The Right To Bear Arms

[Rustic]

When will the 2nd Amendment be updated?

Washington Redskin, stay out of the firewater

 

[Flash]

When will the 2nd Amendment be updated?

There is absolutely no need to update "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

The only update that would be necessary is add some kind of criminal charges against anybody that infringed upon that right.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When will the 2nd Amendment be updated?

President Clinton will work toward....oh, right, never mind.

 

[frigidweirdo]

When will the 2nd Amendment be updated?

There is absolutely no need to update "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

The only update that would be necessary is add some kind of criminal charges against anybody that infringed upon that right.

Well, only the govt can infringe upon the constitutional right. What about all the other rights then? The same, you infringe you face prosecution? Like, if you infringe on equality under the law? Like preventing gay marriage?

 

[hadit]

When will the 2nd Amendment be updated?

There is absolutely no need to update "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

The only update that would be necessary is add some kind of criminal charges against anybody that infringed upon that right.

Well, only the govt can infringe upon the constitutional right. What about all the other rights then? The same, you infringe you face prosecution? Like, if you infringe on equality under the law? Like preventing gay marriage?

That's already happening.

 

[frigidweirdo]

When will the 2nd Amendment be updated?

There is absolutely no need to update "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

The only update that would be necessary is add some kind of criminal charges against anybody that infringed upon that right.

Well, only the govt can infringe upon the constitutional right. What about all the other rights then? The same, you infringe you face prosecution? Like, if you infringe on equality under the law? Like preventing gay marriage?

That's already happening.

Not really. Churches don't have to perform gay marries, etc.

 

[hadit]

When will the 2nd Amendment be updated?

There is absolutely no need to update "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

The only update that would be necessary is add some kind of criminal charges against anybody that infringed upon that right.

Well, only the govt can infringe upon the constitutional right. What about all the other rights then? The same, you infringe you face prosecution? Like, if you infringe on equality under the law? Like preventing gay marriage?

That's already happening.

Not really. Churches don't have to perform gay marries, etc.

Kim Davis.

 

[Flash]

When will the 2nd Amendment be updated?

There is absolutely no need to update "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

The only update that would be necessary is add some kind of criminal charges against anybody that infringed upon that right.

Well, only the govt can infringe upon the constitutional right. What about all the other rights then? The same, you infringe you face prosecution? Like, if you infringe on equality under the law? Like preventing gay marriage?

The government can't infringe upon any right that the Constitution says it can't infringe upon. Pretty straightforward, isn't it?

 

[frigidweirdo]

When will the 2nd Amendment be updated?

There is absolutely no need to update "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

The only update that would be necessary is add some kind of criminal charges against anybody that infringed upon that right.

Well, only the govt can infringe upon the constitutional right. What about all the other rights then? The same, you infringe you face prosecution? Like, if you infringe on equality under the law? Like preventing gay marriage?

That's already happening.

Not really. Churches don't have to perform gay marries, etc.

Kim Davis.

She was in trouble for not doing her job.

 

[frigidweirdo]

When will the 2nd Amendment be updated?

There is absolutely no need to update "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

The only update that would be necessary is add some kind of criminal charges against anybody that infringed upon that right.

Well, only the govt can infringe upon the constitutional right. What about all the other rights then? The same, you infringe you face prosecution? Like, if you infringe on equality under the law? Like preventing gay marriage?

The government can't infringe upon any right that the Constitution says it can't infringe upon. Pretty straightforward, isn't it?

Can't it?

The 2A, well, they can take guns of prisoners, the insane, anyone really who has been through due process. Seems they can and seems it's not pretty straight forward.

 

[Flash]

[Q


Can't it?

The 2A, well, they can take guns of prisoners, the insane, anyone really who has been through due process. Seems they can and seems it's not pretty straight forward.

The government can do all kinds of oppression but that doesn't change the fact that the Constitution clearly states that the "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", does it?

 

[hadit]

There is absolutely no need to update "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

The only update that would be necessary is add some kind of criminal charges against anybody that infringed upon that right.

Well, only the govt can infringe upon the constitutional right. What about all the other rights then? The same, you infringe you face prosecution? Like, if you infringe on equality under the law? Like preventing gay marriage?

That's already happening.

Not really. Churches don't have to perform gay marries, etc.

Kim Davis.

She was in trouble for not doing her job.

Your quote is, in part, "you infringe you face prosecution". She did, and did. You may have been focused on churches, but people HAVE faced prosecution for infringing on the rights of homosexuals to get "married".

 

[emilynghiem]

When will the 2nd Amendment be updated?

Dear Lakhota
if people come to agreement that right to bear arms comes INHERENTLY with responsibility
for teaching training and enforcing Constitutional laws as the context that this article is included within,
then maybe we don't NEED to rewrite, revise or amend anything. Just DON'T take either the Second or First Amendment "out of context" with the rest of the Bill of Rights, but respect due process, and rights and protections of others, and no violations or abuses would occur! (If they
do then exercise due process/right to petition and redress/resolve the grievances, by the spirit of Constitutional laws and ethics.) If we follow laws in full context, we don't violate rights of others, but respect equal protection of the laws and due process for others as we invoke ourselves!

We can change our interpretation of how we teach the Bible without touching a single word in it.
And same with the US Constitution.

If you notice a LOT of the problems of unconstitutional violations come from EXTRA constitutional entities:
* corporations are not bound by the Bill of Rights
* media
* parties
* religious or other business/nonprofit organizations that wield
COLLECTIVE influence resources and authority BEYOND that of a single individual

So we as people need as much protection from overreaching and "oppression of due process
and equal civil rights" from these other COLLECTIVE entities that can do the same harm
as COLLECTIVE govt for which the Bill of Rights was incorporated to check against.

THAT'S where we need mass education and reform.
And it may not come from changing Constitutional laws but
changing how we teach and enforce them as CIVIL DEMOCRATIC STANDARDS, on all levels of society and relations
and not just within govt or courts.

 

[Deleted member 61768]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

Not as long as I have breath, my bolt action snipers rifle, and all those years of training the U.S. Government paid those nice guys with funny Green caps to train me. I spent 6 years in colleges and universities and have a brain of my own to make my decisions. Some liberals say if the Supreme Court rules on something that ends it but I say B.S. as the U.S. Supreme Court once ruled Slavery Constitutional in the United States so that obviously did not end it now did it. I have my own beliefs for which I will fight and die. Do you?

 

[regent]

None of our rights are without restrictions.

 

[Flash]

[
Can't it?

The 2A, well, they can take guns of prisoners, the insane, anyone really who has been through due process. Seems they can and seems it's not pretty straight forward.

I will be willing to give up my Constitutional right to keep and bear arms upon arrest if the stupid Moon Bats agree not to advocate taking my right to keep and bear arms away from me because somebody else uses a firearm either unsafely or in a crime. Agree?

 

[Flash]

None of our rights are without restrictions.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" pretty well limits the restrictions to a very minimal amount.

The problem with defining "reasonable limits" is that it opens the door to the Moon Bats to go batshit crazy like we see in the commie states like California, New York, Mass etc.

We can't trust the Moon Bats with the definition of reasonable because they wouldn't know what that word meant if it bit them in the ass.

The Moon Bats do not have an agenda of reasonable restrictions. They have an agenda of taking away the right to keep and bears arms from the American people.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited — never have been and never will be – Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star

Just as government's authority to control personal weapons is not unlimited. Never has been and never will be. The People are more likely to replace government than they are the 2nd Amendment. And rightly so.

 

[Flash]

There should never be a law against the possession of a firearm under any circumstances.

The governmental restrictions should be focused on using firearms for an unlawful purpose, not the possession, carrying or using it for lawful purposes. .

 

[Deleted member 61768]

[
Can't it?

The 2A, well, they can take guns of prisoners, the insane, anyone really who has been through due process. Seems they can and seems it's not pretty straight forward.

I will be willing to give up my Constitutional right to keep and bear arms upon arrest if the stupid Moon Bats agree not to advocate taking my right to keep and bear arms away from me because somebody else uses a firearm either unsafely or in a crime. Agree?

I am a firearms expert with several arms, booby traps, knives and will not yield to any man or government my G_d given rights. I will not be alive upon this earth many more moons however anyone who takes me for granted makes a fatal mistake because though I may be much slower I know more ways to sent my enemies to meet their maker than when I was 21.