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

(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 ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-33 last
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Sir Napsalot

.


51 posted on 04/06/2013 3:42:34 AM PDT by skinkinthegrass (who'll take tomorrow,$pend it all today;who can take your income,tax it all away..0'Blowfly can :-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-33 last

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