Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rewrite the Second Amendment
NY Times Op-Ed ^ | 4-4-2013 | ZACHARY ELKINS

Posted on 04/05/2013 4:02:09 PM PDT by Sir Napsalot

(snip) Lost in this confusion and anxiety is the possibility that a basic consensus on guns exists among Americans. Opinion polls suggest that a majority recognize a right to bear arms, subject to reasonable regulations protecting public safety. This strong dual commitment, if clarified and entrenched in our Constitution, could reassure most, though not all, of us.

Before you mock the idea of a constitutional amendment, consider that hardly anyone is happy with our unstable status quo: gun enthusiasts fear their rights are under constant threat; gun-control advocates point to the danger of illegal guns and easy access to firearms.

(snip)

Most Americans are committed to the Constitution and rely on the courts to adapt our antique highest law to modern technological and cultural developments. Many of us trust the judiciary to balance rights against the inevitable restrictions on them. But we are left with the awkward, irresolvable phrasing 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.”

“What part of ‘shall not be infringed’ do you not understand?” the gun-rights advocate asks. “What part of ‘a well regulated Militia’ do you not understand?” goes the retort.

(snip)

But in the 1980s, a movement to interpret the amendment as promoting the right to bear arms for self-defense emerged. It reached an apotheosis of sorts in the 2008 case, which struck down the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns. It was the first time the court had ever restricted gun regulation, but the 5-to-4 vote also suggests that the decision is not fixed doctrine.

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Politics
KEYWORDS: banglist; constitution; guncontrol; guns; liberalism; mediabais; newyorkslimes; nocompromise; rkba; secondamendment; shallnotbeinfringed; slimes; waronliberty; youwillnotdisarmus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051 next last
(more excerpt)

"This constitutional uncertainty should suggest to both sides the possibility of agreeing on a formal clarification of the constitutional text. Zealots will scoff, but many reasonable people would find reassurance in a revised Second Amendment that was properly balanced. Those who propose responsible limits, like background checks, would welcome constitutional support for common-sense safeguards. Those who worry about the slippery slope of encroachments on gun rights would find comfort in an explicit reassertion and reinforcement of the general right to bear arms."

We keep hearing overwhelming Americans support 'common sense' and reasonable measures like universal criminal background check.

Thoughts? Opinions? Can we rewrite the Constitution via Amendments to forever give our freedom away?

1 posted on 04/05/2013 4:02:09 PM PDT by Sir Napsalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

The hubris of these uneducated mouth breathers to think they could better the work of Madison, Mason and Jefferson is astounding.


2 posted on 04/05/2013 4:07:41 PM PDT by muir_redwoods (Don't fire until you see the blue of their helmets)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot
“What part of ‘a well regulated Militia’ do you not understand?” goes the retort.

Here is my answer to the commie lib retard who comes back with that. The educated among us know that the Bill of Rights belongs to the people of the United States. The Bill of Rights prevents the government from violating the peoples' God given rights. The Founding Fathers would NOT have wasted their time guaranteeing that the government would always have the right to form a National Guard. That's just moronic stupidity to think that. IMHO.

3 posted on 04/05/2013 4:09:48 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (Dude! Where's my Bill of Rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot
Lost in this confusion and anxiety is the possibility that a basic consensus on guns free speech exists among Americans. Opinion polls suggest that a majority recognize a right to bear arms speak freely, subject to reasonable regulations protecting public safety and the right not be offended. This strong dual commitment, if clarified and entrenched in our Constitution, could reassure most, though not all, of us

See? It makes sense no matter HOW you frame it, right? Opinions polls are more important than Constitutional Rights.

4 posted on 04/05/2013 4:09:58 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (LBJ declared war on poverty and lost. Barack Obama declared war on prosperity and won. /csmusaret)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

You don’t “rewrite” any Constitutional amendment, you propose another that acts on it and put your proposal up for a vote in Congress and then a ratification by the states. The difficulty the gun control fanatics have encountered is that every time this issue does go to ballot, they lose.


5 posted on 04/05/2013 4:13:59 PM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer

“Well regulated” at that time meant to be in good working order - as in a “well regulated” clock. Not to have a bunch of laws (regulations). There was no standing army - but all able men were to be able to grab their weapons of war at a moments notice.


6 posted on 04/05/2013 4:14:31 PM PDT by 21twelve ("We've got the guns, and we got the numbers" adapted and revised from Jim M.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

” “What part of ‘shall not be infringed’ do you not understand?” the gun-rights advocate asks. “What part of ‘a well regulated Militia’ do you not understand?” goes the retort.”

They wanted the people to be armed to prevent the Govt/ militia from becoming overbearing thus well regulated.


7 posted on 04/05/2013 4:16:23 PM PDT by Lurkina.n.Learnin (Obama is the Chicken Little of politics)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 21twelve

You Sir have it right. That is exactly what “well regulated” meant in the late 18th Century.


8 posted on 04/05/2013 4:17:43 PM PDT by Inyo-Mono (NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

(rewritten just a touch)

“Lost in this confusion and anxiety is the possibility that a basic consensus against homosexual marriage exists among Americans. Opinion polls suggest that a majority recognize a right to only heterosexual marriage, subject to reasonable regulations protecting public safety. This strong dual commitment, if clarified and entrenched in our Constitution, could reassure most, though not all, of us.”


9 posted on 04/05/2013 4:18:15 PM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy (Best WoT news at rantburg.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot
“What part of ‘a well regulated Militia’ do you not understand?” goes the retort.

Sorry, NYT, but two points are missing.

1. Militia was not part of the national army (as is the Reserve and National Guard). The Militia is the citizenry with the capacity to protect the nation in an emergency who are NOT part of the Army, Navy, AirForce, or Marines.

2. Well-regulated meant "equipped" or "provisioned." That's what made "regulars" distinctive from "Militias". That is what is unique about this 2d amendment provision. It's saying that the citizenry must be armed to defend the nation. A Militia with the basic equipment of "regulars". IOW, a right to keep and bear arms for protecting the nation from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

10 posted on 04/05/2013 4:18:38 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

The writer is an idiot and trying to have it both ways parses his opinion.

The Constitution of Mexico and the USofA on the issue of 2A are not even in the same realm.

Mexico’s Constitution bars citizens from military grade arms and they are expressly prohibited from carrying them in inhabited places, subject to local law.

The 2A of America states plainly that “the People” have a right and it shall not be infringed upon.

This is the disturbing part of his screed that I couldn’t shake:
“What part of ‘shall not be infringed’ do you not understand?” the gun-rights advocate asks. “What part of ‘a well regulated Militia’ do you not understand?” goes the retort.

My reply:
What part of “The Right of The People” did you purposely gloss over?


11 posted on 04/05/2013 4:18:45 PM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot
We keep hearing overwhelming Americans support 'common sense' and reasonable measures like universal criminal background check.

yeah... from the miserable wretches in DC and some state capitals!!!

12 posted on 04/05/2013 4:20:19 PM PDT by Chode (Stand UP and Be Counted, or line up and be numbered - *DTOM* -ww- NO Pity for the LAZY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot
Sorry, all. Forgot to post this. (Don't trust him)

Zachary Elkins is an associate professor of government at the University of Texas, a director of the Comparative Constitutions Project and an author of “The Endurance of National Constitutions.”

13 posted on 04/05/2013 4:20:19 PM PDT by Sir Napsalot (Pravda + Useful Idiots = CCCP; JournOList + Useful Idiots = DopeyChangey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot
It was the first time the court had ever restricted gun regulation, but the 5-to-4 vote also suggests that the decision is not fixed doctrine.

What part of "...shall not be infringed" do YOU NOT understand? Yes it is FIXED doctrine. You fellas better stop pushing. You apparently do NOT understand how much you are upsetting people.

14 posted on 04/05/2013 4:21:49 PM PDT by MeneMeneTekelUpharsin (Freedom is the freedom to discipline yourself so others don't have to do it for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot
"Before you mock the idea of a constitutional amendment..."


15 posted on 04/05/2013 4:23:02 PM PDT by Liberty Valance (Keep a simple manner for a happy life :o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

BRRRAAAAWWWWWKKKK, COMMON SENSE, COMMON SENSE BRRRRAAAAWWWWKK

Squawking point parrot head drivel. The Orwellian bleating sheep have NO IDEA what COMMON SENSE means, let alone being able to define it in a debate about the 2nd.

Throw that Useful Idiot a cracker.

Hey Dumbo, Well Regulated referred to “standardization of equipment and training.”

The 2nd stands on it’s OWN, AS IS! No “common sense, brraaaaawwk” adjustments needed.

Want some “common sense” there dumbo? How about finding out what drugs the psychobabblers have been handing out like free lunch!

Almost ALL mass shooters, going back to the ‘70s, were on and off psychotropic drugs.

How bout some “COMMON SENSE” control of PSYCHIATRISTS?
These clowns and charlatans get away WITH MURDER, and are largely UNREGULATED. THEY are the cause of much grief in society.

Time to grab the psychobabblers by the hair and bodily throw them in the dock. No “weaseling” out of the interrogation.

/rant>


16 posted on 04/05/2013 4:24:05 PM PDT by ConradofMontferrat (According to mudslymz, my handle is a HATE CRIME. And I HOPE they don't like it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot
But in the 1980s, a movement to interpret the amendment as promoting the right to bear arms for self-defense emerged.

I don't think this was a 1980's revelation. It was always there.

-PJ

17 posted on 04/05/2013 4:24:15 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

There must be 300 gun laws on the books, None of them stopped Obama and Holder from giving guns to mexican cartels, and no one went to jail for it.

Gun owners are not as stupid as politicians thin they are. We know what the end game is.
We know we are all frogs in the boiling waters, and we are trying to jump out, but liberals and crooked politicians keep shoving us back in.

One day they will push too hard and American Patriots will start pushing back.


18 posted on 04/05/2013 4:24:41 PM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot
the slippery slope

Is a convenient way that people have of cutting off an argument. Some slopes really are slippery. Look at seat belt laws.

Cars before about 1964 or so didn't even have seat belts - they were an option. Then the government required lap belts. Then shoulder belts. Finally, they passed laws that required seat belt use. Those laws started off as a "secondary enforcement" effort. Then it became a primary enforcement effort, and now will result in a moving violation.

I wear my seat belt all the time, every time I'm in the car. I'm not arguing that seat belts are a bad thing. I'm pointing out that the slope, once wet, is dangerous.

Or, put another way, the camel, once it ever gets its nose in the tent, never lets up. Ever.

19 posted on 04/05/2013 4:26:11 PM PDT by Hardastarboard (Buck Off, Bronco Bama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vendome

Exactly.

“Opinion polls suggest that a majority recognize a right to bear arms, subject to reasonable regulations protecting public safety”. <—— Oh yeah? Who says so?

The government cannot issue any constitutional “regulations” regarding the use and availability of firearms. The 2A is a guarantee to the people that we’ll have the means to overthrow an overweening and tyrannical government if it ever should come to that.

It means that the fox isn’t allowed to guard the henhouse. If We the People allow this then we become the chickens.

\


20 posted on 04/05/2013 4:26:27 PM PDT by steerpike100
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods

A death rattle from a dying industry.


21 posted on 04/05/2013 4:31:02 PM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks (NRA Life Member)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

Liberals: still trying to find a way to re-interpret the 2A so they can take people’s guns from them.


22 posted on 04/05/2013 4:33:25 PM PDT by jeffc (The U.S. media are our enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot
Hey NYT................FU!
23 posted on 04/05/2013 4:33:32 PM PDT by Red in Blue PA (When Injustice becomes Law, Resistance Becomes Duty.-Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

The Constitution was written not for a point in time but to address the nature of man, which is timeless and universal.


24 posted on 04/05/2013 4:34:47 PM PDT by Red in Blue PA (When Injustice becomes Law, Resistance Becomes Duty.-Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Inyo-Mono

well-regulated == well-trained


25 posted on 04/05/2013 4:35:24 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I can neither confirm or deny that; even if I could, I couldn't - it's classified.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods

> The hubris of these uneducated mouth breathers to think they could better the work of Madison, Mason and Jefferson is astounding.

That’s insulting to mouth-breathers everywhere.


26 posted on 04/05/2013 4:35:44 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot


Why do I get the impression that Zachary would be crying like a girl if accosted in a back alley?
27 posted on 04/05/2013 4:36:56 PM PDT by Red in Blue PA (When Injustice becomes Law, Resistance Becomes Duty.-Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot
Thoughts? Opinions?

How about "because governments have a natural tendency to behave lawlessly and tyrannically if not held in check, it is the right and duty of all free people to be prepared to oppose such lawlessness and tyranny. Government actions whose purpose or substantial effect is to discourage people from arming themselves effectively against such threats are illegitimate, and lawless persons in the government who engage in such actions should be recognized as enemies of a legitimate free state."

28 posted on 04/05/2013 4:39:18 PM PDT by supercat (Renounce Covetousness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

The socialists should simply leave while they can. Walk away.


29 posted on 04/05/2013 4:40:12 PM PDT by Caipirabob (Communists... Socialists... Democrats...Traitors... Who can tell the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot
The NYT can go to hell. The idiot who wrote this "op ed" would have us think that Heller did not settle the issue because the vote was 5-4. This is plain stupidity on parade. Heller explained the whole history of the 2nd, came to the proper conclusion that the operative clause was "the right of the people" and that the so-called militia clause is merely the preamble to the 2nd Amendment.

On top of that, the following US SC decision in the 2010 McDonald case incorporated the 2nd into the 14th Amendment Due Process clause, thus applying the 2nd to the states.

Damn liberals would have us think that the 2nd is not "settled law", which it is. The NYT can go screw itself.

30 posted on 04/05/2013 4:40:53 PM PDT by 45Auto (Big holes are (almost) always better.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

Exactly.


31 posted on 04/05/2013 4:43:43 PM PDT by Inyo-Mono (NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot
but the 5-to-4 vote also suggests that the decision is not fixed doctrine.

And Roe v. Wade vote was what?

32 posted on 04/05/2013 5:02:50 PM PDT by Yo-Yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot
If any of these idiots actually read the history of militias, they would understand that “militia” were otherwise ordinary citizens in a certain community who owned weapons and supplies to resist an attacking force. Foreign AND domestic. "Well regulated" meant that every man in the community had a minimum amount of training, firepower and supplies. You can see the same thing in Switzerland today and nobody dares attack or tax them to death.

The first use of these militias during "peace time" was against federal tax collectors. Even the left-skewed wikipedia says this:

"The first test of the militia system occurred in July 1794, when a group of disaffected Pennsylvania farmers rebelled against federal tax collectors whom they viewed as illegitimate tools of tyrannical power."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#section_6

33 posted on 04/05/2013 5:04:45 PM PDT by varyouga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
Not a SCOTUS ping, but deals with Second Amendment, and a proposed Constitution Amendment to that.

May be of interest to you. (If not, sorry.)

34 posted on 04/05/2013 5:10:40 PM PDT by Sir Napsalot (Pravda + Useful Idiots = CCCP; JournOList + Useful Idiots = DopeyChangey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: supercat
Or perhaps we could adopt some provisions from the New Hampshire Constitution:

[Art.] 2-a. [The Bearing of Arms.] All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.

[Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

And then we can work on getting the Courts to rule in ways consistent with the intent of the Constitutions of the States and the Federal Government.

35 posted on 04/05/2013 5:16:04 PM PDT by freeandfreezing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: 21twelve

Correct. And there are those that believe 1A’s “law respecting an establishment of religion” refers to law that shows respect for religion.


36 posted on 04/05/2013 5:26:05 PM PDT by polymuser ("We have a right to debate and disagree with any administration!" (HRC))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot
Before you mock the idea of a constitutional amendment, ...

Regarding the idea of a constitutional amendment, the corrupt federal government cannot afford for the Constitution's Article V, the constitutional amendment process, to be put into the limelight imo. This is because if Constitution-ignorant voters found out that only the states, not the federal government, have the power to ratify proposed amendments to the Constitution, then citizens would also know that the states have absolute control over the federal government via the Constitution, not vice-versa as the corrupt media, including Obama guard dog Fx News, evidently want citizens to think.

“What part of ‘a well regulated Militia’ do you not understand?” goes the retort. ...

The Supreme Court has officially noted the following regarding 2A. The Founding States made 2A not to confer gun rights, but to clarify that it is appropriate (my word) to use guns for the natural right to self defense, a natural right which Congress shall not interfere with.

"The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States." --United States v. Cruikshank, 1875.

Finally, note that John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, had included 2A in his examples of constitutional statutes containing privileges or immunities which 14A applied to the states. See Bingham's mention of 2A in middle column of following page from post Civil War congressional record.

Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 42nd Congress, 1st Session

37 posted on 04/05/2013 5:31:18 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

“What part of ‘shall not be infringed’ do you not understand?” the gun-rights advocate asks. “What part of ‘a well regulated Militia’ do you not understand?” goes the retort.


Better interpretation:
The Founding Fathers disliked standing armies (a “well regulated militia” as the Left defines), but knew such is necessary to the security of a free state. Knowing the Constitutional condoning of a standing army would be construed as grounds to disarm the populace (the goal of the Left and other advocates of tyranny), ‘twas declared the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


38 posted on 04/05/2013 5:37:48 PM PDT by ctdonath2 (3% of the population perpetrates >50% of homicides...but gun control advocates blame metal boxes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10
Broken link in previous post repaired.
Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 42nd Congress, 1st Session

39 posted on 04/05/2013 5:38:25 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

Jake Tapper to Obama and Bloomberg: If you want to regulate guns, maybe you should learn gun basics first
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2013/04/05/jake-tapper-to-obama-and-bloomberg-if-you-want-to-regulate-guns-maybe-you-should-learn-gun-basics-first/


40 posted on 04/05/2013 5:40:51 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (I'll raise $2million for Sarah Palin's presidential run. What'll you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10

Re: Article V

Both parties are so eager to absorb > 11 millions ill-informed illegals to give them voting rights (on top of our current ill-informed voters), because it will be so much easier to overcome the requirements for

(Wikipedia) “Amendments may be proposed by either:

- two-thirds of both houses of the United States Congress; or
- by a national convention assembled at the request of the legislatures of at least two-thirds of the states.

To become part of the Constitution, amendments must then be ratified either by approval of:

- the legislatures of three-fourths of the states; or
- state ratifying conventions held in three-fourths of the states.”


41 posted on 04/05/2013 5:55:26 PM PDT by Sir Napsalot (Pravda + Useful Idiots = CCCP; JournOList + Useful Idiots = DopeyChangey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
>Lost in this confusion and anxiety is the possibility that a basic consensus on guns free speech exists among Americans. Opinion polls suggest that a majority recognize a right to bear arms speak freely, subject to reasonable regulations protecting public safety and the right not be offended. This strong dual commitment, if clarified and entrenched in our Constitution, could reassure most, though not all, of us

See? It makes sense no matter HOW you frame it, right? Opinions polls are more important than Constitutional Rights.

See, there's a problem here: the courts have already 'clarified' the Constitution so that the explicit and unconstrained prohibitions of the first amendment (e.g. "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press") is of no effect. You see, in the 1919 case Schenck v. United States the Supreme Court declared that Congress could indeed make laws abridging speech [and, incidentally, the press]. The case was started over violations of a sedition act because a protester printed out his objections to WWI and thought to encourage people to non-compliance with the draft (as well as petitioning the congress to stop the war & draft) -- now this is important, the US has almost always made exceptions for those religious who felt moral objection to war (Quakers, etc) precisely because of their moral objections to war -- so there was some precedent of moral obligation being held in high regard. Furthermore, the First Amendment was affirmed to make explicit the freedoms of people to protest politically, IOW exactly what the man was doing.

And the USSC said: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force." -- when it is patently obvious that citation is about an injunction [judicial act] and not a congressional [much less legislative] action.

My point is this: our government routinely violates the Constitution.
What is the consequence to those violators? And what are the consequences of the violations?

42 posted on 04/05/2013 6:13:11 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot
Rewrite?

Well, let's just stop and ponder this.

Mr. Elkins seems to be assuming that things like "reasonable restrictions" and "background checks" are things "many reasonable people would find reassurance in a revised Second Amendment that was properly balanced."

And just what defines "proper balance?"

Who writes the definition of "proper balance?" You, Mr. Elkins?

I am sure that you would answer YES, Mr Elkins.

However Mr. Elkins, due to the massive amount of arms sales that have already occurred during the course of the "most transparent administration" and due to the fact that there is no apparent end in sight for said arms sales I would submit to you Mr Elkins, that "many reasonable people would NOT find reassurance" with you or any of your neo-communist ilk engaging in such an exercise as rewriting the Second Amendment."

But I would offer that such an idea has already been explored.

Allow me...

"The unalienable Right of all individuals as the people to keep and bear all arms with accoutrements at all times in any circumstance, in any location, in or not in defense of themselves or other individuals in any manor as individuals or groups and in or not in defense of their state as organized or unorganized militia, shall not be infringed in any way by any process, rule or law from any domestic or foreign source, forever."

Not quite what you had in mind Mr Elkins?

I do not understand your objection the the new and clarified version of the Second Amendment, Mr Elkins.

It relieves all of the concerns you have expressed, Mr. Elkins.

No more "uncertainty," no more "gun enthusiasts fear."

Gone will be the "constant threat" of infringement.

We will no longer be "Lost in this confusion and anxiety."

We will have rid ourselves of the crushing issue regarding the "awkward, irresolvable phrasing" of the Second Amendment by "agreeing on a formal clarification of the constitutional text."

No more "worrying about the slippery slope of encroachments."

The "violent rhetoric" will have been stopped as we have "adapted our antique highest law to modern technological and cultural developments."

Of course, in retrospect, we will have simply proven (once again) the incredible effectiveness of the Founding Fathers to clearly articulate their ideas.

The Founding Fathers version... 27 words.

My "adaptation of antique highest law to modern technological and cultural developments" version... 74 words.

New and improved version? Almost three times as long, to say the same exact thing.

And did the Founding Fathers know exactly what they were doing?

You Betcha.



If the Founding Fathers meant for there to be laws restricting an American Citizen of their right to freely and without restraint posses arms they would have clearly written it into the text of the Amendment just like they did in these...

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law

Amendment III
but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment XII
no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny

And these...

AMENDMENT XIII
AMENDMENT XIV
AMENDMENT XV
AMENDMENT XVI
AMENDMENT XVIII
AMENDMENT XIX
AMENDMENT XXIII
AMENDMENT XXVI


The Second Amendment is absolutely clear here.

It is:

"shall not be infringed"

Not "according to the rules of the common law"
Not "but in a manner to be prescribed by law"
Not "but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation"
Not "without due process of law"
Not "Congress shall have power to enforce this"
Not "The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation"
Not "unless they shall by law"
Not "Congress may by law"
Not "and shall not prevent"
Not "No law"


Yeah, the Founding Fathers had every single opportunity for YEARS to put such a stipulation in the Second Amendment.

What do we see there?

Do we see the stipulations that are in many of the other Amendments?

No.

The "Bill of Rights" took seven months to write. This was in addition to the eleven years for the Constitution. The Constitutional Convention was 116 days long. The Bill of Rights was not ratified until 1791.

There was plenty of time to create stipulations for the Second Amendment that would allow certain encroachments based upon existing or future law or laws. Such stipulations exist throughout the Constitution and it's Amendments, including the first ten.

The Second Amendment contains only one stipulation.

"Shall not be infringed."

My conclusion is they damn well meant exactly not in the slightest scintilla. They were experts in what happens when such concessions are allowed. It is the absolute definition of "slippery slope."

Such concessions are the exact cause of being tangled in the 20,000 infringements spider web of laws, rules, ordinances and policies of today.

But, to be sure, let's look one more time.

"The unalienable Right of all individuals as the people to keep and bear all arms with accoutrements at all times in any circumstance, in any location, in or not in defense of themselves or other individuals in any manor as individuals or groups and in or not in defense of their state as organized or unorganized militia, shall not be infringed in any way by any process, rule or law from any domestic or foreign source, forever."



This one is just for you because there is no "uncertainty and confusion" when we come to understanding YOU, Mr. ZACHARY ELKINS, associate professor of government at the University of Texas, Austin, Texas.




Zachary Elkins
Associate Professor — Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley
Curriculum Vitae
Contact V E-mail: zelkins@austin.utexas.edu
Phone: 512.232.7250
Office: BAT 4.120 v Campus Mail Code: A1800
Biography


Professor Elkins’ research focuses on issues of democracy, institutional reform, research methods, and national identity, with an emphasis on cases in Latin America. He is currently completing a book manuscript, Designed by Diffusion: Constitutional Reform in Developing Democracies, which examines the design and diffusion of democratic institutions, and recently completed The Endurance of National Constitutions, which explores the factors that lead to the survival of national constitutions. With Tom Ginsburg (University of Chicago), Professor Elkins co-directs both the Comparative Constitutions Project, a NSF-funded initiative to understand the causes and consequences of constitutional choices, and the website constitutionmaking.org, which provides resources and analysis for constitutional drafters in new democracies. Elkins earned his B.A. from Yale University, an M.A. from the University of Texas at Austin, and his Ph.D. from the University of California, Berkeley.

.

43 posted on 04/05/2013 7:34:12 PM PDT by TLI ( ITINERIS IMPENDEO VALHALLA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Caipirabob
The socialists should simply leave while they can. Walk away.

Unfortunately, the liberals are too stupid to realize they're poking a tiger - not a bundle of wet straw. That is most unfortunate for them, because when they finally do realize their error, it'll be far too late to avoid the inevitable consequences.

44 posted on 04/05/2013 7:55:49 PM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

Of course I’m interested. Ping me anytime you want, darlin’.


45 posted on 04/05/2013 8:35:21 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot
Rewrite? How about: Being necessary to the security of a free people and in defense of the Republic, the right of the individual citizen, regardless of the state of residence and any laws passed therein, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
46 posted on 04/05/2013 10:38:12 PM PDT by nomad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Billthedrill

You have just explained why the Article II, Section 1, clause 5 eligibility requirement to be President, ‘Natural born Citizen’, hasn’t been amended.

Once the explanation is widely understood - a Natural born Citizen is born in the United States of citizen parents - there will be few if any dissenting votes.


47 posted on 04/05/2013 11:08:20 PM PDT by SatinDoll (NATURAL BORN CITZEN: BORN IN THE USA OF CITIZEN PARENTS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

A contest!
The right of the law abiding American Citizen to own any firearm, for the defense of his country, family, possessions, the United States Constitution, and against tyrannical and oppressive government, shall not be infringed, furthermore, The federal government, or the states, shall make no law restricting the ownership of firearms. And The American people can hunt too.
(First draft.)


48 posted on 04/05/2013 11:36:23 PM PDT by Doomonyou (Let them eat Lead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steerpike100
“Opinion polls suggest that a majority recognize a right to bear arms, subject to reasonable regulations protecting public safety”. <—— Oh yeah? Who says so?

This big fight is over what is a "reasonable regulation". I have seen that polling question before, and it almost never defines what respondents consider reasonable. When the clarify what regulations are actually being considered support is often anywhere from under 40% to barely over 50%, depending on what is proposed. I.E. I personally think background checks should be improved, am not convinced that Schumer's bill contains any improvements to the current background check system, and am certain that it contains numerous provisions that are either irrelevant or counter-productive.

49 posted on 04/06/2013 2:34:57 AM PDT by Fraxinus (My opinion, worth what you paid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Inyo-Mono
You Sir have it right. That is exactly what “well regulated” meant in the late 18th Century.

He is correct. Another factoid that is ignored is that the Militia Acts came after the 2nd Amendment - likely to take advantage of the fact that the populace was guaranteed the right to be armed.

If they want to rewrite it, I would suggest, "The ability of a populace to defend itself from an overbearing government being integral to the preservation of Freedom, anyone who attempts to disarm the population will be shot".

50 posted on 04/06/2013 3:38:41 AM PDT by trebb (Where in the the hell has my country gone?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson