If you were suddenly granted the power to edit the constitution as you saw fit, would it stay or go?
Answers:
Not just yes, but hell frikin YES!
WOW you got your little gun hateing party kinda rained on here didn't you? Not one person I read above me says yes get rid of them, brings a tear to my eye, nice to be in such good company!
Look, sweety, if your affraid of guns, the best thing to do is learn about them, isn't that what you'd do with just about anything else? "Know thine enemy" Sun Tsu from The Art of War. If you learn enough about guns I promise you'll want one and won't fear them anymore, and you and your loved ones will be safer for it. In the code of boshido, it is said that the main reason a man wants to pick up a sword is to protect something he loves, same goes for guns.
When our minds are powerful enough to kill a bear with our thoughts, then the liberals might have a logical leg to stand on about getting rid of guns, but then why would we need them? The next time you go out of doors less than 5 miles from bear territory, try and remember a bear can eat you and leave long before the cops can get to you to save your gun-ignorant butt.
The next time you want to do something the government doesn't like just remember its OUR guns that allow you to be able to, just think how little your cardboard protest sign will do against Government assualt rifles.
Live and let live, please for freedoms sake!
It's not whether we need it or not, it's a constitutional right and in this time of not-to-subtle fascism; we should be guarding all of our rights with ferocity. And no, I would never edit the Constitution--maybe add to it.
The answer is, according to John Ashcroft, you have an individual right to keep and bear arms, subject to reasonable regulation by the government.
Personally if I could edit the constitution, I might change a lot of things, but the 2nd Amendment would be edited to make it clear that you have an individual right to keep and bear arms, subject to reasonable regulation by the government.
Which means, virtually no changes except modern language.
it would stay, the main reason for the right to bear arms was to guarantee the American people the ability to defend themselves against a government that became out of control. It was actually granted for the states to have and keep a well armed militia, which became known as the national guard. It is now under Federal Control, which can exercise power over the states by using their own well armed militia against them. so basically the right to bear arms has already been done away with, without a constitutional amendment.
It would stay, and possibly be put in words that can less easily be manipulated to try to eliminate the right.
The US Supreme Court has on numerous occasions re-affirmed that the individual citizen has the ABSOLUTE right to keep and bear arms. Jurisdictions that forbid such are in violation of US Law, and in those cases that have been actually heard by the Supreme Court have time and again ruled that way.
We certainly need the right to bear arms. I would change the constitution and amend the 2nd amendment. I would require that every household have a gun. The right to bear arms was written into the constitution as a way to protect the people from their own government. I was a way of ensuring that no dictatorship arose in this country. It gave the people a way of fighting its own government if it went bad. The 2nd amendment is part of the checks and balances that ensures that democracy never dies. Besides, what country would possibly be stupid enough to invade the U.S., knowing that the citizens are armed and would fight them. The second amendment keeps our shores safe from foriegn invaders.
It would stay, along with the freedom of speech, right of assembly, etc.
If powers were to be granted, I'd rather have the power to make elected officials enforce laws we already have on the books.
I'd also like to make them follow through on processes their supposed to complete.
If they had followed through on the investigation of Seung-Hui Cho from earlier incidents, there's a fair chance the murders at Norris Hall would never have happened.
But because government didn't do their job the first time, we're supposed to make new laws that burden the law-abiding citizen. Then we will have additional laws that don't do squat, because their not enforced.
Ask the people of new Orleans who were left defenseless against gangs and looters! YES WE NEED THE SECOND AMENDMENT! on that note, if my guns are taken away and i have no way to defend myself, will I get the constitutional right to sue my local law enforcement for failing to protect me?
yes it would stay if we loose our right to bear arms what happens if the government decides to take over and rule as a dictatorship or our government falls? we would be helpless to defend ourselves or our family and loved ones! If or military fell or was too weak to fight effectively and the enemy was on or home ground-- what could we do? As for me i will fight for my loved ones or die trying!! I would rather die as a free man then be butchered like a helpless lamb!!
Absolutely. Anyone who has researched this should know that the main purpose of that amendment was to ensure that the people remained "the true sovereigns of the country." And that a tyrannical government could not deprive the people of their natural rights such as to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," etc. etc. Secondly it provides for the personal protection of self, family, property reducing the need for law enforcement to be omnipresent to prevent crimes. It's worthy to note that the courts have repeatedly made rulings such as this:
"...there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: it tells the state to let people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order."
Bowers v. DeVito, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 686 F.2d 616 (1882)
The only possible change I could see would be adding more explicit language that makes it more clear and something to the effect that there shall be no laws passed which restrict the right of any law-abiding citizen of good standing (i.e. there could be restrictions upon violent felons, etc.).
It's pretty well known that gun restrictions/laws/bans have no effect whatsoever on criminals who will obtain a gun illegally, and in many cases easier than any law-abiding person can.
Read the Parker vs DC court opinion. A link to the full text can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/parker_v._d...
Keep it. I would add amendments not take away.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment