A TTAG reader writes:
Without summarizing years worth of blogs and comments, maybe we can all agree that the Second Amendment, as written, no longer serves its purpose. Almost all the disagreement over the meaning of 2A is bound up in interpretation. So long as anyone can form an opinion, and so long as courts will act as a super-legislature (or defender of the public, depending), and as long as government officials believe they have an obligaiton to “fill-in-the-blanks” regarding common sense gun ownership, the fights over the current Amendment will continue . . .
Is it time to accept the reality that in the era in which we now live, the archaic form of expression codified in the Second Amendment is at the root of the issue? And that the Amendment needs to be re-written? Cries of “absolute” are not establishing truth, nor are those claims doing much of anything to move the political needle one way or the other.
The problem with the current wording of the Second Amendment is that we live in a culture of binary conditions, while the Amendment lives in a time of great change in the thinking of how a government should be established and maintained. Today so many people subscribe to the theory that if an activity isn’t directly and completely prohibited, that activity is permitted. Then there are the lawyers who make a living arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Haven’t we had enough of this?
My proposal is to re-write the Second Amendment in such a way that it can’t be contorted by interpretation. For example:
The residents of these United States, territories and protectorates, as constituted in 2016 or as shall be expanded or contracted in the future, have the right to keep and bear personal arms, of any type, for any purpose. This natural, human and civil right shall not be constrained in any manner, for any reason, by any action of the federal, state or local government, including further and future amendment. The several courts under the jurisdiction of the United States, territories and protectorates are prohibited from considering any lawsuit regarding possession of firearms, except to determine whether or not this amendment has been violated.
I don’t claim to be a legal scholar or linguist, but this wording should be clear enough even after further erosion of the American language. Any ideas as to how to make a new Second Amendment are welcome. If the People of the Gun can generate the requisite political will to change the Constitution as recommended, we should be able to put this to bed, once and for all.
Difference between our founding fathers and the present is back then there was no ambiguity to the wording shall not infringe.
This is a good post and I think quite appropriate on a day when we honor all those who have sacrificed to protect all of our rights, including the one under discussion. However, let me push back a little on the premise.
I can’t agree that the 2A no longer serves its purpose. Within the last decade we have had more important pro-2A Supreme Court decisions than we’ve had in the entire period since the Constitution’s ratification. Those decisions are based squarely on the 2A. Moreover, gun ownership has continued to increase as have state laws recognizing the right of self-defense via concealed/open/constitutional carry. Those laws are also based squarely on the 2A and state constitution analogs.
For those who say the 2A no longer serves its purpose because it now allows infringement but didn’t allow such infringement at the time of the founding (“Difference between our founding fathers and the present is back then there was no ambiguity to the wording shall not infringe”), I disagree.
At the time the 2A was drafted, there were restrictions on RTKBA (e.g., based on age, location, mental capacity, amounts). As far as I’m aware, no one at that time suggested that the 2A was intended to do away with those restrictions or make them unconstitutional.
However, as this post hints at, the RTKBA at the time of the founding may be conceptually different than it is today, but I suggest that is because of technological advances of guns. The fit might not be as good as it once was, but it still serves its purpose.
The key to ensuring its continued validity is to recognize its original limits (don’t pretend they don’t exist) but make sure those limits aren’t improperly expanded by today’s anti-2A crowd.
If it is not broken, leave it alone. The old paths are the only right paths.
“If it is not broken, leave it alone.”
Really? How well is all that RTKBA, “shall not be infringed” stuff working out for you?
The original post identified that in this society, today, archaic language is too vague to put a stop to the unrelenting erosion of our gun rights. Everyday, mere legislation, law, or court ruling rolls back our rights further. We win here and there, but a stalemate at near-50/50 is not victory.
RF posted an article that I wrote a couple of years ago outlining the process Congress used to come to the final wording of the Second Amendment. They were very precise and diligent and the final result was as clear and concise as they could make it, in their opinion. Any confusion as to the prefatory clause “A well regulated militia…” was further clarified by the Heller decision.
That said, I have two comments about this article:
1. In the history of its existence, so far as I know, NONE of the ten amendments that make up The Bill of Rights has ever been further amended, re-written, clarified or repealed by Constitutional means or any means except by the mechinations of activist courts and judges. Nor has any other amendment to the Constitution been repealed except for Prohibition which was, coincidentally enough, the only amendment that ever attempted to act as a prohibition against what the people could do rather than as a limitation on what the government could do.
2. “This natural, human and civil right shall not be constrained in any manner, for any reason, by any action of the federal, state or local government, including further and future amendment.”
Thomas Jefferson himself wrote that, and I’m paraphrasing: No Congress of men, nor legislature, may enact any legislation or social contract which may be forever binding on their posterity.
In other words, you cannot pass a law, or an amendment, and include the term “This is set in stone and may never be changed by anyone for any reason!”
So, forget about re-writing the Second Amendment, this is dangerous territory, especially with the current make up of the Supreme Clowns of the United States. What we should be looking at, and working towards, is an Article V convention of the several states to discuss necessary amendments to the Constitution that the elected Congress is loathe to address. Among these amendments should be a CLARIFICATION of the wording of the Bill of Rights and an affirmation of their being the natural, civil and Constitutionally protected rights that no governmental agency has the authority to regulate or revise other than by full and Constitutionally appropriate repeal.
First you advocate “forgetting” about amending the constitution in order to drive a nail in “shall not be infringed”, but later declare that the very same thing should be done by a constitutional convention. Do you realize that a constitutional convention can only submit proposed amendments to the congress?
The convention detailed in the constitution is completely different (on purpose) from the one that wiped away the Articles of Confederation, and ended up with an entirely new constitution. Any proposed amendment from the convention of the states must be moved through the same ratification process as those amendments originally proposed by/in congress. The same congress we all consider incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial. If the current congress can screw up an amendment nailing down clearly our right to arms, so can the congress through which amendments from the convention of the states must pass.
And there are no rules for how congress must handle convention amendments. The constitution says only that congress shall publish the amendments to the several state governments. Not when, hot how, not in which form, not unadulterated.
….except that the output of the (new) convention of the states does not have to be approved by Congress. The convention takes the place of congress proposing the amendment by two thirds vote of both houses. The process for ratification is the same (approval of three fourths of the states’ legislatures or conventions therein, as decided by Congress).
Thus, once the convention reports its amendments, the ONLY effect Congress can have on ratification is (possibly) mandating that conventions within the states, rather than the state legislatures, will consider the amendments.
Incidentally an “amendment” could conceivably be a wholesale rewrite of the Constitution, or a complete gutting of the Bill of Rights, or something equally drastic. But I’d be more worried about subtle sabotage and/or a poison pill being incorporated in an otherwise good amendment (e.g., term limits bundled with a repeal of 2A).
The amendments forwarded from the convention of the states must, one day, somehow (unspecified in the constitution) be published to the states. The states then must ratify IAW the constitution. If the voting population instructs (my majority of those voting) their states ratify the amendments, and the states do so, that is the end of it. If gun rights people do not have enough political power to prevent anti-gunners from hijacking the amendments, well, that is how the system is supposed to work. Under any circumstance imaginable, avoiding any attempt to strengthen the language of an amendment does nothing, nothing to prevent the other side from doing it on their own. We can’t hope that if we do not open the door, the grabbers will not do it themselves. We gotta stop being in perpetual reactive mode.
What I was arguing against was your contention that the congress had to approve what the convention came up with, before it went to the states.
Congress does not approve amendments from the convention, only published to the states.
“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress …. ”
All that is stated in Article V is that if 2/3 of the state legislatures call for a convention, Congress must call a convention. It is not stated whether the states will be represented in the convention equally as states or proportionately to each state’s population.
Once a convention of the states is called, congress writes the rules about what happens next because there are no instructions in the constitution. Regardless, the convention of the states cannot ratify anything. The proposed amendments (including a completely new constitution) must be ratified by 3/4s of state conventions (no legislatures). The convention of the states (constitutional convention) cannot establish, install or ratify anything. So the feared sweeping away of the current constitution can only be done by ratification of state conventions (not legislatures); three-fourths required.
And I submit that if 3/4s of the states wish to abolish the current constitution, that is permitted and proper. If we fear that constitutional conservatism cannot withstand assault, then we are dead already, waiting only for the undertaker.
In the end, it makes no difference what the second amendment says. People who want it gone will always gobble up whatever half-assed, poorly reasoned excuse they can find to support the idea that it’s invalid and it should be repealed in the name of safety.
Support for the anti-gun movement is based entirely in emotion, so the hope that people will leave it alone once they’ve received a proper block of instruction on what the language actually means is futile. They argue with gun owners over the language, yes, but ultimately, they don’t care if the language makes sense or not because all they want is the illusion of safety (a desire perpetuated entirely by the media). Whatever facts and concrete arguments we present to them just fall on deaf ears.
Mike : You hit the nail on the head, and have disposed of any argument for a re-written 2A. The through the looking glass mindset of the anti-gun crowd is not amenable to any reasoning we may set forward, and should be viewed more as a strange set of religious beliefs, rather than anything accesssable to logic. For those who see an armed population as an obstacle to their political agenda, these anti-gun zealots provide a vocal force, ripe for exploitation. In sum, it is our own determination to preserve this “Necessity for the security of a FREE state”.rather than tampering with the text of 2A, that will sustain this God given right.
No words have ever kept(or gained) men their freedom. It has always taken actions, not words. Trying to figure out a way to make lawbreakers obey laws is an exercise in futility. Always it has required locking them up away from the people they choose to prey upon. And sometimes just killing them outright, but that, too, is barbarism.
“In sum, it is our own determination to preserve this “Necessity for the security of a FREE state”.rather than tampering with the text of 2A, that will sustain this God given right.”
I applaud your belief in universal right (correctness). However, not “tampering” with 2A got us here, where tampering is simply fun sport. “Our own determination to preserve….” worked really well throughout the 20th century; we are in an arguable 50-50 split as to the public, a single SC appointment from mandated confiscation.
As always, constitutionalists are on the defensive, never on offense. Why haven’t the Koch brothers, or (if one or two exist) some other “conservative” billionaire bought a newspaper, a magazine a TV network, a radio network, or a law firm where the constitutionalist message is pounded, propounded, illustrated, sold, supported, heralded, rentlessly? Answer is simple. There is more revenue to be gained from the other side.
Regarding a Constitutional Convention, I have a question for you and anyone else considering such a dangerous proposal: If government refuses to obey the U.S. Constitution now — And government most certainly does refuse to obey it now unless it suits its purpose — what possible amendment could be derived under even a perfect Con-Con that would correct that lawlessness?
I have a better suggestion: Start prosecuting legislators and executive officers for perjuring their oath or affirmation of office when they legislate or enforce color of federal law not authorized by the U.S. Constitution or color of State or local law prohibited by the U.S. Constitution (which, btw, includes the Bill of Rights “for all intents and purposes part of the supreme Law of the Land”).
When the people rise up against a rogue occupation government not deriving every scintilla of its authority from the State-written Constitutional compact that created it and delegated to it the only authority it has, it is not a “revolution.” It is a counter-revolution against the ongoing insurrection against the Constitution of the United States and the sovereign nation-States that created the federal government and own it as a wholly-owned subsidiary of the States and the people” — and it is a violation of 18USC2383 and associated statutes.
If you’re a lawyer, believe you can argue anything.
For example, the meaning of the word “is”.
An Article V Convention to rewrite the 2nd Amendment is insane. The people involved in such an insane venture do NOT follow the letter of the law. They make up rules as they go along. IF you think they follow the letter of the law, then you need a lesson in how the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. (Here’s one point – The 14th was NEVER properly ratified. A bunch of a-holes just proclaimed it ratified, and it became the law.) Do you want to take that extreme risk with your gun rights?
“Do you want to take that extreme risk with your gun rights?”.
Refusing to take this problem head-on has done worlds of good for gun owners.
BTW, amending an amendment is not the same as a constitutional convention.
Failing to secure the second amendment against future encroachment (and future court jurisdiction) results in only a slow death of the second amendment via mere legislation, regulation, and ordinance. “Shall not be infringed” is not working.
If “shall not be infringed” isn’t working, why do you think “really really REALLY shall not be infringed” will work?
The irony here is that one of the prime motivations, indeed the foremost, for the Fourteenth was to protect the Second.
Good point; incisive.
… from the States. It has always astonished me that before they would agree to ratify the U.S. Constitution, the States demanded a Bill of Rights. Then, having obtained the Bill of Rights, they proceeded to ignore it for 81 years, claiming it only applied to the federal government and “States’ Rights” allowed the State governments to do whatever they dang well wanted to do, in great detriment to their own citizens.
The fact is, the federal government was created by the States in compact and are its wholly-owned subsidiary (unratified 17th Amendment notwithstanding; [it is prohibited by Article V unless EVERY State Consented to the loss of its suffrage in the Senate]). Article V says Amendments are for all intents and purposes part of this Constitution, and Article VI says the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, the Laws or Constitutions of any State notwithstanding.
In short, we didn’t need a 14th Amendment for the Bill of Rights to apply to the States. And there is no such thing as “intermediate scrutiny” versus “strict scrutiny” versus (what, “no scrutiny at all”?) when SCOTUS examines a law for its Constitutional legitimacy. If the Constitution doesn’t delegate the authority to the federal government, the federal government doesn’t have it, period-full-stop-end-of-story. If the Constitution prohibits infringement of a fundamental right, then no government entity at any level, and no non-government entity at any level, has the authority to infringe upon in it any place a citizen has a legal right to be (either by invitation, by purchase, or by being on premises open to the public) Period-full-stop-end-of-story.
If we want to be free, we have to fight for the liberty of others to exercise their freedom.
The meanings of just about every Amendment – including the Second Amendment – can be found in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, neatly published and easily available. These were the pro and anti arguments from which our foundational laws were finalized.
“The meanings of just about every Amendment…. can be found in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers.”
Yes, indeed. But those documents, that commentary are “extra legal”, non-binding footnotes. We are where we are because the current 2A wording is not definitive enough in today’s society (and distaste for rule of law). Where has “shall not be infringed” done any good to preserve our 2A right? The courts invented multiple levels of legal scrutiny as exceptions to the absolutist wording of 2A, as they have invented the concept of “compelling government interest”. The Federalist Papers, the “shall not be infringed” have done nothing to slow the erosion of our rights, everywhere.
Sam, try looking up enumerated rights. The simple version is that if it is not specifically allowed, it is prohibited from doing.
“Sam, try looking up enumerated rights. The simple version is that if it is not specifically allowed, it is prohibited from doing.”
Yes, we have a constitution that enumerated certain personal and civil rights. Problem is that the 10th amendment, the one specifically telling the central government that it has no power not directly and specifically delegated from the states. However, the SC ruled that the 14th amendment forced all the federal restrictions onto the states, completely upending the purpose and basis for the constitution. That ruling created vassal states, ruled by an overpowering, overreaching central government. The enumerated rights now mean whatever the central government (including the judiciary) finds useful at a given moment.
Sam, the enumerated rights are those rights specifically spelled out in the Constitution as to what the 3 branches of government may do. Anything not spelled out in the Constitution means those rights are reserved to The People.
“Sam, the enumerated rights are those rights specifically spelled out in the Constitution as to what the 3 branches of government may do. Anything not spelled out in the Constitution means those rights are reserved to The People.”
And where has that gotten us?
The last group of people who insisted upon the principle you described wore the butternut gray. The result of all that effort was the definitization of the fact that the states were/are not sovereign, that the power of the federal government does not issue from the states, that the states were/are political subdivisions of the national government.
Which changed nothing, Sam, though it gives hope to those who seek to dominate the sovereign States and the people, whom you are aiding and abetting with your defeatist attitude. For your information, the Civil War was incited not by a grass-roots effort in the South, but by a phalanx of British agents seeking — as they are today — the destabilization of the United States of America. (Actually, truth be told, the agents didn’t and don’t today report to the government of Great Britain; they report to their bankster cartel owners in the autonomous City of London to whom Great Britain is a wholly-owned subsidiary.)
In spite of the mutiny against the sovereign States committed by the federal government in the Civil War and again in 1913 with the falsely-declared ratification of the 17th Amendment, specifically prohibited by Article V of the U.S. Constitution, the United States government (aka “federal government”) is the wholly-owned subsidiary of the sovereign States in compact, any one of which has an absolute right to overrule any action of the federal government not pursuant to the document they wrote and ratified that created it.
All any State has to do is declare the 17th Amendment null and void for lack of ratification, prove it by presenting the public record and citing Article V in pertinent part, choose U.S. Senators in the State legislature as required by Article I Section 3 and send them to the U.S. Senate. There is much more than needs to be done, but that one action will peacefully, legally, safely put the federal government back into its Constitutional box — and every other State will most likely follow suit for the economic and political benefits are enormous. The States may then undertake the process of rescinding all federal legislation illegally passed since 1913 and restoring sovereign State control over the federal government. “Federalism” does not exist unless the federal government does exactly what it is told to do in the Constitutional compact and DOES NOT DO anything it is not told to do in that document.
From a legal standpoint, for a state to declare any part of the constitution null and void, the state must be sovereign, must have rights superior to the national government. That condition ended in 1865, further reinforced by the the SC in 1925. Should a state actually be determined sovereign, the next hurdle is to find legal grounds to unilaterally declare any part of the constitution null and void. Again, that possibility ended in 1865. Regardless of who, whom, which cabal could be proven the source of the upending of the constitution, upended it is. States are mere vassals to the central government. Thus, making the intent and application of the second amendment stronger and less subject to interpretation would create a bright line visible even to today’s educationally deprived and challenged society.
Either the puplic (i.e. the majority of those voting) repudiate their complete subjugation via the ballot box, or try once again to forcefully lift the bondage. There are only two means to accomplish constitutional change: through the legal and legislative (voting) process, or by extra-legal means. We should place no faith in the latter as the current populace lacks any of the determination and passion of those who last attempted.
Let’s make a recurrence to first principles, Sam: Is the U.S. Constitution the supreme Law of the Land, or not? If so, was the Civil War in 1965 conducted as the result of a properly ratified amendment, or not? Was the SCOTUS decision in 1925 a properly ratified amendment, or not? The answer, to both questions, is “of course not.”
Therefore the U.S. Constitution remains binding, just not obeyed. The sovereign States in compact created the federal government and the federal government remains the wholly-owned subsidiary of the sovereign States in compact.
Every State retains their sovereignty no different than the national governments of France or Germany. The federal government was created out of nothing, a legal fiction for the purpose of establishing a one-stop shop for foreign affairs and for providing the cohesiveness and cooperation among the sovereign States in matters of commerce and the navigable waterways, and especially establishing a stable monetary system of intrinsic value.
All political power flows from the people, Sam. The people created the sovereign State governments and the sovereign State governments created the federal government. The federal government has no authority not delegated to it by the sovereign State governments.
Each person, Sam, including you and I, have a choice: We can decide the State-created federal government successfully committed mutiny against its owners and now owns the States and the people as chattel, and there is nothing we can do about it and we might as well just roll over and lick the hands which feed us until we are permanently defanged and caged, or we can decide to conduct ourselves now and into the future as though we are free men and women aware of our rights and our sovereignty and we will not comply with the colors of law, the tyrannies of chattel, the Divine Right of Kings to Govern, and we will defend ourselves with force of arms if we are compelled to obey the Rule of Man.
As noted earlier, there are two ways to deal with the federal government: legal/legislative, or extra-legal.
“The people” (the only meaningful definition of “the people” is “majority of those voting”), approve of the current state of the union. Nothing indicates there is any limit to the subjugation of states and individuals that will be tolerated; “the people” approve through action, or inaction.
Constitutional conservatives are perennially on the defensive, letting the other side chose the time and means of attacking individual and state freedoms. Constitutional conservatives simply wait to be attacked, then respond. This tactic may work well in the NFL, but in any other type of war, the defender eventually loses. And here we are.
“As noted earlier, there are two ways to deal with the federal government: legal/legislative, or extra-legal.”
True. I am proposing a legal way: The federal government was created out of nothing by the sovereign States in compact and delegated certain specific powers from the lawful powers of the sovereign States, without the States relinquishing those sovereign powers, The federal government is the wholly-owned subsidiary of the sovereign States. The federal government took the extra-legal step of committing mutiny against the sovereign States twice; Abraham Lincoln was the first; the ungratified 17th Amendment, depriving the sovereign States of their standing as the owners of the federal government, was the second. I am proposing the States take the LEGAL step of declaring those extra-legal steps null and void and restoring their sovereign authority over their creature, the federal government.
“Constitutional conservatives simply wait to be attacked, then respond. … the defender eventually loses.”
True. Have you noticed yet that I am proposing the Constitutional conservatives go on the offense by requiring their State governments to exercise their sovereign authority over the federal government?
“Have you noticed yet that I am proposing the Constitutional conservatives go on the offense by requiring their State governments to exercise their sovereign authority over the federal government?”
Yes. How would you expect the states to go about that? Given the Red/Blue map, how do you see reassertion of states rights?.
In short, the future of the nation/union is ordained. The choice we are left with is between the swift death (domination by the liberals/leftists/statists/whateverists), and the slow death (domination by the the other party. The destination is immutable, only the means and timing remain.
“In short, the future of the nation/union is ordained.”
This seems a bit of a defeatist attitude to me. I’d rather say; The elite’s PLAN for the union is ordained and ends in the death of the republic, but the best laid plans of mice and men…etc.
That is only IF the people can be kept in the dark about the fact that republic/democracy, statute/law, legal/lawful, etc. are DIFFERENT things, and not synonyms. That is IF the people can be dumbed down enough to accept it. OTOH, IF we can wake enough up to these facts, instead of just accepting their plan for us, then their plan will fail. Naturally, they will go to almost any lengths to avoid this awakening, but that doesn’t mean it won’t happen anyway.
“The people” have determined they can raid the treasury (federal and the economy) by voting privileges for themselves, paid for by others. The actual decisions on every political matter (or ballot initiative, or primary, or general election) is, “Which of these guys will give me more of what I want without me being required to do anything?” Defeatist? There is no battle to promote, the courts are part of the government, at all levels. Waving the constitution provided no legally sufficient basis upon which to return control of the government to “the people” (who largely don’t want it anyway). Waco, Ruby Ridge. If things like that didn’t ignite the populace, what will? There was no political/legislative uprising demanding the government be held accountable.
Enjoy what you have, while you can. Hope the final stage goes at least one more generation.
All of that is truth. It is the people that allowed the language to be corrupted, for the FED and IRS to take over(unlawfully) in 1913, for statutes to be substituted for Laws with even noticing, and etc…
So it is the blindness of the people that allowed the evil ones to take over, and leave us in the mess we now face. So it seems logical to me that that is where the battle is being fought. It is the battle for hearts and minds of the people. It is why I am on here saying the things I’m saying. Because I still have hope that it is not to late to reverse that. Civilizations always go through 9 stages; http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/19/the-nine-stages-of-civilization-were-in-the-seventh-apathy/ .
This source will say we are in stage 7. I disagree with that, but no matter where we are at now, it closes the circle with stage 1 and 2, faith and courage. From that liberty must follow, for it is not possible to dominate a courageous man. He will just ignore any unlawful and evil commands, no matter how dire the threats made, even unto his death. Just as the natives did in Cuba when Columbus and his men tried to enslave them. That failed, for they would pout and die rather than serve a master.
Or maybe I’m just an eternal optimist.
It would seem that if Step 9 leads to Step 1, we would be well advised to help hasten the moment.
That is where I believe that we are. At the end of stage 9, in full bondage to the elite controllers. We passed stage 7, apathy, back in the 1930s. FDRs ‘great society’ programs, looking back with 20/20 hind-site, cannot be anything but utter dependence.
So, since stage 1 is coming back around, we should indeed be doing all we can to hasten the moment. The masses need to wake up(or be awakened) and take a good, hard, look around at what actually exists, as opposed to just taking the word of some talking heads at CNN. And sometimes that takes a bit of ‘shock therapy’.
You don’t know what “full bondage” is, but I expect you will find out within a year, probably much sooner, if you don’t arm up, ammo up, armor up, stock up, and prepare to stand up while you still can.
Fear leads to anger.
Anger leads to hate.
Hate leads to suffering.
I sense much fear in you…
But perhaps you are just an intelligence agent attempting to find people to commit violence for the system so that it can then be blamed on others, like in these examples:
I don’t really see you as that now though, although I had my suspicions. Now I just think you are an innocent dupe who has been fed so much fear by the major media that you can see no way out, other than violence.
Always remember: the battle is for the hearts and minds of the people, NOT for some hill or other piece of land somewhere, whether you want to admit it or not.
Good luck, however it may work out for you.
Fear of government is a healthy mindset.
Its a logical conclusion, but in reality fear of any one or thing leads to missteps and mistakes.
Much better to have respect for their destructive capabilities, and enough knowledge of their systems to avoid that, should they choose to aim those powers at you. The difference between respect and fear is subtle, but important.
“…but in reality fear of any one or thing leads to missteps and mistakes.”
Perhaps, but not always. Fear makes you observant, fear makes your senses heightened to threats, fear triggers “respect” for the damage the enemy can do, fear forces you to default to muscle memory.
A person not afraid of what their government will do to them invites disaster.
Spoken as a veteran of over 30 years in the Martial Arts, I can’t say fearing my opponents ever made me faster, smarter or more aggressive, or ever won me any matches.
I have, however, done very well by controlling fear and making my decisions coldly and with reason. I carefully evaluate an opponent, decide in which way I think I can best match my strengths against his weaknesses, and proceed to act according to that plan without hesitation, mercy, or second thoughts.
Its a strategy that has always worked well for me.
“It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles” -Sun Tzu
Can’t argue with Sunny.
I don’t actually agree 100 percent with even Sun Tzu. But its all part of my philosophy of learning as much as possible. I’m kind of a contrarian.
“There was no political/legislative uprising demanding the government be held accountable.”
Yeah, there was, but the complicit press carefully kept most indications of it out of the public consciousness. I was right in the middle of the uprising, and I can tell you that I was and I am proud that it was the very first time in history that the people who knew what happened refused to take government’s word for it.
That was the beginning of the awakening; since then it has been a case of counting up events and adding them to the roster. Were it not for that fact, Sam, we would not today have a presidential candidate named Donald Trump. (Not that I think for a New York Second he will solve our problems, but he is the current attempt in the efforts of the people. If the attempt fails, the next attempt is likely to be more exciting.)
Refusing to believe the government is not an uprising. There were no loud, continuous rallies demanding punishment for the federal agents, or the AG. There were not floods of mail and calls to congressional offices demanding action. There were no riots. There were no politicians turned out of office because they ignored the attacks. There were no armed state militias deputized to capture and detain the federal agents involved.
The people (and in this instance I mean individuals, not active voters) are not convinced the central government means them actual death or bodily harm. “The people” are more concerned that DWTS is cancelled.
Hear! Hear! I think the awakening is happening as we type, but the enemies of our liberty have conducted their insurgency since 1925, accelerating enormously in the last few election cycles, and it may be too late. The only reason they haven’t executed the final phase of their plan so far is that they have a strong tendency to overplay their hand, and keep getting set back by our reactions. For that reason they are getting VERY impatient, and if they don’t win to their prize in this election cycle they fear losing it for another 100 years or so. The emergence of Donald Trump is the latest reaction to their insurgency; evidence that the people have had it up to here with their destabilization efforts and cultural Marxism. They will do ANYTHING to prevent him from blowing their boat out of the water. Expect some very nasty, really serious false flag events in the next few months if it looks like Trump might win, and expect serious attempts to tighten their control as a result of those bogus events. Yes, their plan will ultimately fail, but we are going to go through hell before it does. I recommend preparation for the long haul of disruptions in supply lines, declarations of martial law, really draconian announcements of punishment for exercising anything we take for granted as a liberty today. And there will be no recourse to the courts that has any real meaning; recourse will be “if you don’t like it, line up in front of that hummer over there with the twin-50’s mounted on top). I’ve been watching these events since the late 1970’s and we are right on the precipice of a programmed, intentional, orchestrated, political disaster intended to destroy everything our nation stands for. And it won’t hurt anyone to start making preparations for survival and resistance even if I am just what some will call a wild-eyed conspiracy theorist.
By spending four to 16 hours a day (depending on traffic) on Facebook, newspaper opinion forums, and every other forum I can find pointing out the following:
A RESOLUTION FAVORING THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND STATES’ RIGHTS
• Whereas, the States were established as sovereign and independent States for eleven years prior to the United States Constitution being written and ratified by the several sovereign and independent States, and
• Whereas, the united States Constitution is a compact between sovereign States to create a federal government for the purpose of dealing with foreign affairs, and
• Whereas, the delegation of certain powers to a creation of the sovereign States united does not in and of itself deprive the sovereign States, and each of them, of the power delegated, and
• Whereas, the failure of the creation of the sovereign States united to perform according to the terms of the compact between the sovereign States abdicates the power delegated by the sovereign States to their creation, and
• Whereas, the branches of the federal government, and each of them, are creations of the sovereign States united and are not delegated the authority to govern the sovereign States, and
• Whereas, the branches of the federal government created by the sovereign States united are not delegated the authority to issue, deny, monitor, or interfere with any sovereign State power not delegated to the federal government, and
• Whereas, put simply, the created does not tell the creators what to do or what the creators may not do, and
• Whereas, Article I Section 3 of the Constitution compact created and ratified into law by the sovereign States united established the manner in which the sovereign States maintain control of their created federal government, and
• Whereas, Article I Section 3 of the Constitution compact provides and requires that two Senators from each State shall be chosen by the legislature thereof to serve in the united States Senate for the purpose of advancing and protecting States interests in the Congress of the United States, and
• Whereas, the united sovereign States, as co-equal creators of the united States Constitution compact, established the sole and exclusive manner in which the Constitution compact may be amended by the sovereign States united, and
• Whereas, the sole and exclusive manner in which the Constitution compact may be amended is set forth in Article V of the Constitution compact, and
• Whereas, the importance of the shared control of the federal government by the sovereign States via their representation in the united States Senate was so great that Article V of the Constitution compact was written to absolutely prohibit depriving any sovereign State of its suffrage in the Senate without its Consent, and
• Whereas, an attempt was made in 1913 to strip the sovereign States, and each of them, of their representation in the united States Senate by proposing what is now erroneously referred to as the 17th Amendment, and
• Whereas, the legislatures of the sovereign States of Utah and Delaware voted to withhold their Consent to being deprived of their suffrage in the united States Senate, and
• Whereas, the legislatures of eight other States withheld their Consent to being deprived of their suffrage in the united State Senate by taking no action in their legislatures or otherwise to Consent to being deprived of their suffrage in the Senate, and
• Whereas, the legislative records of the sovereign States ratifying and failing to ratify the proposed amendment to strip the sovereign States, and each of them, of their suffrage in the Senate are public records and may be easily obtained and verified, and
• Whereas, the aforementioned legislative records prove the accuracy and factual nature of the lack of ratification of the proposed amendment now erroneously referred to as the 17th Amendment,
• THEREFORE, be it resolved, that the amendment proposing to strip the sovereign States, and each of them, of their representation in the united States Senate, failed ratification by the required number of sovereign States, and
• THEREFORE, be it further resolved, that the sovereign States, and each of them, retain their full and sovereign authority to choose their united States Senators and to require them to be seated in the united State Senate as required by Article I Section 3 of the united States Constitution compact between sovereign States, and
• THEREFORE, be it further resolved, that the imposters currently serving under the erroneous title of “United States Senator” shall be immediately recalled and two Senators from each State shall be appointed by the legislature thereof pursuant to the united States Constitution compact Article I Section 3, and
• THEREFORE, be it further resolved, that work shall begin immediately identifying federal color of law of every kind without lawful substance for want of passage by a Constitutionally-chosen united States Senate and the introduction of legislation rescinding* such legislation as null and void from the moment of its inception.
*’Rescinded,” not repealed, for it was never passed into law in the first place.
It is in this manner that the sovereign States united may regain authority over their creation, the federal government of the United States, which has abdicated its lawful authority to govern and devolved into a rogue occupation government without lawful or substantive Constitutional authority to govern the foreign affairs of our nation (it never had authority to govern anything else).
Donald L. Cline
You have an interesting list of grievances, and we already have a declaration and constitution addressing them. So, if the central government declares that the constitution means whatever the central government allows it to mean, to whom do you present YOUR (I don’t know how to italicize in the reply boxes) declaration.
Suppose every state in the union endorses and officially notifies the central government (whichever office would appropriately receive the notices) of the intent to restore the proper balance of power. Then what? The central government simply moves on. What would be the next step(s)? Words on paper already do not have meaning that cannot be warped or ignored, right? The courts are the preserve of the central government, right? The Congress (House and Senate) are the preserve of the central government, right?
There is no basis for presuming “the states”, bypassing the federal House and Senate, could achieve a restoration of the balance of power in this country. Let’s suppose that all the 57 state attorneys general file suit (against whom?), to restore strict enforcement (by whom?) of the current or replacement constitution. Where do the attorneys general file such a legal claim? The courts of the states and the central government will preserve themselves. What ruling would you expect? Then what?
The writings of the founding fathers in regards to their intent in their construction of the U.S. Constitution most definitely are not “extra-legal” afterthoughts. To mount that position is to adopt the Marxist insurgency — er, ‘liberal’ — position that the Constitution is a living document that means whatever they want it to mean, and means differently whenever they get hoisted on their own petard.
The Constitution is internally self-consistent. You cannot violate any part of it without violate other parts. Example: If we have a right to keep and bear arms, why do wannabe gun owners cheerfully give up their rights under the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th and 10th Amendments in order to receive revocable government permission to buy a firearm from a dealer or even to hand a friend a firearm to marvel over in those States where subversive Michael Bloomberg has suckered the doofuses into passing “Universal Background Checks”? If it is a RIGHT, then you don’t need government permission to exercise it. If the purchase of a firearm is not probable cause of criminal conduct, then you cannot lawfully be compelled to conduct a self-examination under penalty of perjury (Form 4473) or suffer a search of your private information (personal effects) on government databases in order to exercise a right. You cannot lawfully have a right taken from you or converted into a privilege without due process by a Court of Law; i.e., conviction of wrongdoing. You cannot lawfully be compelled to give up the above rights in order to “be allowed” to exercise a right. And you cannot lawfully be required to endure the federal exercise of authority not delegated to the federal government, or State authority prohibited to the States by the Constitution.
All that being said, can you say “rogue occupation Marxist government”?
We don’t need a re-write of the 2nd Amendment or any other Constitutional provision. We need to take responsibility for our rights and be prepared to fight for them in the legislatures, in the Courts, and when all else fails — if the Marxist insurgency achieves their goal they’ve been ramping up to since COMINTERN in 1925 — in the streets.
Learn the Constitution, and keep your powder dry. And get more of it.
This is disrespectful to post on memorial day.
Shame on you.
Apparently this article had too many trigger words and microaggressions, and his usual safe space is closed due to the holiday. How dare you question this special snowflake’s thinking anyway, you sexist racist pig.
Rick and Morty – “Gazorpazorpfield”
NSFW due to language
Are you saying that an idea for making one of our rights stronger is inappropriate on a day celebrating those who defend our rights?
I’ll butt in here to say that the only way to improve ths Second Amendment is get rid of that introductory clause, since it adds nothing to believers and provides too much quibbling room for haters.
That applies even more so to the proposed changes. All they do is add all sorts of extra room for quibbling. The original meaning is as clear as it gets, and I say is also the strongest of the amendments. Where the others say “Congress shall make no law” and leave them open to the argument that they only apply to the federal government, “shall not be infringed” is unique and crystal clear that it applies to all governments, if anyone who would continue quibbling ought to be brought down by the original meaning of the 14th amendment, as argued and understood by all sides in the debates, and corrupted just 6 (8?) years later by the Supreme Court in Slaughterhouse.
I noted a statement that stops courts from making rulings about the RTKBA (no intepretation), other than to determine if a law at dispute results in any restriction. The idea to get the matter out of the courts seems to stop any attempt at “compelling government interest”, or “intermediate scrutiny”, or any of that crap. The second amendment, as written, provides too much room for infringement. The RTKBA is infringed. All the chanting about “shall not” is a failing concept.
So long as there is any room for interpretation by anybody (meaning court-sanctioned limits), the second amendment will be legislatively curtailed into non-existence. Words easily understood by classically educated people of substance two hundred years ago are unintelligible to a culture bent to accommodate the lowest common denominator of reading ability. Seems the words, “ever, for any reason whatsoever, by any agency of the national, state or local government, or private person” (or some such) might bring clarity to the mob that thinks emojis are language and literature. We can’t fight the fight we want, we must fight the fight that is before us.
“. . . to improve ths Second Amendment is get rid of that introductory clause, since it adds nothing . . . ” I disagree that it adds nothing. Suppose, hypothetically, that that clause wasn’t there. To what end would we find the 2A protected “the right”? Personal self-defense? Fowling and hunting? Amusement? Certainly not to permit the People to take-up arms against the hired agents of their elected government! Just how much fire-power do the peasants really need to protect themselves? To fowl or hunt? to amuse themselves?
As I read the introductory clause, the founding generation made it perfectly clear that “the right” had a purpose that runs all the way to ensuring that the People are the source of sovereignty. That “governments are instituted among men” rather than self-appointed to rule over men.
Whatever…..but, YES !
Not necessary, Felix, nor is undertaking the amendment process to accomplish it advisable.
The quibbling about the preamble is easily put down by citing the simple historical fact that every citizen of every State is militia, and from this population of armed militiamen (and women) is drawn the active militiamen defined as able-bodied males between the ages of 18 and 45 (plus anyone else who wants to be, including women).
Having explained this, I then ask the liberal doofus apparatchik and useful idiot when was the last time they mustered for training or duty with their own weapons, ammunition, and kit. (I.e., when was the last time they met their responsibility to their community.)
Sorry, if disrespect is your go to impulse then there is no explanation good enough to give you.
It’s a sacred day, leave it at that.
Laugh…take jabs….do whatever you like.
I have my opinion and so do you.
I choose respect.
I’m sure your good people…solid Americans….just too willing to tarnish a solem day in history with bitterness and a lack of courtesy to the fallen.
“Microaggression”? That sounds very Californian.
Why don’t you explain why this is disrespectful instead if being obtuse?
I have no Issues with the debate on 2A….my only issue is with timing.
Imo…..just not today.
We are all in a hurry, slow down….respect the day.
Respect each other. Imo…focus on the day instead of lesser important debate that leads nowhere but here.
I have an opinion that drew out a predictable response from the usual intellectual operators….thats ok with me.
Seems there was more concern with mba players and 2A ridiculousness then for just a day of reflection due the fallen of our great country.
That’s all….i woke up….tapped on ttag with expectations of a blog about memorial day and respecting the fallen…..saw the 2A story….gave my opinion……and witnessed people being people.
I’ll search for a respectful story in another place…thanks.
POTCM – you are … *LITERALLY* … making no sense. I assembled a workstation today. Therefore you should be aghast that I did a thing that wasn’t respectful of our fallen. And I don’t see how assembling a workstation respects our fallen. Which of course “proves” I don’t care about our fallen. Methinks you’re feigning outrage. Just getting that inkling. Swing and a miss.
I am a veteran. I lost friends during my overseas campaign. I don’t think this thread has anything to do with that. I don’t see the connection. They weren’t killed by people exercising their 2A rights, they were killed defending 2A rights. It’s just as good a day as any to talk about it. Implying there is some negative connotation would seem to be part of the problem.
The root cause is mendacity and ignorance on the part of the public, who then elect the most idiotic and venal people to legislatures, who then appoint conniving and traitorous Ivy League graduates to the courts.
However, as long as the ownership of large numbers of arms by private individuals makes elected politicians and appointed judges nervous, it is serving its purpose.
I recognized this years ago when I got back into guns. Winning is getting as many firearms with much more than the ammo to match pumped into into the system and in the Mahdi of the law abiding. As long as the US is awash with the material of the firearms world and the healthy gun economy that supports it, we have the best hand in the game.
Ugh! Autocorrect screwed me. Mahdi must mean hands in some strange language.
Should have read “in the hands of the law abiding.”
No, it’s the “redeemer of Islam” who will come to rule and rid the world of evil before the Day of Judgment.
Your autocorrect has converted.
Believe it or not, the Muslims use the term “reverted” not converted, and I have no idea why.
As explained to me, all people(s) are born into Islam, the one true faith. Many (most?) people fall away and become apostate (hence the word “Infidel”, from which we get “infidelity”). Being unfaithful (Infidel) means there had to be a faith from which to fall. Thus, when a non-muslim (or any muslim with whom I disagree) comes back into the one true religion, they “revert”, or “return”.
One must have been faithful to Islam at some time in order to qualify as unfaithful (Infidel).
Well I certainly didn’t give my auto-correct permission to convert, much less revert.
I’m still learning about Islam, but what little I know doesn’t jibe with this. If you weren’t born of a Muslim father, you become a Muslim by reciting the Shahadah in Arabic (that is, “I testify that there is no god but Allah” etc) preferably in front of witnesses. If, after one of these happens, you forswear Islam then you become an apostate (and the penalty under Shariah is death). There doesn’t seem to be any assumption that you are born Islamic (unless your father was Muslim), otherwise you’d be an apostate, not just a kafir. There is a difference between the two. Kafirs can be converted (though they can also be killed with impunity if they’re not paying the jizyah), apostates are good for nothing but killing, by Islamic lights.
(By the way, that’s why Muslim men can marry non-Muslim women–their children will be Muslim. But a Muslim woman cannot marry a non-Muslim, because her children would not automatically be Muslim. EVERY rule in the religion is set up to make it a one-way-in, no-way-out trap.)
I don’t have the scholarly knowledge to find the details. However, in order to be unfaithful (Infidel) one must have been faithful, or considered faithful, to something/someone. In order to “revert”, rather than “convert”, one must have been in one condition, left that condition, then returned (“reverted”…which was the question) to the original condition. If those who believe they were never born under Islam can be called “Infidel”, what conclusion is left?
Spot on as usual DG. They don’t fear the Constitution because they’re the enforcers of the Constitution. They fear an armed citizenry.
“They fear an armed citizenry.”
Actually they don’t fear what they consider mouth-breathing neanderthals. They only want to control, reprogram, or incarcerate anyone who has principles, who may instigate a voter rebellion. They have utter faith that the police and military would make short work of any armed revolt.
If this is in fact true, how come the gun grabbers dont have us all in jail and our weapons confiscated?
“If this is in fact true, how come the gun grabbers dont have us all in jail and our weapons confiscated?”
First, my statement was what the anti-gun crowd thinks and wants; different from how it gets done.
Second, the anti-gun crowd only has about half the voters convinced that removing guns completely is a good idea; don’t want to launch a voter rebellion that might succeed.
Third, confiscation has already begun. Making instant felons of people because they possess “high-capacity” magazines that were legal a week ago. Issuing laws requiring turn-in of “assault weapons” (Connecticut, if I remember correctly). While true the door-to-door “no knock” raids have not begun, when in the past did anyone believe that such laws could even pass, much less be validated by courts?
Fourth, ask any lefty if they fear a full-scale civil war over gun confiscation. They fear the random killer, the negligent discharge more.
In a perfect society, you are probably correct. However, the reality is that if the second were rewritten it would probably end up looking more like this:
“The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons.”
Which, as you can see, would be a giant step back.
Yours doesn’t really roll off the tongue.
How about this?:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms and all the material to keep them in good order shall not be infringed.
(See dictionary for meaning of infringed)
” …right to keep and bear personal arms…”
But with this explicit wording you facilitate an approach along the lines of:
– It doesn’t include buying, selling, loaning or otherwise transferring arms.
– What is a “personal arm” and how does it differ from a non-personal arm? Can an individual own a crew-served weapon or an antiaircraft missile?
Ummm, no. The Second amendment, as written, says everything, in a few sentences, what you just re-wrote, with a lot more words.
It’s not the way the second amendment is written that is the problem. The problem are the government worshiping subjects that are to blame for placing their masters in position of power to then ignore and violate the clear proscription of government infringement of our fundamental rights.
Until people decide, once again, that they, as free citizens, are the ones solely responsible for providing the defense of themselves, their community and their country from enemies, foreign and domestic; the re-writing of some words on some old dusty parchment will serve absolutely no purpose.
But as it stands, there are already so many of the ” POTG” that state loudly and proudly that they carry a firearm to protect no one but thenselves and their immediate family and friends,, that this hope of re-awakening of one’s civic duty to ones community and country is faint, at best.
The reason many people say that they carry only to protect themselves is borne out of the current legal environment in this country where if you use a gun on another human you are considered guilty until proven innocent, and your defense, even if successful, will most likely leave you jobless and penniless.
Exactly ThomasR’s point my friend. As long as we keep begging mommy (the courts) to protect us from daddy (the legislature and executive), particularly when they collude against the people we’ve given up the meaning of the 2nd all together.
Yep, Vhyrus. Such is the toxic stew of what was once was right, just and honorable; is now judged by the subjects as being a “vigilante”, violating the “rights” of a predator to practice their profession without undue risk of bodily harm.
The subjects can’t be disturbed in their abject submission to their masters will. Those citizens that choose freedom over servitude must be punished for such temerity. So the subjects give that power to punish to their masters.
And so the price for doing ones duty is not just possible death. So just as being a vocal christian is now one of personal choice and not of societal mandate, as I am, thank G-d; the choice of doing ones duty to one community is now one of personal choice, and not of societal shaming.
It clarifies why a person makes these choices; is it out of personal ethics and morals, or because they are doing what other people expect of them?
Does the 2A permit the civilian ownership (“arms. . . “shall not be infringed”) of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons of mass destruction? If not, then why not?
The upper limit of lethality in the late 18th century was the unwieldy field cannon. It’s now materially and technically possible for a corporation or very wealthy individual to build a nuclear device (a 1940s technology) capable of devastating a large city. Of course the 2A is outdated if it cannot prohibit the ownership of these “arms”!
We refer to them all the time as nuclear, biological and chemical arms, but there seems to be an implicit understanding from even the staunchest 2A advocate that they are off-limits for non-government ownership.
The most powerful single weapon of war available at the time of the constitution is the warship. A large, well equipped, and adequately crewed man of war is more than capable of leveling a small coastal city on its own. Surprisingly, these weapons are specifically discussed in the constitution as legal.
If you want to be pedantic about the 2A you could argue it’s scope it limited to directed weapons rather than WMDs which kill indiscriminately. Then again, could a warship accurately target a single individual or building in a city or town, or were they too designed to inflict mass indiscriminate casualties?
My take on it: Should a person be allowed to possess nuclear, chemical, and/or biological weapons? No, but I don’t believe governments should either. In short, if a government can morally use a weapon a war, that weapon of war should be available to it’s citizenry. Full stop.
Well said. Couldn’t agree more. I’m going to borrow that reasoning when my idiot friends bring up the WMD issue.
Yes, ships of war are indeed mentioned in the CConstitution — but you have no idea what you are talking about. Atricle I. section 10 reads: “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”
Keeping “ships of war” in a time of peace was clearly prohibited to the states.
Vhyrus: “No, but I don’t believe governments should either. In short, if a government can morally use a weapon a war, that weapon of war should be available to it’s citizenry. Full stop.”
Yeah, that’s insane. When it comes to a central monopoly of nuclear devices, no government in the world could allow such a provision and call itself a government. There’s a anarcho-nihilism in so sociopathic an advocacy indicative of a basement dwelling gamer.
Vhyrus says that governments shouldn’t have nuclear weapons and you call that; “anarcho-nihilism… indicative of a basement dwelling gamer.”??? WTF? So you’re PRO nuclear annihilation?
Better be careful, your cover is slipping. Your Statism is showing, or at least some insanity. Also that you have been ‘educated’ to believe that the larger and more prolific the words, the higher the intellect of the speaker. Hate to burst that little bubble for you, but it’s just not so…
I answer you with a reasoned, logical response. You throw sophomoric ad hominems at me.
Obvious troll is now officially obvious.
“Keeping “ships of war” in a time of peace was clearly prohibited to the states.”
What does that have to do with anything? The fact that states couldn’t possess their own warships has no bearing on whether or not the people could. Article 1, Section 10 limits the power of the state governments the same way Article 1, Section 9 limits the power of the Federal government. The whole point of the Constitution is that government cannot be trusted with too much power.
Further, Article 1, Section 8 explicitly grants Congress the right to “…grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal…”, i.e. authorize privateers. Now, privateers being private people running private ships wouldn’t be too useful if they didn’t have armed vessels now would they?
There is nothing in the Constitution that says a private person or company cannot own a warship. Nor does it say that States cannot have them, they just can’t have them during peace time, the same way they can’t have a standing army.
I’m not going to go much further into this, but you need to read some history and the writings of the people who wrote the Constitution. You’ll find rapidly that much of Article 1, Section 10 is meant to prevent the interstate conflict that was common under the Articles of Confederation as well as one state dragging the rest of the union into a war with a foreign country.
The U.S. Constitution prevents STATES from keeping warships … it does not prevent you, me, voluntary cooperatives, nor corporations from keeping warships.
And if you want more evidence of this, research the ships with cannons that pursued pirate ships.
Every citizen has the right to lawful self defense by any means.
The longer anything is the more lawyers will quibble (at a billable hourly rate) over every word, comma, and period. The original is short and clear and Heller removed the last fig leaf the anti-gunners had. Now they have to roll back Heller to achieve their goals.
I appreciate your intentions. I get the gist of your article.
Not in your article is the “how”.
We’re very much stuck with what we have.
2A is toxic for both sides of the aisle (whether going too strong for or against).
And it’s well documented that the Convention of the States method has been continually ignored when petitioned many times in our country’s history.
All well and fine, but there’s only one little problem. You need FEWER words, not more.
“The right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”
That’s it. No more, no less. Screw that long-winded babble. And actually punish traitors and tyrants who attempt to usurp that God-given right. Do that and why, a lot of problems might miraculously clear right up.
Yes. Whenever you write laws and constitutions with more words, you give lawyers and judges (who are really nothing more than lawyers who like to dress in drag) more chances to weasel, dissemble, prevaricate and re-legislate the issue.
That is beautiful!
The second amendment is absolutely clear, as it already exists. That is bolstered by lots of individual letters and papers written by the founders, that it applies to all free men, all arms, etc. But no matter how you word(or reword) something, evil men will always attempt to twist it around to suit their own ambitions, Even if it takes from 1789 until 1968. Confucius say; “How much worse than a murderer or a rapist is the man who perverts the plain meaning of words?”
This has happened many times before in history. No piece of paper can restrain the desire to control others in evil men’s hearts. This is life on earth, and has been since the first caveman killed his brother with a rock in envy, because he had made something the other was incapable of making. Somewhere along the line, the evil ones got the bright idea of enslaving the craftsman and forcing him to make the thing for them for life.
“The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.” -I forget who
But we grew compacent and forgot to do that, and now we are paying the price of that folly. All societies have gone through these same 9 stages, over and over.
The greed in evil men’s hearts never stops, so neither must we.
“No words on paper can hold the iron, it must come from men.” -Ten Bears
Kenneth: “That is bolstered by lots of individual letters and papers written by the founders, that it applies to all free men, all arms, etc.”
So does the 2A apply to chemical, biological and nuclear arms as well? Are you really saying the government shouldn’t regulate their ownership? Or should the 2A only apply to technologies that were available in the late 18th century, destructive devices the Founding Fathers actually knew about . . . aside from those the could never imagine.
Not even Scalia thought the right to keep and bear arms was completely unlimited.
He correctly stated after Heller that back at the time of the founding there were some restrictions and pointed to a successful case known as “A frighting” where it was deemed reasonable to restrict someone from carrying around a headsman’s ax solely for the purpose of frightening people.
The argument “…shall not be infringed” is generally understood to cover conventional weapons which WMD’s are not.
Nice Reductio Ad-Absurdum you’ve built there.
Obvious troll is obvious.
No, I’m serious. There has to be some upper limit of lethality that the state reserves to its self in order to maintain a monopoly of (legitimated) domestic violence. It’s Weber 101. The Scalia example is exactly what I’m talking about, the sort of example needed whenever anyone claims that there should be no limits on the 2A whatsoever.
2A is a control on the central government. Else the several states are mere vassals of the federal tyrant. If the central government must always have more access to violence than the people, the central government is no longer a delegated agent of the people, but only a time-honored despot. Do you truly believe the founders meant to establish a government that would simply recreate that which they threw off? Only, the new leaders would be smarter and better than the king, so despotism would then be OK?
“Nice Reductio Ad-Absurdum you’ve built there.
Obvious troll is obvious.”
Not at all. Think about what you are saying, “There are certain ‘common sense’, ‘reasonable’ limits on the second amendment. Once you admit that, “reasonable” and “common sense” are in the eye of the beholder, and valid on their face.
The founders did not intend to allow the central government to over-match the states (“the people”) militarily. What would have been the point of a declaration that the people could keep arms so long as those arms did not include weaponry equal to the state. That people should be able to defend themselves from personal attacks by using firearms was a given. The founders were all about keeping the central government in line, or having the ability to remove it by force if necessary. They did not envision a civilian militia/army armed with only small arms to go against a central government which had explosives, artillery and naval guns available. What is the logical conclusion of the people having military force equal to the central government?
“There has to be some upper limit of lethality that the state reserves to its self in order to maintain a monopoly of (legitimated) domestic violence.”
Only those who believe in the state over the individual can believe that. Listen to yourself…. You are saying that the state must have violence available to kill anyone it wants, anytime it wants…. just because its the state. That violence that IT commits is all fine and dandy…. because…because…. ?????? Because why? Because they have done so well with it over the centuries?
🙂 Sorry, that, too, is pure BS.
We now live in the post constitutional era.
Words have no meaning unless we choose to give them meaning by our actions.
I hate lawyer talk. The beauty and simplicity of the constitution was supposedly unequaled in it’s time. And it’s definitely not equalled now. Besides, it CAN and SHOULD be amendable. The other beef I have is that no matter how absolutely clear you make it things will ALways be up for interpretation. That’s why we HAVE a legal system. The murk doesn’t come from the definition, it comes from the application in a constantly changing world of moral greys and complicated circumstances.
I think he is saying that with the current culture, and the weasel-wording of lawyers, short and sweet statements are not getting the job done. We are in the fight we are in because of weasel lawyers and judges. We can all pound “shall not be infringed” forever, but it does nothing to stop infringement. If any court ruled that the second amendment is absolute, the news would have been all over the place. Anyone seen such?
The courts ultimately determine what infringement means, unless they are prohibited from ruling on anything to do with firearms, other than decide if some governmental action attempts to restrict RTKBA in any way. If the courts are stopped, than the lawyers have no place to go for “reasonable controls”. Admittedly, congress can prohibit courts from having jurisdiction over 2A, but that legislation is much easier to overturn.
We seem to all agree the sparse wording of the second amendment is elegant and succinct, needing no interpretation. Yet interpretation is how we got here. And fear that somehow attempting to make the amendment less vulnerable to govdernment interpretation will lead to greater vulnerability is misplaced. There is nothing stopping the anti-gun crowd from proposing a gun-restricting amendment today. Why are they not doing that? If the anti-gun crowd attempted to change the proposed tightening of the amendment wording (meaning making it more forceful in light of how language is used today by lawyers and courts), the amendment would, apparently fail (if they don’t have the votes to succeed by initiating constitutional restriction, they do not have the votes to ratify a hijacked version).
The battle is not about literary beauty, it is about stopping all the interpretation by the voting majority who support (by action or inaction) gun restrictions through their state and national legislators. These people are implementing restrictions in the face of the plain meaning (and they do know what “shall not” means) of the second amendment. Hopeful slogans will never stop them.
Hopeful slogans won’t, and neither will a failed and misguided attempt to change the second amendment. Especially to something so obviously flawed.
I’d vote for lawyering it up, but I wouldn’t like it.
My main point was and still is that no matter how clear you make it, you can’t stop people from misinterpreting it. It’s the moral thing to do in their mind so they’ll keep twisting no matter how hard they have to.
There is nothing wrong with the way the 2nd amendment was written. The problem is the people in high places who have violated their oath to protect and defend the Constitution. No matter how it is written, they will twist its meaning in order to dominate the people.
If they see the 2A as not serving it’s a purpose anymore then I can see a few others in the same situation. Let’s go ahead and change those as well. *sarcasm*
The Second Amendment serves its purpose just fine. The problem is that the reading comprehension of many people is substantially less than it used to be. Couple that with the fact that we have a class of professional spin doctors in this country twisting words to turn minds.
As with most things these days, the root of the problem here is not the 2A, it’s the “education” system.
I firmly believe that the Left took over education beginning in the late 1950’s and that the disaster that is our educational system is 100% by design. Ignorant people are easy to manipulate so historical facts and logic have been removed along with critical thinking skills and replaced with nonsense.
So, in a sense, it’s not the fault of those Ivy League graduates who majored in something other than science. They never had a chance to be exposed to facts, logic and a full-throated rational debate. Instead they were KITD-FOHS.
“maybe we can all agree”
Are you serious? We can’t all agree that the sun rises in the East.
The sun only rises in the east for rich people. The poor have to settle for CFL bulbs.
Aside from the good or bad related to this idea, here’s the thing.
This would never be passed as an amendment.
And if it was pushed through it would go through committee after committee and end up being 2000 pages long, and include the right to free MTV and the best gun you would be able to use would be made of a paper clip and a rubber band.
As long as we keep insisting on giving others power to dictate how we live, the RKBA will never be safe. All the courts have to do is decide that rights are not unlimited (thanks, SCOTUS), and they can and will effectively rewrite our freedoms into oblivion, no matter what the words on the paper say.
I think the answer is something like the Free State Project, where enough liberty-minded people get together and decide to shuck off the failed experiment of statism and the preposterous idea that other people are better qualified to run their lives than they are. Only when the power to infringe on the RKBA is gone could it ever be safe.
The problem is if we rewrite it now what’s to stop us from rewriting it in the future.
You cannot understand the Second Amendment in isolation from the entire document. The Militia is not established in the Second Amendment. It is authorized in Article I, Section 8, paragraphs 15 and 16. Furthermore, the personal ownership of arms is not required to maintain a Militia. Arms can be stored in government arsenals and distributed for training or activation. If the right to bear arms is about militias then it is superfluous since it is already covered operationally unnecessary. In context it can only have one meaning. — it is a personal right that cannot be infringed upon by The Federal Government prior to the adoption of the 14th Amendment and by all governments afterwards.
As a 16 year active duty Marine with 5 tours to the sandbox, and having several compadres who came back in a box, I think this is distasteful to post on Memorial Day. But since we opened this can I’d like to share my thoughts. I submit that the problem isn’t the language at all. The problem is that the people of the gun have, generally speaking, forgotten that the 2A defends itself.
When systemic and systematic infringement occurs as we’ve begun to see now, the answer is not to rewrite the 2A so that the simpletons can understand it or in a futile attempt to prevent contortion or bastardization. The answer is simply this: bone support, muscle relaxation, slow steady squeeze.
That is all.
I do not see this as disrespect for the fallen at all. A lot of men and women stood up and fell for our rights as American citizens, and I think we pay them homage by continuing the fight for the right of the individual.
You’re right, I was probably being too judgmental. The intent was noble but I think this solution is ridiculous. Belay my last.
Well, except for the slow steady squeeze part.
“The problem is that the people of the gun have, generally speaking, forgotten that the 2A defends itself.”
If it defends itself, then what happened during the NFA of 1934? Or the AWB of 1994? “Generally speaking” seems to leave a lot a wiggle room for lasting restrictions.
“I think this is distasteful to post on Memorial Day.”
Why would you think a proposal to further protect the second amendment is inappropriate on a day celebrating those who fought and died for that amendment?
” the answer is not to rewrite the 2A so that the simpletons can understand it or in a futile attempt to prevent contortion or bastardization.”
Really? Do you not realize how many of those simpletons vote, and have been the source of restrictions on our RTKB. Trying to appeal to an educated, erudite, sophisticated gentry of centuries gone by is not getting us anywhere. So far, we have gone from firearms as a normal, natural part of society, to micro-printing firing pins and ammo cases, to bullet taxes, to limits on firearm possession based on the “feelings” of a community, all while have a rousing fete of the simple and elegant language of the second amendment. When you enemy is no longer at the last location you attacked, you must recalibrate your response. If the enemy is too ignorant to understand, too lacking of morals to accept the constitution as written, then re-writing may be the only thing left.
I can almost assure you it will never be written this way. In fact, the people should fear the day should such succinct and clear words turn into many.
It is far harder for the government to redefine the English language.
This pretty much hits the nail on the head. The second amendment as is written can essentially be re written by whatever the supreme court justices decide it means. The amendment is very short and vague, in contrast to the other amendments. All it says is “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” does bear arms mean to form a militia? Does it mean to carry guns in public?
There is really something wrong when a supreme court justice is such a big deal because they can completely rewrite or effectively repeal a constitutional amendment based on their interpretation of the meaning. 5 un-elected people, with life terms decide that it only applies to state militias and goodbye gun rights. It
I don’t really see the second amendment being re written though.That would require the politicians to get off their butts and do something big. It would require more agreement on the legitimacy of the right to keep and bear arms than currently exists.
Furthurmore I worry that an absolute version of the second amendment would be more a threat to itself than the “flexible” version that is in place. When the amendment is strong and rigid and the philosophical opponents of the basic right to keep and bear arms can’t take small bites satiate their desire to regulate firearms, then it will give them even more momentum to completely repeal the amendment. Instead of just having the people who want Australian style gun laws clamoring for repealing the second amendment, you will get people who want fully automatic weapons banned, people who want mandatory background checks, people who want licensing to carry concealed weapons, ect. all united to repeal an absolute amendment.
This is why I don’t really regard the second amendment as all important in defending gun rights. It’s an important tool, certainly, but a law is only as strong as the will of the people who are willing to uphold it. The best way to protect the right to keep and bear arms is to improve public opinion and support for it.
When I see people agonizing over the meaning of the 2A, I just inform them to read the federalist papers and Madison’s own words on the subject. It’s pretty clear what the 2A means when you read the supporting documents.
Say what you will but if we lose the 2nd were gonna be pandered to by career politicians promising to bring that gem back to no avail.THEN were reaaally gonna have to make America great again
The government will never pass laws or rewrite existing laws to give the public more freedom. The result of new laws is ALWAYS to further restrict and regulate.
Lot of talk about “common sense” gun laws these days.
Common sense would be the next decision made by the Supreme Court regarding an anti-2nd amendment law stating that “this law would infringe on an individual’s right to own, possess or use a personal firearm, and is therefore unconstitutional”. And that’s it. No other explanation necessary. No alternate decisions in the future. THAT would be common sense.
I disagree. I believe the constitution is succinct and clear.
I truly appreciate those who have fallen to protect its continued liberties.
There is nothing wrong with the way the Second Amendment is written. The problem is that the government is supposed to be restricted to enumerated powers-meaning that their power is restricted to what it says that it can do in the Constitution. Anything NOT specified in the Constitution, the Federal government is not allowed to interfere with. The 10th Amendment also referrs to this. The Federalist Papers are clear on this
well said, except that the public is so dumbed down that this no longer has any practical meaning.
Definitions from the 1828 Webster Dictionary of the words of the Second Amendment
“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.”
A-An adjective, commonly called the indefinite article, and signifying one or any, but less emphatically.
well-Suitably to one’s condition, to the occasion, or to a proposed end or use; suitably; abundantly; fully; adequately; thoroughly
regulated- Adjusted by rule, method or forms; put in good order; subjected to rules or restrictions
Militia- In the widest sense, the whole military force of a nation, including both those engaged in military service as a business, and those competent and available for such service; specifically, the body of citizens enrolled for military instruction and discipline, but not subject to be called into actual service except in emergencies.
being- Since; inasmuch as
necessary-Such as must be; impossible to be otherwise; not to be avoided; inevitable
to- The preposition to primarily indicates approach and arrival, motion made in the direction of a place or thing and attaining it, access; and also, motion or tendency without arrival; movement toward
the- A word placed before nouns to limit or individualize their meaning
security-The condition or quality of being secure; secureness. Specifically: (a) Freedom from apprehension, anxiety, or care; confidence of power of safety; hence, assurance; certainty.
of- In a general sense, from, or out from; proceeding from; belonging to; relating to; concerning;
a- (see above definition)
free- Exempt from subjection to the will of others; not under restraint, control, or compulsion; able to follow one’s own impulses, desires, or inclinations; determining one’s own course of action; not dependent; at liberty.
State-The circumstances or condition of a being or thing at any given time.,
the- (see above definition)
right- Conformed to the constitution of man and the will of God, or to justice and equity; not deviating from the true and just; according with truth and duty; just; true.
of- (see above definition)
the- (see above definition)
people- The body of persons who compose a community, tribe, nation, or race; an aggregate of individuals forming a whole; a community; a nation
to- (see above definition)
keep- To hold; to restrain from departure or removal; not to let go of; to retain in one’s power or possession; not to lose; to retain; to detain.
and- A particle which expresses the relation of connection or addition. It is used to conjoin a word with a word, a clause with a clause, or a sentence with a sentence.
bear- To possess or carry, as a mark of authority or distinction; to wear; as, to bear a sword, badge, or name
Arms-, Instruments or weapons of offense or defense.
shall- To owe; to be under obligation for
not- A word used to express negation, prohibition, denial, or refusal.
be- To exist actually, or in the world of fact; to have existence
infringed- Broken; violated; transgresses.
The second amendment is a law.
No law has any value unless it is obeyed and enforced.
Anti-constitutional gun restrictions are laws.
No law has any value unless it is obeyed and enforced.
“No citizen shall pay a tax for, or a fee for, or be subject to prohibition from, use and ownership of any arms or armaments of the type used or owned by the civil authorities of the federal, state, county or municipal governments.”
The Constitution, Bill of rights or any other of our founding documents aren’t worth the paper they are printed without the desire to follow them. we can have any document we want and hold it up as the end all be all and its just paper unless it has the will of the people behind it.
We have legislators who can draft laws (or put forth what the lobbyist give them) that directly contradict the founding documents with no real recourse on our part. A legislator can put forth a law curtails rights spelled out in the Bill of rights and there is no accountability.
We have a tiered legal system where if you have enough power the law doesn’t apply to you or you can get a carve out.
We have justices picked not because they understand the laws as set forth but because they can be counted on the interpret them is a way we find palatable.
Our government has lost the support of the people, but because of the power the government wields they can crush anyone who they deem a threat with any number of hammers (IRS,FBI, DHS, ATF, etc….) sure you can stage a protest, or speak out, but start making real waves and see what happens.
I don’t know what the solution is for all this and there very well could be no solution except let it fall and start over. What I am sure of is it will hurt no matter what and most people would rather live in chains and be comfortable then stand on their own and be responsible for their own choices.
” . . . most people would rather live in chains and be comfortable then stand on their own and be responsible for their own choices”
Truth is the new hate speech.
“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”
Here’s my suggestion, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Too arbitrary; you should really include a core justification, something along the lines of “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, …”
What’s the penalty if they do infringe? we already have that and it means nothing if they can get away with it.
you also have the right to free speech but better get a permit and go to the free speech zone unless you want to get arrested.
You have the right to be secure in you person, houses, papers or effects, unless they use the term terrorist/extremist or National Security then it’s good-bye to your rights.
you have a right in court to face your accusers and see the evidence against you….. unless it’s classified then well they only way you get to see if is if wiki-leaks has a copy somewhere.
About the only right enumerated in the Bill of rights that hasn’t been walked all over is the third. no quarters for solders in time of piece and I’m not ever sure if it hasn’t been violated. I just can’t see as how it would be useful to the government in an age where they can tax you to support the “troops” that may or may not be used to step on your neck at some point.
not trying to start a fight but without something to hold the Government accountable there will be no change.
How about a Law that says any elected official who is found to have introduced, sponsored or supported any legislation found to be a willful infringement of rights enumerated in the Bill of rights be subject to trial by jury for civil rights violation in times of peace and in times of war treason.
The 2nd is almost verbatim what was written years earlier in England when James II disarmed the Protestants. It’s not vague at all.
A wonderful woman said yesterday, it’s to be taken in its entirety.
People don’t like it but that’s what it says. Debating that things are different is ignorant as things are exactly the same. Other countries are teetering on crazy some are full on crazy and I know that folks behave because Americans don’t cotton to but so much shite. Sometimes we ignore the greedy. Sometimes we cling to crazy beliefs that don’t affect us directly. Sometimes we do wait too long and give away the farm for a promise and this may come to bite us. But we sure are trying. As long as we remember that to be an American you have to choose to live by its tenants and government and freely question that government. That’s all. Anyone who says you have to be this nationality, race, religion, gender, or like 1970 American Motors Gremlins is mistaken. 🙂 We will hold our noses and fight for your right to like that car. 🙂
Regulation would be innocuous if people weren’t trying to confiscate guns. Seat belts demonstratedly saved lives. There was no talk of, “well people keep going through the windshield so we will ban cars.” However the “we know what’s good for you” people are talking about breathalyzers in every car. I don’t drink and drive. I fancy them both very much. One spoils the other. I like to enjoy each separately. Sort of like shooting. 🙂
I am flat out amazed to be reading such a suggestion on this page – especially on Memorial Day.
The 2nd Amendment does not need to be rewritten. The only people who claim that it’s difficult to understand are the people who want to ban guns.
It’s not difficult to understand.
The Right of the PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR ARMS — (wait for it) SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
Anyone who needs anything more than that is an incompetent fucking retard whose opinion you should care nothing for.
“Not moving the needle,” huh? We’ll have the half of the nation that still matters rocking Constitutional Carry within the decade (the remainder having long since been bought by foreign interests). The very fact that we still know what the original intent and meaning of the RKBA stands for, is reason enough to leave it unchanged. I wouldn’t even remove the preface statement, seeing as it recognizes the first reason for the right’s existence (one last, final check on federal authority by local groups). A re-write would likely screw things up by turning it into a right to personal defense, itself so self-evident an idea as to be ridiculous (very much like codifying the ‘right’ of the federal government’s army to use weapons).
Were we just now exiting a bloody, protracted civil or other war, pitting our ideology against all who would drag us back to totalitarian dictatorship, and coming out the victors…maybe then I might agree we have the necessary perspective to be redefining a new system of governance and its priorities. Rather, we are 240 years removed from those times, and have failed to triumph in our convictions far more than we have defended them, by my reckoning (hence why I do not include the Civil War). I don’t think the founding generation was especially wise compared to ours, in an intrinsic sense, or divinely inspired in the supernatural sense; I think their circumstances were simply the most suitable for crafting an Enlightenment government system –and that until we find ourselves in a similar spot, it is useless to dream we could improve upon it. What we can do is recognize the goals put forth back then, and strive to reach them in this day and age; that task is one for which our 240 years of subsequent education and experience will serve us well.
So well said!
“We’ll have the half of the nation that still matters rocking Constitutional Carry within the decade”
I’m sorry, 50% is not a victory. If “victory” is not overwhelming, complete and permanent, it is not a victory, but merely a challenge to fight again tomorrow. Does everyone understand that 2/3s of the states voted to ratify the second amendment? 66% is alot closer to complete. Indeed, since all 13 states ratified the constitution, victory was complete, 100%. We are not facing a victory when half the voting population wants RTKBA to be abolished through any means necessary (but preferably not involving a constitutional amendment).
As the proposal noted, so long as there can be any ability of the courts (and thus all the legislatures in the country) to interpret and establish “reasonable restrictions” and/or meaning, we will never truly win. If “shall not be infringed” was capable of protecting our gun rights, we would not be in this discussion. When has any lawsuit supporting RTKBA been determined by the mere positing of “shall not be infringed” ? Based on so much of what is written on this blog, “shall not be infringed” should be the only ruling allowed the courts. But that ain’t happening.
>> “Not moving the needle,” huh? We’ll have the half of the nation that still matters rocking Constitutional Carry within the decade
Half the nation by land area, maybe. Definitely not population.
And the only reason why it works is because increasing partisanship means that red states get redder, and blue states get bluer. So more aggressively conservative policies can be enacted in those red states. The problem for you guys is that this also means that swing states polarize, and in most cases, due to demographic trends, they go blue. Which means that the complete Democratic control of the federal government is only a matter of time; and when that happens, lack of regulation on state level won’t matter, because it will be pushed from the top on all the states.
The devil is in the details. With too many details you invite the devil.
Just remember, the Supreme Court is not the entity with the final say on whether or not a law is constitutional.
The final say belongs to the people, largely because of the 2A.
The historical link between the English Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment, which both codify an existing right and do not create a new one, has been acknowledged by the U.S. Supreme Court.
“The historical link between the English Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment, which both codify an existing right and do not create a new one, has been acknowledged by the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Agree. But that acknowledgement did not extend to absolute prohibition to carving out enough “reasonable” restrictions to eventually make gun ownership illegal.
When you control the meaning of words, you can make any word mean what ever you darn well please. Read George Orwell’s 1984 and the fictional government’s use of “Newspeak”. We even have that today. The Obama regime now calls young criminals “Justice Involved Youth”, terrorism called “Man Made Disasters”.
The phase “….shall not be infringed”, is crystal clear, yet here we are, gun owner’s rights infringed with permits, fees, and may issue on the whim of some police chief. Tell some bureaucrat or a judge that you will not pay for a concealed permit, and see how far that get you.
So you can word it any way you want, but infringers gonna infringe.
Not a chance of getting this passed. In the current political climate a call for convention may do more harm than good. Further, legally, I don’t believe that a Constitutional amendment can be made immune from further amendment.
“Further, legally, I don’t believe that a Constitutional amendment can be made immune from further amendment.”
Always an interesting question, but consider that congress sets the rules for what the courts can consider (Obamacare actually has a provision the prohibits congressional action to review or overturn any decisions made by the medical necessity panel (death panel).
Congress can also dissolve (without review) any and all of the courts below the SC, without a constitutional amendment. If the idea is that it would be illegal to make an amendment immune to change, where is the authority for that idea? Nothing in the constitution is placed beyond the amendment process. The SC would be making absolutely new law if they ruled that congress cannot use the amendment process to prohibit a section from being amended.
If they can ignore words like ‘shall not be infringed’ they can ignore anything. If you want your rights to be safe then find politicians who share your views and get them in office – and if they don’t stick to their word boot them out. Keep doing that for a hundred years or so and we might be back to the country as founded.
…for the children…
They pissants who don’t even understand “IS” can manipulate anything to suit their objective.
“Keep doing that for a hundred years or so and we might be back to the country as founded.”
Who thinks the nation has one hundred years left ?
Not at the rate we’re going now.
“Personal arms of any type, for any purpose?” While we can indulge in the fantasy that the United States will make it legal for you to buy a hand grenade, anti-tank missile, or Stinger MANPADS at your local gun shop without so much as a background check, it’s simply not going to happen.
This is a bit similar to gun grabbers saying it’s time to repeal the 2nd Amendment, in the respect that neither one is going to happen.
A Stinger, being nominally a crew served weapon, would be reserved for the control of your community.
Just like artillery was not held in a private home, but in the community, town, city arsenal for use when needed to fend off attacks by Indians, other states, other nations, or our own government forces.
Artillery was privately owned not only in the revolutionaryvperiod but well into the 1800’s. In fact it still is today though due to the provisions of the NFA increasing the expense it is not a common hobby. You can in fact buy and own a Stinger in much of the US if you follow all NFA provisions and have sufficient liquid capital.
Any restrictions on any individual rights are arbitrary and once you set that bar somewhere your enemies will begin to move it.
The ability of people on this blog to demonstrate their incivility, lack of language skills and common courtesy is breathtaking. Such a positive and welcoming place for POTG to gather. Does such language add authority or veracity to your commentary?
Yes, private ownership of artillery in the olden days existed. But the ability to also store powder and shot, then timely transport it to the battalion would have been a great disadvantage to mustering. Fact is, artillery, powder and shot were also stored in the community arsenal. Nothing in my prior response indicated an affinity for any control on the populace regarding acquisition, possession, ownership, use of weapons of war. The second is just about useless if the founders meant that only small arms would be used against an organized, heavily armed standing army of an out of control government.
Before getting all abusive, please to watch the following couple videos of private citizen firing their large toys, for fun. It happens all the time. Flame throwers, artillery, full autos, all are legal to possess and use in the US(responsibly, ofc! They aren’t allowed to shoot artillery at your house, any more than they are a 22 rimfire!) and furthermore, none of them cause any problems at all.
And if this information is unable to enter your brain, just watch it a couple times. You will get the point, which is; Large crew served weapons ARE avialable for private purchase, RIGHT NOW, and have been for a very long time. So the word “bullshit” while you might not like it much, IS accurate.
“Large crew served weapons ARE avialable for private purchase, RIGHT NOW”
Only if the government, of which the public are justly subjects and serfs, agrees to it. Permitting government to permit the public to possess weapons of war is pretty close to insanity. Under such conditions, the government may remove those weapons if government feels the public is too well armed.
Now there is something I can agree with. If one needs permission to do a thing, that thing is a privilege you got from whoever, and NOT a right.And ‘earning’ your ‘privileges’ from a superior is for minors, not for thinking adults. Ofc, there are a great many childish adults that fail to acknowledge this obvious truth, but that doesn’t change it.
“This is a bit similar to gun grabbers saying it’s time to repeal the 2nd Amendment, in the respect that neither one is going to happen.”
You are right. Shouting “shall not be infringed” has been so effective to date.
Why worry about the wording of the Constitution when all of our government overlords ignore it anyway?
Here’s the problem, there was no ambiguity in the language as it was written. They brought law books to the Constitutional convention as well as to the drafting of the Bill of Rights. Those law books rather plainly define all the terms that we are arguing about. We’ve had the list of those law books, we’ve had copies of them, most of our side doesn’t even know about them. And that alone should tell you every thing you need to know.
You are wasting your mental energy and time on these people trying to reason with them when they have abandoned reason altogether. Their side thinks that race and gender are social constructs despite the overwhelming mountains of data to the contrary that overwhelmingly point to a hard physical reality. They continue to demand socialism in spite of it’s rather well documented 100% failure rate. In other words you are trying to craft a better second amendment when you should be trying to figure out how to strip your opponents of their right to vote so they can’t ruin anything else. The kind has a subsidized existence,and in a free market they can’t compete and will die off, as long s they can’t form a numerical superiority to vote themselves a living.
I say unleash the right wing death squads, start chucking high profile lefties outa helicopters, force capitalism on the population, deport native Spanish speakers and muslims, and restrict the right to vote and hold public office to veterans with at least six years active duty, and no women since they overwhelmingly vote lefty until they have been married for a decade or two, and often even then. That will be enough to stop the bleeding so that we can BEGIN to fix America’s problems.
I like a thoroughly reasoned approach to problem solving. Even if it is a two-edged sword.
Kenneth: “Vhyrus says that governments shouldn’t have nuclear weapons . . ”
Sure, it would be lovely to rid the world of nuclear weapons — it’s Obama’s dream. But in a world in which aggressive states possess them it’s self-defeating for the US state to get rid of ours. That should be obvious, even to a troll. You call it statism, I call it the state system. If you don’t like it, have fun escaping it in Somalia.
Wilson is a troll. Anyone who knows anything about maritime history would know that a privateer without a letter of marque . . . is known as a PIRATE. The legality here is clear and bolstered by case history: even slavers like James de Wolf outfitted their ships for “privateering” DURING their commission (of the War of 1812). Jean Lafitte’s pardon — for his crimes — was based on his service, and didn’t cover his criminal activities — including possession of “ships of war” — thereafter. Here’s where some actual knowledge of constitutional history and law is an added bonus: As to individuals being able to own weapons RESTRICTED even to states, see Barron v. Baltimore and US v. Smith (1820).
“Barron v. Baltimore and US v. Smith (1820)”
A self-serving decision that concluded the federal government was superior to the states (and the people thereof). What else would you expect from an agent of the federal government? Simply because a court rules that states (and the people) MUST not have equivalent firepower to the central government, the founders intended that “the people” have the power to destroy an out-of-control, tyrannical government. A government that moved beyond the bonds established by the states (“the people”), and refused to relinquish usurped power via the political process. Remember, the founders considered legislators to be “the central government”, too.
Ralph and Int19h would say this is missing the prisoners in prison clause. Do prisoners in prison have the right to keep and bear arms? They are people. They reside in the United States.
Also, residents in the US? Does that include illegal aliens? What about Iraqi illegal aliens? What about enemy troops from other countries? According to this wording it does – as long as they reside here.
Really? All the amendments can be amended. Just stating in the amendment that it can’t be amended by amendment does nothing. All amendments can be amended, regardless of what they say.
But that’s just possession, it doesn’t cover their manufacture. Also, 200 years from now, the people can form a new branch to consider lawsuits, not call them “courts,” and then these new branches can consider these lawsuits because they are not “courts.”
In my honest opinion, the more words you put in it, the easier it is for it to be misconstrued or misinterpreted. Just think about the words “militia” and “regulated” in our current amendment. Think of how worse it would be 200 years from now when they have a great multitude of words they can purposely try to redefine. Shorter is better.
Also, trying to reestablish a 2nd amendment now with our current congress would be a disaster. Democrats wouldn’t let it pass without clauses like “except as legislated” or “with exceptions below,” or “but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons.” Etc. … because they hate rights and guns. Anything that restricts the government from taking action on a subject they don’t like, they won’t be for it. The 2A isn’t for the pro-statist.
If the current congress (or one like it) would change a proposed re-write of 2A so as to further cripple our gun rights, that same congress would need to have the amendment submitted for ratification by the states. If a sufficient number of states are willing to ratify further erosion of our gun rights, then so be it. Not proposing strengthening of our gun rights does nothing to deter the anti-gun crowd from proposing their own, separate amendment to that effect. The idea that if we don’t invite scrutiny, the blithering idiots on the other side will remain sleeping dogs is, to be generous, misguided.
I don’t deny that, but do you think trying to strengthen our 2A rights is going to stop them?
Proposed re-write of 2A to tighten language….to make it more difficult to infringe.
“but do you think trying to strengthen our 2A rights is going to stop them?”
Not trying has been wildly successful. When you are dealing with children (anti-gunners), you must speak to them in a language that is unambiguous, and thoroughly understandable to them. Like, “none ever, period, under no imaginable circumstances, no excuses, no leeway, no hypothetical posturing…”, that sort of thing. But without prohibiting jurisdiction to the courts, and destruction of any vestige of “compelling government interest” exceptions, we would be better off than now, but not at a permanent solution.
“Not proposing strengthening of our gun rights does nothing . . . ” Obviously true.
One goal of proposing an amendment is to get it passed; but that is not necessarily the only goal. Another would be to “start a conversation”. Contemplation of an amendment is so momentous an act that it attracts public attention to the issue. It causes voters to think about the issue.
It takes virtually a consensus to get an amendment ratified. Pretty hard to achieve. We want a proposal that would pass, or at least get pretty close to passing. If it doesn’t command an overwhelming majority then it might actually set our cause back.
We ought to think about a text that might move the ball incrementally forward and be popular. How about an amendment that says: “No right of the People shall be denied for want of a need to exercise that right.”
Such a proposed text would begin a discussion such as: Do you really need to:
– refuse to quarter troops
– retain privacy over your papers or effects
– vote if you are female
– vote if you are a teenager
. . .
Our position would be simply this: If one right of the People can be denied under color of law because a government demands proof of “need” than any other right is equally vulnerable to a “need-based” proof. Is that acceptable?
Let the Antis propose their own amendment; e.g., the same text plus “. . . except guns”. The Red States would easily defeat that alternative text and the public would be compelled to attend to the debate because it would put the right to bear arms in sharp relief.
Now there is the good idea! Forget rewording or opening a convention(both bad ideas), instead propose a new one that supports the others by proclaiming that one cannot have his rights taken by outlawing access to printers firearms, ammo, smartphones, etc.
In one go it would open up a conversation about THINGS that are required to properly exersize rights, and show the people that having a smartphone and an internet to publish to is no different than having a firearm and ammo. All just tools. And that if ammo and components are dryed up it would be like having your smartphone, but with no internet to access. What good would that be to the use of free speech? I think the ‘educated’ sheep might actually understand that.
Not the ones with letters after their names, ofc. They have too vested of an interest, plus too much indoctrinated faith in their own superiority over others, to actually think. At least for most of them.
But in ignoring the elite voices, it would tend to pickup the anti-elite sentiment, which is what is pushing the Trump train along at such a rapid pace.
“Our position would be simply this: If one right of the People can be denied under color of law because a government demands proof of “need” than any other right is equally vulnerable to a “need-based” proof. Is that acceptable?”
Liked your entire commentary. Good thoughts, really good.
Hell, might as well rewrite other US Constitutional-Bill of Rights/: amendments. Let’s start with the 1$t amendment and how it applies to lawful US citizens only. NOT to Corporate news media entities who are profiteering off derailing our Bill of Rights, and spewing Left-wing political propaganda that would make Fascist Joseph Gobbel’s, and Marxist Stalin very proud….Then we can move on to other amendments before they do. …
The idea that corporations (or any business) are “persons” was designed to allow business entities to make contracts, own property,conduct financial transactions etc. Otherwise, it would be necessary for each business owner, or officer, or maybe even employee to individually sign each and every document…and then update the signatures whenever one of those individuals is replaced by another. When you look at the real money power in this country, it is not just businesses that have near-unlimited funds available to push their political agenda. Personally, I think contributions to politicians (professional or not) should be limited to $5 (indexed for inflation) per natural person (legal or illegal), and the actual candidate or office holder from their own funds or ability to borrow.
Should we change it?
Very simply and very plainly, no.
To suggest changes is to side with the anti-gun crowd who think the simple words don’t mean what the simple words mean. If you agree it needs changing then you are just admitting that ‘they’ are right and the Amendment was/is confusing, doesn’t mean what it means, and that it needs changing.
You don’t get to choose which worms come out of the can once opened. Bloomberg and his minions would spend himself into the poor-house if they thought they had a chance of changing the Amendment to be more to their liking instead of ours.
The anti-gun crowd doesn’t need to wait for us to try to make a change to 2A, they can do it on their own. Apparently they believe such an effort would fail. So why would they be successful hijacking a proposal to make the wording more explicit, less subject to twisting?
The “hide in the corner, and maybe they won’t notice” concept is not rational.
But I do understand that the POTG are reactionary, lacking initiative to take the fight to the enemy, constantly saying “No”. I has become our habit, hoping things don’t get worse.
“…The “hide in the corner, and maybe they won’t notice” concept is not rational.”
Where did I suggest that?
I am making the case that ‘they’ want to change the Amendment, they want to use modern definitions and modern standards to change the meaning of the Second Amendment (not any of the others, just the Second), ‘they’ think it is flawed and needs rewriting. For example, What does ‘well regulated’ mean if not more regulations?
To suggest changes is to admit ‘they’ are correct and it needs changing.
I submit It does not.
The meaning is quite clear, the words and intent quite clear. No amount of handwringing over the placements of the comma’s or dancing around the prefatory clause can overcome the simple imperative of ‘shall not be infringed.’
“…The “hide in the corner, and maybe they won’t notice” concept is not rational.”
Where did I suggest that?”
The notation that proposing a tighter wording to 2A would open up the opportunity for anti-gun people to runaway with an amendment and warp it to their benefit has a corollary: “the anti-gunners will make things worse if we agree an amendment is needed, so lets not give them the opening.” Several people today have written words similar.
Since we do not live in the late 1700s, and since the population eligible to vote is relatively ignorant of robust English (emoticons, emojis and fake words [OMG, LOL, etc] suffice for communication these days), something as simple as 2A needs specific wording from which the ignorant cannot run, twist or ignore. If “shall not be infringed” was effective language (and it hasn’t been since the mid 1800s), we would not be constantly fighting to preserve the RTKBA, it would be….settled.
“… If “shall not be infringed” was effective language (and it hasn’t been since the mid 1800s), we would not be constantly fighting to preserve the RTKBA, it would be….settled.”
How do you make four words any simpler?
Seriously, how do you make four words any simpler than they already are?
“Seriously, how do you make four words any simpler than they already are?”
By speaking a language understandable by the current society: period, not for any reason, under no circumstance real or imagined, by no law or policy or regulation or ordinance. And by removing judicial review of RTKBA (which doesn’t require an amendment, but is less secure).
“Shall not be infringed” has done nothing to stop or slow the erosion of the second amendment. Again I ask, “When was the last time someone sued the federal government for violating the four words”? There is no need to get into the legal weeds of permits, taxes, training, home or outside, none of that. Ipso Facto, any restriction on acquisition and/or possession of firearms violates “shall not be infringed”. Why has no one tried to uses the phrase as the sole claim? How well has “shall not be infringed” protected gun owners from relentless attack? Which other amendment is under constant attack for existing?
We are in poor (doomed) condition if all we have is the equivalent of, “If people would just accept what ‘shall not be infringed’ means”.
I also have a problem with the wording of 2A, although I know people here disagree. I have a problem with the word “arms. I 100% support the RTKAB small arms up to and including NFA weapons. That should not be infringed. But I cannot hang with arms meaning WMD, tanks, surface to air missiles, etc. Those are for the country to “provide for the common defense.” I have direct experience with serious weapons of war and I do not want them in private hands. Disagree, name call all you want that’s what I strongly believe.
Having said that, I do not believe there will ever be a rewording of 2A, nor do I want one. The Article V process would make it prohibitive and hazardous for both pro- and anti-gun factions.
“…But I cannot hang with arms meaning WMD, tanks, surface to air missiles, etc.”
That doesn’t really make any sense. Think it all the way through….
I am going to hand you a loaded firearm. Are you suddenly going to go violent and start shooting people?
Same question, different words….
I am going to hand you the keys to a tank. Are you suddenly going to go violent and start shooting people?
How does my having a firearm differ in any way that my having a tank?
And why should the State have the exclusive authority to own tanks or missiles or any of the other WMD’s? What makes them so special that they should have something that I should be disbarred from having?
Because these are weapons that can create extensive damage very quickly. If you hand me a gun, I am not going to go shooting people. But Jihadi Joe and Crazy Carl down the street will. We can defend against that with our own guns. We can sustain those losses. But with WMD, we cannot. You give private citizens the right to own nukes, most people won’t want them and the ones that do probably would never use them. But it only takes one nut-job to take out millions in a flash.
These weapons are designed for power projection outside the country and that is what the federal government’s job. They have tight controls on WMD that I am very familiar with and have confidence in. This is a pointless discussion anyway. There is no way what you suggest would ever happen. It’s not worth debating.
This is silly. The constitution itself no longer serves its purpose. No document can ever do so, when the interpretation of that document is under the complete control of only ONE of its parties.
Do you really think you can create wording that some future smarter lawyer than you can’t disassemble?
Here’s an example: you said PERSONAL arms. Well, we’ll just define what PERSONAL arms are, as opposed to military arms, or lethal arms, or black-colored arms. And there goes your “protection.”
You might as well have just added “and we really, really mean it” to the existing wording, for all the good this will do.
The only way to protect rights is with blood, bullets, and brains. Words on paper are useless.
Didn’t he write that he was not a lawyer or convinced his wording was good enough. I thought the idea was something to build on, not something presented as complete and finished. What you are saying is there is no chance to really win the gun argument, and that trying is just a bunch of wasted time. I guess that means we just shut-up and go our own way, keeping good thoughts.
There no chance to win it for all time by putting legal words down on a piece of paper. There is no final victory, only perpetual contention. The most satisfying result we can hope for is to be defending the vast majority of the territory, rather than a tiny corner of it as we were in the ‘70s.
Honolulu police and the military/feds said I was a terrorist for referring to the U.S. Constitution in a positive manner, in my home, in a private conversation they happened to hear in their TOTALLY LEGAL SURVEILLANCE and when I got arrested for allegedly taking pictures of neighborhood watch members on my property making death threats. They told their snitches what names to call me and what jingoisms to vomit at me. I had some of these local brownshirts call me “George Washington” and make comments such as “That the guy he say he da’ constitution kine’ we go kill him! Right now! WAT BRAH WAT WE GO!!!”
Translated from local idiotic provincial degenerated version of what was once the local pidgin spoken by mostly noble imported laborers- “Say fellows, that man spoke of the U.S. Constitution in a positive light, against the decree of our masters, let us go and violently assault him until he dies, because he is probably unarmed due to the threats of the local constabulary and courts against the non ruling castes considering weapons and self defense in general. If he dares protect himself, we can haste away in cowardly retreat while hailing any local police while simultaneously appearing to issue challenges of physical violence with ourselves at a handicap!”
I believe it’s just fine. The constitution was written in plain easy to comprehend language in a simpler time. No court needs to interpret anything, just obey what is clearly written. When it comes to the second amendment it clearly states shall not be infringed.
Furthermore state laws concerning firearms should all be stricken from the books. Am I saying it should be a free for all when it comes to weapons? Yes I am. That goes for any and all activities that cause no harm to others. If you want and can afford a SAM then by all means get one. If you blow an airliner out of the sky then you need to be swiftly killed. If you own a lot of land and build drones to shoot down with your missiles your well within your rights to do so.
Laws that restrict firearm ownership based on feelings of safety, looks, caliber, etc are just plain stupid. As long as your not harming others with them why should anyone say you can’t own them.
The left goes into spasms when a state passes voter ID laws. They scream infringement of rights etc. But then turn around and want to regulate my ability to buy the weapons I choose, demand ID, background checks, fingerprints, PERMISSION, payment of taxes, etc. What the hell? Poll taxes are unconstitutional, why should I pay a fee and ask permission to excercise my right to carry any weapon I wish? Under what authority is this permissable?
I’ve heard all the arguments about how someone needs training before they are allowed to carry a weapon. Its the responsible thing to do, its for public safety, blah blah blah. Then these same people will turn around and hand the keys to their 16 year old boy to get behind the wheel of a 2 ton missile on wheels. Which of the two activities has a better chance of maiming and killing multiple people?
I want all levels of government out of the private lives of Americans. Government needs to provide for national defense, protected boarders, manage roads, and provide for a monetary system. We need courts to arbitrate disputes and decide criminal cases and proper punishment. All the other BS government has decided to mettle in such as gender and feelings needs to stop immediately. Social welfare and social justice? Please! Show me where any of that crap is mentioned in the consconstitution. In other words if it’s not spelled out in our founding documents then it is null and void. If I hurt your feeling then its time to buck up Nancy and grow a set.
“The constitution was written in plain easy to comprehend language in a simpler time. No court needs to interpret anything, just obey what is clearly written. When it comes to the second amendment it clearly states shall not be infringed.”
So, how’s that working out for you?
The rest of your submission is really good.
I fail to see the need for clarification. I understand the amendment just fine, as is. I also understand the ramifications of opening it up for the, in my view unnecessary, rewrite, and I shudder at the implications.
” I understand the amendment just fine, as is.”
Do you perhaps have an example of where your understanding prevented further erosion of the RTKBA by those who believe restrictions are “common sense”, “reasonable”, and necessary ?
The point of the article was that courts need to be removed from second amendment jurisdiciton, and the wording for today’s “make me feel good” society needs more specificity that rules out any excuse for “interpreting” the meaning of the amendment. Not said in the article is the need eliminate “compelling government interest” as justification for any restriction on constitutional rights.
That’s a problem with the legal system, not the wording of the amendment. Do not fool yourself in to thinking the later will solve abuse by the former.
Including a provision in a 2A re-write that no court may have jurisdiction except to determine if any law, policy, tax, regulation places any burden at all on RTKBA.
The amendment should not be changed/rewritten. ALL the words are deliberate and important. The prefatory clause ” A Well Regulated Militia, NECESSARY to the security of a FREE STATE: the militia of the several states was and should still be the ‘army’ that defends their state; in order to populate the Militia every citizen is required to have arms and be ‘well regulated’ (capable, knowledgeable) and how can they be capable and knowlegeable if they do not have the inalienable right to possess, own, use, ANY arms available: ” the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.” The reason you cannot get rid of the prefatory clause is because the Constitution recognized each state’s Militia as NECESSARY! This word is used explicitly and on purpose. The government set up legal barriers to the Militia essentially stripping it of it’s Constitutionally appointed powers 1. Execute the Laws of the union
2. Suppress insurrections and 3. repel Invasions. US Const. Article 1 section 8 cl 15.
The National Guard IS NOT THE CONSTITUTIONAL MILITIA OF THE SEVERAL STATES.
What we need to be talking about is revitalizing the Constitutional Militias of the Several States. Just how quickly and easily the out of control illEgal immigrant situation would be controlled if the border states had a fully functioning restored Militia. The legally restored Militia can even remove officials from office for violating the constitution. Think about the drugs…..and how your restored Militia could easily handle that. etc., etc., etc., Read Edwin Vieira,Jr., J.D.’s (Harvard University) book “Constitutional Homeland Security” and his other books on this subject. He is the foremost authority on the subject. Also visit http://www.americaagain.net to see what this group is doing to turn this nation back to its roots and intent to revitalize the militia.
You are tangled-up in even more words than the proposed re-write of 2A.
State militias as existed in 18789 were controlled by the states, subject only to the laws of the states (the 14th amendment had not been written and adjudicated as displacing individual states rights). Attempting to create militias circa 1879 would be quickly snarled in legal muck, with the courts left to make law. In addition, there is no real assessment that individual state militias would all be constitutionalists, conservatives, or even work in concert. Illegals have full constitutional rights. The first act of a state militia would immediately land in court, drive through the layers, and be ignored by the SC, leaving the most recent lower court intact….which would rule the militia illegal.
We all want to preserve the beauty of the words of the founders, but the society rampant today is always looking for loopholes in rules so at to make themselves exempt or special, while simultaneously vanquishing political opposition. Our rights are listed in a legal document, the war is one of legal theories. Legal theories are promulgated through words. Refusing to acknowledge that language is the swaddling clothing of the gun-grabbers has availed us nothing. As I noted many times, “How useful has ‘shall not be infringed’ been in fending off extra-legal attacks and erosion of our rights. The grabbers have a strategy AND tactics. We have reactionary tactics, alone. We are always responding, never attacking.
We need a case at law where the issue is whether or not any restriction or burden on 2A is constitutional. The single claim should be that “shall not infringe” means not now, never, no way, no how, under no circumstance real or imagined. The case must put an end to the SC notion that “standing” must demonstrate a distinct and immediate loss of something specific and tangible. If rights are infringed, the people have lost the government consigned to them by the founders. That is “standing” enough.
Do we have the political will, and the numbers, to right this ship of state, or not?
Go for an Article V Convention to correct the 2nd Amendment, and you will wind up with ALL TEN amendments GONE. Don’t so stupid. Every gun hater in the world will be a delegate to that Article V Convention.
The gun haters that will most certainly control the Article V Convention will abolish the 1st amendment, so you can’t protest. Please don’t be stupid and promote this insane idea of an Article V Convention.
If you, and others, re-read the original posting you will find nothing about convention of the states (which you should not fear if you are in the right, and the majority of the voters support gun rights). The proposal was to amend the amendment, which does not require the vaunted “runaway convention”. If a proposed amendment can be hijacked and turned further against us, then we are doomed already, only waiting to drop into our grave.
“If a proposed amendment can be hijacked and turned further against us, then we are doomed already, ”
Consider yourself doomed.
“Shall not be infringed” is absolute. The word “Shall” is mandatory, not open to interpretation.
But since the courts/judges do NOT follow their owns rules and laws, every issue is a grab bag full of pitfalls.
My state recently change our guns rights by constitutional amendment from “shall not be infringed,” to “at the discretion of any gun hating gun who is free to rule according to ‘strict scrutiny.'” The amendment was approved largely because of NRA’s influence and backing in the state.
That the NRA supported this change in our gun rights language is beyond insane. This is one example how amendments get amended and NOT for the better.
Yes, amendments can be hijacked. But attempting an amendment should not be avoided because of it. Many people here seem to think that by doing nothing, the anti-gun crowd will not come up with their own amendment, anyway. Maybe that is because we favor the defensive stance, waiting for the next attack, rather then forcing the other side onto the defensive.
If we accept that we are doomed, we should all just go have a beer, then go home and wait for the SWAT team.
Madison warned of this Bill of Rights thing in the Federalist Papers. The Bill of Rights is a historical document which was directed at monarchies to try to bring the king into line and recognize rights of the subjects. Because of the division of powers in a compound government, and the enumerated powers of each branch in both the state and federal governments, it was considered unnecessary by some to include them. In fact, it has put a bullseye on personal freedoms.
England did not, and does not have a written constitution (can a constitution exist if it is not written?), so the entire undertaking to establish one in America was uncharted seas for the founders. The Magna Carta is/was not a constitution as we know it.
They weren’t free to do a damn thing which was not specifically spelled out in the Constitution. That is what Enumerated right means. I never said that England had a written constitution-true, they never had. But the subjects do not and never did have rights. The right of governance in England is in the house of lords and commons.
“They weren’t free to do a damn thing which was not specifically spelled out in the Constitution. That is what Enumerated right means.”
Not following your thought, here. But that is likely my fault.
The second amendment is absolute. No amending language has be adopted through the required channels to modify it. Any court judge or congress, including a supreme court judges that attempts to limit the absolute nature of the second amendment is committing treason. They should remember their oath of office and understand that their position means they are truly committing treason.
“The second amendment is absolute. No amending language has be adopted through the required channels to modify it. Any court judge or congress, including a supreme court judges that attempts to limit the absolute nature of the second amendment is committing treason. They should remember their oath of office and understand that their position means they are truly committing treason.”
To be rude about it, the above and a nickel will buy you….a nickel. Bluff and bluster ain’t gittin’ it done, folks. Keep playing philosophy against lawyers; keep losing.
Also should be added that any and all who oppose the gun rights of others will be imprisoned immediately upon conclusion that they are using armed security, or are armed themselves.
Lysander Spooner pointed out in the 1800’s that either the constitution authorizes the current situation or it has been completely powerless to prevent it. In either case it is entirely unfit to exist.
You will never have freedom as long as you have government. The very idea of government is that some people have non voluntary life and death authority over others. That is both ridiculous and repulsive.
You pose an interesting philosophical challenge. But is total anarchy and chaos to be preferred? We see everyday what life is like where governments are essentially powerless to provide any service to the populace.
It ain’t broke, enforce it. Period. Trying to get today’s retards to do the right thing will blow up in your face and we lose the Second Amendment. Very Bad idea.
Attempting to “improve” upon the wording of 2A does nothing to put it at greater risk than it is today. Do you not see that if the other side wants to use the constitution to remove gun rights, they are already free to do so? Are you thinking that if we sit quietly in the corner they will not notice what they can do?
Trying to “enforce” 2A got us where we are today. There is too much territory open to non-constitutional interpretation, regulation, legislation. Leaving things as they are means leaving things as they are, ripe for worsening.
“All The Way Down The Slippery Slope: Gun Prohibition In England And Some Lessons For Civil Liberties In America” by Joseph E. Olson and David B. Kopel. http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/histn/histn043.htm
I am going to make 2 points, so please read both.
Firstly, the second amendment is fine the way it is written. It is in fact a two part amendment.
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.
The first part guarantees that the people of each state have the right to form a militia. The second part says, quite clearly, that the people’s right to keep and bear arms will not be restricted. There is no ambiguity in that.
The people that claim a different “interpretation” of that are people that don’t want individuals to be empowered. Think about it. If you are not allowed to carry a weapon, you cannot properly defend yourself against those that do, be they criminals or agents of an oppressive government. You would be effectively denied your natural right of self defense. Furthermore if an individual has no right of self defense, then the group of individuals that make up a state has no right of self defense, and has no need of a militia. Because a group of people has no more rights than that of the individuals that choose to be a part of that group.
Secondly, the problem is not so much how the Constitution is worded, but that the people in the Federal government, and many of the State governments, do not abide by it or uphold it. Before the Constitution can be improved the people in government have to be held accountable for not following it.
That starts with voting out any representative, governor, judge or other official at the local level that doesn’t abide by the Constitution. When the State governments are constitutional, then we can revive the principal of nullification. That is when a State government declares a Federal law unconstitutional and therefore null and void. Only after we can hold our representatives accountable for their actions can we trust them to change the Constitution.
Either that or just wait for another civil war.
The Second Amendment is just fine as it is. All the fuss is based upon misunderstandings of two facts: 1) The Second Amendment does not give us any rights. It merely prohibits government at any level, from doing anything whatever about it. The federal government has nothing to say about it at all; State and local governments have the Police Power to regulate the USE of arms, but not the keeping and bearing of arms. 2) Every citizen of every U.S. State is a militiaman of that State, whether the State maintains a formal State Militia or not. Every able-bodied male citizen of a State between the ages of 18 and 45 (and anyone else who wishes to be) is liable for militia duty and may be required to muster for militia training and service at any time of the State’s choosing, whether the State currently maintains a formal State Militia or not. Citizenship has obligations; Militia duty is one of them whether the State exercises its duty to maintain a formal militia or not.
“The Second Amendment is just fine as it is. All the fuss is based upon misunderstandings of two facts:…”
First, the existence and extent of “misunderstanding” depends on your point of view.
Second, “misunderstanding” got us where we are today. It is fruitless to posit, posture and hope that if everyone would just get back to basics, things would be fine. That hasn’t happened, and is not something upon which to pin the defense of one’s rights. We are too far along to point backward.
“First, the existence and extent of “misunderstanding” depends on your point of view.”
No, it depends upon the framers’ point of view, which is clearly set forth in their writings.
“Second, ‘misunderstanding’ got us where we are today. It is fruitless to posit, posture and hope that if everyone would just get back to basics, things would be fine. That hasn’t happened, and is not something upon which to pin the defense of one’s rights. We are too far along to point backward.”
“Misunderstanding” didn’t get us where we are today; enemy action and failure to act in a principled manner is what got us where we are today. Contrary to your thesis, I am positing a principled response to our enemies’ efforts to continue our slide down the same path that got us to where we are today. It appears you misunderstand the current situation as intractable. It is not.
Also, contrary to your thesis “We are too far along to point backward”, I would point out that if we have allowed our nation of liberty and security from the arbitrary whim of kings and princes and neighborhood warlords to slip behind us, then “backward” is where we must point if we intend to recover it. There certainly isn’t any benefit in pointing forward to greater and greater loss of rights, is there?
Given my thesis above, is it clearer to you now where the “misunderstanding” lies?
“There certainly isn’t any benefit in pointing forward to greater and greater loss of rights, is there?”
No, the idea that “We’ve just gotta get organized” is not going to quicken anything. My statement was not that following the the intent and words of the founders, but that thinking the simple idea that if we just do right, things will work out. That has not worked, and will not work. Such a change will require a renovation of the spirit of the nation (going forward), not a misty-eyed, nostalgic appeal to “the good old days”.
“Given my thesis above, is it clearer to you now where the “misunderstanding” lies?”
The “misunderstanding” is two-fold: that the constitution is a quaint suggestion, and that the citizenry has no responsibility to anything but their immediate pleasure.
Then you and I need to change that perception, don’t we? We won’t succeed by claiming the enemies of our form of government has co-opted us and we are done.
Since there seems to be a lively Constitutional debate going here, I’ll add this:
“No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.” -US Constitution, Article 1, section 9.
Now, this has obviously been violated quite a number of times, from Sir
Colin Powell and GHW Bush, to Alan Greenspan and Ted Kennedy, so my question is this: How to go about enforcement of this item, exactly like how would enforcement happen even IF such a new wording of the 2A was actually accomplished and ratified? After all, this item is not even in the Bill of Rights, but is in the actual body of the Constitution and yet it, Much like the Bill of Rights, is simply ignored. Except that this item is not only ignored, but all but forgotten. But there are some here who seem quite up on the Constitution, and I, for one, would be interested in whether or not anyone has an opinion on this.
If one cannot figure out a practical way to enforce the laws of the land, then of what use are they? And if a way to enforce is not available, what use is there in arguing over exactly which words are to be used? If the powers that be can ignore the words(as they do), what difference can the wording possibly make?
“If one cannot figure out a practical way to enforce the laws of the land, then of what use are they?”
The mother of all problems:
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5
The constitution sets out “laws”, but does not provide detailed enforcement procedures. Every potential constitutional violation requires court action. Gun rights are in court every day because of the belief there are exceptions, exemptions, “reasonable controls”, because the founders “couldn’t really mean that…”. With more restrictive language regarding intent (so that current culture can understand), the legal fence is more clear and less subject to “common sense”. The enforcement must come from court orders that carry heavy fines or jail time for violation. The SC should only be able to determine if a law interferes in any manner with possession and use of firearms by the public. The general discussion prior to posing a “tightening” of the wording would be the place to test the wording and effect (such as we are doing here).
The Constitution and Bill of Rights were written in an environment of personal responsibility, not only for one’s personal actions, but also for what went on in the vicinity of the individual and in the community. The reason the Constitution does not set forth any mechanism for control by the people other than impeachment is that the founders never believed a free people would give up their personal responsibility and liberty.
Aside from the constant enemy actions against our free institutions, one of the most pernicious trends leading to our morass today is the development of city police agencies and local judicial processes ruling that the people have no right to “take the law into their own hands.” The fact is, people DO have the right to take the law into their own hands in terms of defending the community from predators, but that right ends short of punishment.
But then, you know what happens when a lawyer gets his hands on a case of a citizen making a citizen’s arrest, don’t you? [“A police officer may act upon probable cause; a citizen had damned well better be right — and he might lose anyway even if he is.]
Thank you for the response. It grants the opportunity to elaborate upon Article 1, section 9, as it relates to the Thirteenth Amendment. Which says the exact same words as the body, but with added teeth. It adds a punishment for violation, in the form of loss of citizenship and no right to hold any public office.
A cursury search for “real thirteenth amendment”, or “missing thirteeth amendment”, will turn up a great amount of material on the issue, which was important in its day, so much so that it led to the British invasion of DC, and the burning down of the Presidential Palace(and the Library of Congress, which I submit was the actual goal of the invasion, seeing as it was the only building burned twice), and its eventual replacement with the White House.
It is still the law today, but much like all the rest, ignored. And, in this case, all but forgotten. A little further research will reveal the fraudulent way in which it was deleted from the mass conciusness. Knowing this, it seems to me a small step to realize that if words could not stop the infringment in 1814, it likely will be even worse today.
Please don’t take this as a criticism, any discusion of the Constitution helps us all, and thank you all for it. The more we talk about and study the Constitution, the better off we all are.
With reference to the whole bogus argument about the “missing 17th Amendment,” I can only refer you to http://www.thirdamendment.com/8SCIDLJ577.pdf, which pretty well settles the issue. David Dodge holds no credibility whatever.
Well, one man who wrote a PDF said(your citation) that it “was not ratified” but that hardy qualifies as; “pretty well settles the issue”. Particularly in view of the fact that it is found in some 20 State Constitutions around the US, including Colorado’s in the late 1800s, after the Civil War, which is highly significant because that was AFTER the ‘replacement’ 13th(17th was never mentioned, that’s an error of yours), and the latter was listed as the 14th.
Virginia, the last state to ratify(during the war of 1812) not only sent a copy by mail to the Library of Congress(burned by the British in its invasion of DC), but printed up thousands of copies of the Constitution with the ‘royalty’ 13th included, and distributed them to the several states. That had never been done before, so it would seem quite likely that Virginia expected a bit of fraud to attempt to unlawfully destroy what was quite a lucrative gravy train for the politicians of the day.
And thank God they did, or there would be little left to save today, and the fraudulent removal would stand unchallenged. As it is, this is a little known issue, but still holds the potential to wipe out all the nasty things that have been done to the rule of Law, at least since 1819, and return the country to the Rule of Law.
Here are lots of links(and thanks for the opportunity), just in case you only searched in that one place…
I could go on forever, but I think you get the point; NEVER RELY ON ONLY ONE SOURCE. Its the first rule of research. There are too many liars around with axes to grind to get at any truth that way One must learn to discern the truth from among the many falsehoods placed in the way, and that means learning it all, both sides.
And, you should not just say that one particular researcher “lacks credibility”, based upon nothing. If you have an example(s) of a researcher’s shoddy methods, by all means point out the flaw(s), but to just tar with a giant brush everything you happen to disagree with is a quite childish technique. It is actually one of the 25 rules for passing off lies as truth. Its rule 7. “Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.” -http://www.globalresearch.ca/twenty-five-rules-of-disinformation/24889
Your might want to look into those rules. Could save you some embarrassment in future.
If you read the whole document, you find it does not rely on only one source, and it addresses the confusion caused by the fact that they didn’t have the Internet I those days, and communication between States often took several days horseback or buggy ride. The point is, regardless of the miscommunications, the amendment was never ratified.
Oh, and before I forget: Don’t try to teach your grandmother how to suck eggs.
Given the fact that the leaders in the various States were used to a form of government in which “Kings Govern By The Divine Right of Kings to Govern,” it is not surprising that information would get lost in the shuffle.
“The point is, regardless of the miscommunications, the amendment was never ratified.”
No, the point is; according to Virginia, and many more states besides, AND their State Constitutions,The amendment WAS ratified, and DC WAS informed of such, but ignored it.
“Don’t try to teach your grandmother how to suck eggs.” Nicely couched insult, but still rule number 5; “Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy” -http://vigilantcitizen.com/latestnews/the-25-rules-of-disinformation/
You really should read those rules. You might not commit the liars rules so often if you would.
Given that this was lost in the intentional burning down of the Library of Congress, and by the exact same group awarding the Titles of Nobility as bribes, it hardly qualifies as; “get lost in the shuffle.” Really, don’t you find that to be down in the basement as excuses go, like; “My dog ate my homework”? I tried to read your full citation, but it locks up after the third page. OFC I got the title, and I could search it out, but I read it back in the day, and am aware of its errors. Did you actually look at any of mine? Or is that simply not in the disinformation plan? The more you use those rules of suppressing truth, the more I will have to point that out.. There is simply no other way other than to point out that it is YOUR source that is not credible and I can easily point out why. Do you need me to point out the things that that paper you cited missed, and the rules of propaganda that IT uses, including the statements of opinions as facts? It might be quite long winded, I would have to address them point by point in a long series of posts.
Okay, I have stated my point; you have stated yours. Perhaps you can now lay off your arrogant crap about the numbered rules of discussion according to Kenneth and explain to me and the assembled multitudes just exactly what difference your thesis makes? Are you mounting a major effort to force recognition of your alleged 13th Amendment by the powers that be, as I am mounting a major effort to force recognition of the non-ratification of the 17th Amendment and the mutiny it represents by the federal government against its creators and owners?
I did not give you a “nicely couched insult,” or call you names or ridicule you. I was rather politely telling you that I know how to do research and I know how to organize a thesis, and the fact that you disagree is irrelevant to my skills in these areas. In other words, you can stand to learn a lesson or two in conducting a civil discourse. The fact of the matter is I don’t give a flying Frisbee either way for your thesis about the 13th Amendment; Titles of Nobility are prohibited in the body of the Constitution and an Amendment imposing draconian sanctions on violators is not necessary unless you want to give some faction draconian authority to support their political agenda.
If you think the 13th Amendment was ratified and suppressed, fine. I don’t care enough to argue about it with an arrogant asshole who thinks he knows everything there is to know about the mechanisms of argument. I suggest you look up a rule of philosophical evaluation called “Occam’s Razor” (sometimes called “Ockham’s Razor”: “Among competing theories, the one that requires the least number of unsupported assumptions is most often the correct one.”
Your thesis fails that test. But it may be valid, but if so, it is irrelevant anyway; there is nothing that can be done about and nothing of value to come of it today if something could be done about it.
Have a good day, and try to slide down that pedestal before you fall off of it.
An interesting view you have their of the definition of “civil” discourse.
Have a good day, Mr closet anti. Do you actually think that we are fooled by your pseudo-pro gun words, when your actual attitudes are quite clear. Use all the tools in the liars toolbox to discredit, malign, and otherwise attempt to destroy, every bit of truth you come across.
And then get all indignant when your errors are exposed (Disinformer rule #2: Become incredulous and indignant… also known as the ‘How dare you!’ gambit. ), exactly like the moms for confiscation do.
And end, as per plan, with rule #25; “Vanish. to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.”
Would anyone care to examine how many of THESE traits Mr. Cline exhibits?
I can see at least #1, #5, and #6 in clear action here.
Typical narcissist. Can’t take criticism of any kind; relies on some inflexible list of rules he doesn’t even follow himself to deflect criticism.
I will leave it to other viewers of this list to determine the legitimacy or lack thereof of this asshole’s argument, and anyone is free to evaluate my positions on our right to keep and bear arms and our right to a government bound by the Constitution of the United States, by visiting either my Facebook page or http://www.frdmftr.net.
May I point out that limited-liability incorporation is exactly the same as an aristocratic title of nobility and exists for the same reason, to protect the nobility from any liability for the decisions made in the name of the nobleman?
The purpose, in the U.S., is not only to make the officers of a corporation immune from liability for the decisions made in the name of the corporation, it is also to further the anti-liberty agenda: Anything the officers decide to do that government doesn’t like, such as refusing to pay for birth control on religious grounds, will result in a suit for “violating the rights of the employees.” However, if the officers decide to deprive their employees and their customers of their right to keep and bear arms, not a word will be heard from government and businessmen from coast to coast will object to any suggestion the company should be held responsible for the consequences. They will object vehemently to any suggestion a business owner or officer has no right to deprive the people of their rights on company premises. However, if business owners are going to open their premises to the public for purposes of commerce, they have no right to prohibit the peaceful exercise of rights on their premises that do not in any way disrupt the conduct of the business.
Might I also point out that corporations, although (now) given the same legal status as individuals, they are NOT? That in fact, a corporation. LLC or otherwise, has no arms, legs, hands, eyes, or brains, and so is NOT an individual, but a legal fiction? And that Titles of Nobility are only awarded to individuals, and usually for their contributions to the power of the Crown? And given that status by a foreign power? And often as bribes?
I think it should be clear that they are two very different things, even though I can agree with the sentiment. I would have to say that corporations are usually formed to sheild against liability, while Titles are more outright bribery, and sometimes as a reward for enriching the powers that be.
You are, of course, correct in your distinction between corporations and natural individuals, and but you are incorrect (in modern times, at least) that titles are often handed out as bribery for enriching the powers that be. I can’t say it never happens, but most often titles that you hear about are handed out not for enriching the powers that be, but for heroic or humanitarian services to the nation, or for excellence in some field of endeavor that is seen as a benefit to the people.
However, that is merely the public version. Meanwhile, hundreds of titles of nobility are handed our to individuals who are CEOs of major corporations, or hold stock in major corporations. Much of the aristocracy has been transformed to comport with the monarchial illusion held over from the pre-parliamentary era in which royalty actually conducted the day to day business of the realm. Now the monarchy is a prestigious figurehead that participates very little in the day to day conduct of business, but exists as the glue that holds the realm together. Similarly, many of the titles of nobility are hereditary and merely keep the nobleman from being sued for what the manager of his corporation does.
America, however, was designed, and principled to be, egalitarian. The “common man” was to be common only as long as he chose to be. He could rise above his station in life by working harder, working smarter, getting a better education, becoming more valuable to his employer, and could invest in business and become a capitalist if his resources allowed. But through all of this he was to be responsible for his decisions and accountable (liable) for the consequences, good or bad. Limited liability was designed to encourage entrepreneurship by limiting the liability of those whose accomplishments benefited the economy and the people.
But it was never necessary to vest the corporation with the rights and responsibilities of a private citizen, and thereby vest the officer(s) and agent(s) of the corporation with the rights of an individual, but none of the responsibilities.
“People of the gun”? Are you implying, that only 2nd Amendment supporters as well as gun owners are the ones that must be willing to concede? If that’s the case, 2nd Amendment haters such as Sen. Feinstein, Sen. Schumer, Elizabeth Warren, Maura Healy ( really any Dem from California, NY, Massachusetts, Illinois….) Hillary Clinton, M. Bloomberg etc. and the likes of will be the ones to rewrite it? Because they’re views are ok? Equal? They represent the norm? These are the same morons we see within hours of every mass shooting digging their nails into it making it a political issue, same ones that know absolutely nothing when it comes to firearms. Case in point remember the Cali AG and the infamous “Ghost gun”? There was as US AG on National television saying things that made most of us either laugh uncontrollably or say how the hell did this guy become a US AG? Or, the MA AG Maura Healy, waited for congress to go on summer leave in 2016, over night she single handedly rewrote the states gun laws on not only semi automatic rifles but handguns. She created a state registry for every citizen that buys a firearm that serial number is now registered to that citizen. My point is that I would have absolutely 0% faith in our Government to rewrite the 2nd Amendment in a fair way. Btw, I would accept 90% of your rewrite. Good job. Anyway enjoy your day Sir.
Based on the incorrect logic of this author regarding the 2nd Amendment, you would also have to ban or restrict all current forms of communication, overriding the First Amendment. Because at the time the Amendments were passed, there was no radio, television, internet, and other mass media. The Amendments were written in a certain “spirit” with a certain intention, with some version of the future they could imagine in mind. They were not written to be quibbled over by future lawyers who love to nail down the “letter of the law” regardless of the laws’ intent. This is a large part of the problem with our current legal system at this time. Nobody seems to care anymore why certain laws were written, only, are there any loopholes in the verbiage.