In the Fight Against Terrorism, Some Rights Must Be Repealed - (Hunh? Disarm us to fight terror?)

INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL POLICY UNDERSTANDING ^ | MARCH 4, 2005 | JUNAID M. AFEEF

[P_A_I]

Posting Comment
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/post?id=1356348%2C192

steve802 wrote:

Indeed, I do advocate for the repeal of our current 2nd, to be replaced with the text of an amendment that is unambiguous as to its meaning. The fact that people can debate the actual meaning of the 2nd means, to me, that it is flawed.

I want to protect the rights of gun owners and users, for purposes that are reasonable and normal. If the "wrong people" take hold of the courts, can't you see the text of the current 2nd amendment being interpreted in a way that would allow the confiscation of guns? I can, though only in my maddest of nightmares ... but I can also see, in a polar opposite nightmare, a society with no restrictions on guns, and society of the gun.

With both sides pulling so hard, so we have reached an equilibrium, but it may not be very hardy.


My replacement amendment protects that which is the most important, in my opinion. If the discussion can be kept civil, I welcome more opinion ... though this may not be the thread for that.

Steve Mount

_____________________________________

[SwankyC]

perhaps it is time for Americans to reconsider the value of public gun ownership.

You reconsider for yourself, I'll keep what I got right where I have it.

[macrahanish #1]

There are even more "effective" targets than malls.
Where are millions of red staters all even easier, more concentrated targets? I can think of two venues.

[macrahanish #1]

There are even more "effective" targets than malls.
Where are millions of red staters all even easier, more concentrated targets? I can think of two venues.

[R. Scott]

The Second Amendment is not worth such risks.

Why do these nut cases never attack the free speech clause of the 1st Amendment? If we can allow the leftists to undermine our society with propaganda disseminated via the press and TV, why shouldn’t I be allowed to be armed?

[R. Scott]

Probably 90% of all Police chiefs…

Good to see you state “Police Chiefs” and not “cops”. Every patrol officer I have met favors an armed citizenry (also prefragged ammo). The only objections I have heard are from the political cops - the Chiefs.

[R. Scott]

I wonder what this moron thinks would happen to the mighty US military if even one fifth of the American people rose up and seized control of or destroyed its support base?

Not only that, but if the situation became so bad that the citizens rose in armed revolt, much of the military would join them – and take their equipment with them. These people don’t seem to be aware of history. When the War Between the States erupted, how many Union military officers and men joined the Confederacy?
Our military is not separate from the citizenry. They are not mercenaries but citizens themselves. If the situation became that bad our politicians could not depend on the military or the police to defend them. Even in China the tanks sent into Tiananmen Square stopped when a citizen stood his ground. When the Soviet Union fell Soviet tanks and soldiers joined the populace in Moscow.

[R. Scott]

A LIVING DOCUMENT...What trash have you been reading?

It is a living document in that it is not set in stone. Provisions were made to amend our Constitution when needed. It has been amended 27 times.

[MacDorcha]

That post got no replies, but it deserves one.

And here it is.

Enjoy:)

[MacDorcha]

That is so beautiful. It looks like it could be a set!

Collect them all!