms.

Good pipe-dream, as someone said, but I still think that the Founders knew what they were doing when they wrote the 2nd Amendment.

Unfortunately, the only thing they could not predict was the American people becoming as passive, wimpish, and happily ignorant of history and civics as they are in this time: in other words, the problem does not lay with the wording of the 2nd Amendment - it lays with the sheepishness of a People that has allowed the Government to brazenly distort not only it, but the whole Constitution.

[This message has been edited by 416Rigby (edited April 28, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by 416Rigby (edited April 28, 2000).]
 
There needs to be something which prevents anyone from charging us "fees" to practice our God-Given RIGHTS. Our legal system until recently was based on the idea that you can not prosecute someone until a crime was committed or had a reasonable basis to believe HAD been committed. Now we've jumped on the slippery slope of trying to take action before a crime is commited - take guns away from a person before he uses them in a crime. Now the problem is - who decides? I put my vote for the Justice department, or maybe by executive orders. Dianne Feistein says she wants them all. I trust Al Gore to decide if he believes you might use a gun in a crime - too bad there go your guns. I guess then there would be no crime.
 
The Bill of Rights is a "Bill of Rights," not a "Statement of Government Granted Privileges."

Any time a Right is taxed, licensed, permitted, registered, or restricted, then it is no longer a Right, but just a revisable privilege to be given or taken by Big Brother and Big Nanny, at their whim.

I'll stick with the very simple meaning of the Second Article, as written.
No matter how the communistnazis have re-re-re-re-interpreted it. J.B.


[This message has been edited by Jay Baker (edited April 28, 2000).]
 
You folks sound like a bunch of stiff-necked libertarians (Hold it! Note the SMALL "l"! :D :D)

------------------
Either you believe in the Second Amendment or you don't.
Stick it to 'em! RKBA!
 
The writtings of this cult doesn't deserve this much scrutiny. This thread is a waste of server space. Shok
 
They can change the wording of, or even entirely repeal, the Second Amendment tomorrow and it wouldn't change my right to keep and bear arms one whit, any more than repealing the first would remove my right to free speech, assembly or practice of religion. It would merely change my stance from passive resister to one who was actively asserting her second amendment rights (and all that they imply).

------------------
"..but never ever Fear. Fear is for the enemy. Fear and Bullets."
10mm: It's not the size of the Dawg in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog!
 
Post 'em a line, tell 'em what you think. The honcho's a conservative, but the place is infested with liberals.

[This message has been edited by Munro Williams (edited April 30, 2000).]
 
The States may require registration of arms and licensing of arms owners and bearers as the People deem appropriate.

To what end? That only makes a list of people and arms that are highly unlikely to be a problem. That's not a particularly useful list.

Reminds me of the old saw about the drunk looking for a quarter he dropped at night. Searching dilligently around the base of the streetlight for the quarter, a cop stopped, observed, and asked what the drunk was doing.
"Looking for my quarter."
"Where did you lose it?"
"Over in that dark alley."
"Then why are you looking for it over here?"
"There's more light here."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top