The Second Amendment doesn't matter.

M

mineralman

New member
Ok, the what the Second Amendment really means, people or military, etc. is irrelevant. Why is it irrelevant? Because the Constitution is not set in stone. It is a fluid thing, evolving, changing, and growing. For example: how old do you have to be to vote? The Founding Fathers said 21. But, everyone knows that you only have to be eighteen to vote, because some people decided that the Law of the Land should be changed. In the Constitution itself, it provides a way to do that. Therefore, the meaning of the Second Amendment can be changed as well. So, the arguments for guns because the Second Amendment says that we can have them are really moot. What we should be arguing is the facts of why with the freedoms of all people guarantee our natural right to own weapons. In fact, if we were to get rid of the rigid, angry attitude of "If you try and take my gun, it'll be over my dead body," and adopt a more reasonable, logical and teaching way of convincing other people of these rights, then we could get a new amendment to the Constitution that would read something like this:

The people, consisting of the body of resposible, adult citizens who are of sound mind have the inalienable right to ownership of weapons for the purposes of self defense, the defense of this Nation, and sport. This right applies equally to all citizens in good legal standing, regardless of place of residence. No branch of Government, Federal or State, shall infringe upon these rights.



That would settle it much more thoroughly than a few ancient and reaching court decisions coupled with the unclear wording of the existing Second Amendment. But the militaristic and rabid attitude that is so often expressed isn't the way to accomplish it.

~~~Mineralman
 
I think that's wonderful wording. The problem is that it's an expression of the position you want the rest of us to stop being so grim and uncompromising about. IOW, I don't think the antis will accept it as a compromise if we offer to change the wording of the 2nd Amendment to explicitly say exactly what we think it means, as opposed to what they think it means.
(I hope that makes more sense than it sounds like, 'cause it sounds pretty twisty as I type it. )
 
The thing is, that the wording really isn't the problem. It's the aggressive, abrasive nature of some of the more vocal elements of the pro-gun movements. It's the "Sure Mr. Federal Gungrabber, you can have my gun, as soon as I unload it into you," attitude that makes anti's more convinced than before they talked to these poeple that all gun fans are in fact "gun nuts," as well as paranoid homicidal psychopaths, and that we should not be allowed to have guns. Espescially the rednecks and others that call in to say, Larry King when Sarah Brady is on, and threaten to kill her. She basically says "See! I'm right!" So, were we to eliminate that sort of thinking, the anti's position would begin to crumble. Then, we come in to fill the void with real education about guns, and thier proper uses and handling. This would begin to eliminate the fear that drives these people. Once that happens, we might then get this Amendment passed, and the few remaining anti's wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

Make no mistake, this is a war. It is a war for guns. As such, it's not going to be won by battlefield tactics. You don't win a war for territory by using territory as a weapon. If we try to win this war with agression and weapons, our own fighting will doom our cause. It must be fought with logic, calm, and education.

~~~Mineralman
 
Mineralman...
The 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights...those haven't been amended yet. So your voting age change; Prohibition, repeal of Prohibition, capitol punishment/repeal of same/re-instatement of same, etc is irrelevent.

No politician or court has the stones to even open up a dialog about amending the Bill of Rights.

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
To add to DC's argument, the second amendment is placed in the Bill Of Rights. It cannot be amended. As those are pre-existing rights prior to government approval. Law Abiding is a questionable term. I am a moral gun owner. I do not create mayhem with my firearms. On the other hand, some of my firearms have very little sporting value. The sporting value of those guns is derived from the need to be familiar with their combat characteristics. I am not necessarily a law abiding gun owner though. I have purposely obfuscated the paper trail leading to whom owns which gun and where is it? I have done things to make it appear that I own weapons I do not, and yet I own weapons that nobody could ever find record of. These actions aren't necessarily in keeping with the spirit of the law, but of course they are moral. The Government has no compelling need to know which ways I exercise my rights. I take this one stand. I carry a firearm usually illegally because I do not need a special license by the Government to exercise my rights. Rights are not priveledges. Let's not confuse the two. You must understand the difference between a natural right (one that exists because I am a human being) and state granted priveleges. The authority to carry a weapon just about anywhere is a state granted privelege of being a law enforcement officer. I may not morally carry a firearm onto someone's private property without the consent of the property owner. Cops can. There is a difference, and if we could just teach that to people, we'd be a long way down the road our founding documents sent us. The second amendment is not hard to understand. It is written so that an 8th grader could understand its meaning. The problem is that most 8th graders have never actually read the constitution (that goes for adults too unfortunately)
 
Mineralman...
this has been discussed many times over the last 16 months.
The BofR was a condition to ratify a contract...that being the Constitution. It is pre-eminent to the Constitution. Contract law would support that any change in the BofR violates and renders the contract null and void; as the contractual conditions have been violated and no longer exist, hence the contract no longer exists.

Before you argue, consider that the BofR has never been amended while the Constitution has. Given that the BofR is an impediment to the federal gov't...why has it not been amended in over 200 years?

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
moved to Legal/Political forum...

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
Mineralman, or anybody else --the language in the Bill of Rights is extremely clear to me. No gray matter, period!!!!!!

------------------
From my cold dead hands.
 
THere is no "Bill of Rights," that is as you seem to be saying separate from the Constitution. Bill of Rights is merely a discriptive colloquialism for the first ten amendments to the Constitution. As they are then part of the Constitution, they can be changed, particularly when the change is not one to abridge the provisions set forth in the amendment to be changed. Is it that the politicians don't have the stones, or don't we?

~~~Mineralman
 
Gwinnydapooh has a great (but long) post in the General Discussion Forum that partly deals with this issue. The first ten amendments to the constitution (Bill of Rights) do not CREATE our inalienable rights. Rather, they are an ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of some of the natural (or God given) rights everyone is born with.

I don't think threats like mineralman describes are effective or justifiable. However, as law abiding gun owners, I'm not sure the attack on our firearms rights stems from a lack of tolerance, rationalism, debate, or inclusion on our part.

Also remember our current president will argue what the meaning of "is" is.
 
kjm that is what I had learned also they are pre-existing natural rights.

No need to fix something that aint broken.

Wow would the global liberals love to make some changes to the first ten, they are barriers to many of their goals.As I have stated before

I'll take Jeffersons answer-

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it is not needed until they try to take it."

And don't think they are not trying to take it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top