We need a new constitutional amendment

C

Cowman

New member
If Bush has time to waste trying to get marraige defined in the constitution he ought to have time to think about this one:

We need a constitutional amendment that gurantees an individual the right to self-defense. The wording would have to be played with a bit. Obviously people arn't going to get a right to defend themselves against being arrested by the police.

We need this amendment to prevent theives/rapists from suing people who were defending themselves. We need this to prevent laws from being passed(and stoping ones that have been) from forcing law abiding citizens to run away when confronted by the crimnal element.
 
Suggested wording for an amendment to cover this situation...

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I think that should cover it sufficiently. :)

-Dave
 
Why not a national "Stand your Ground" ammendment.

One thing I never understood is how come the Feds can tell states how to run elections but states and cities can enact whatever gun laws they like? Requiring a permit to carry I can live with, that falls under general police power but places like NY that require a permit to posess in your home- forget it. What business of it is the state's as to what guns I have in my cabinet.
 
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I think that should cover it sufficiently.

-Dave
Click to expand...

That would seem to guarantee the other issue as well.

Personaly I think we should start by following the original ammendments (esp. the first 10) before we go adding more.
 
Well, I doubt the founding fathers ever even concieved of the concept of a law requiring a man to retreat from his own home rather than defend it. I think that if they had, something would have been mentioned.

I'm sure they also would have thought that the 2nd amendment and the guranteed life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness would cover it too.


The thing is with law things have to be explicitly stated, especialy theese days. Lawyers are good at twisting around laws to mean whatever they like and unfortunately quite a few judges let them get away with that. That's really why I would like it explicitly stated so that there can't be any question.
 
Well, I doubt the founding fathers ever even concieved of the concept of a law requiring a man to retreat from his own home rather than defend it. I think that if they had, something would have been mentioned.
Click to expand...
That's a state level issue. Many states have already addressed it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top