Does the Second Amendment need to be Amended?

2015-10-11T00:33:28-04:00

There's been a lot of debate about firearms and firearm ownership recently. I've been a part of a lot of it. I think one thing that is achingly necessary is some close reading of the Second Amendment itself. I slapped together a powerpoint for my sister a few years ago on the topic, and will post the text here with the title slide as an image (because it outlines the argument.)

2. Inherent Right to Self Defense
All persons entitled to defend their lives
A threat to one’s life can only be answered with deadly force
Not granted by society, intrinsic to life
Denial of this is endorsement of cannibalism
Granted by God or by nature
Not everyone believes in god
Not everyone can follow this level of philosophy

3. Constitutional Protection
Is highest law of the land
Any law lower that contradicts is null
Many laws already contradict constitution and should be held null but are not
Committing some wrongs do not mean we need to commit more
Only entity Officers of US swear to support and defend
Supreme Court interprets BUT
Has ruled badly in past i.e. Dred Scott
Usually rules against individual liberty

4. Original Intent
Only way to address constitution
Interpreting as we please renders document meaningless
Must obey as written, guided by intent
If desired can AMMEND text

5. Original Intent: Text Analysis

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.
Assisted by Webster’s dictionary 1828. Constitution drafted 1789 Most founders knew Noah Webster (he edited some Federalist papers), he likely represented their ideas of words, Oxford English Dictionary also an option, but requires pay access.
Well regulated: “Adjusted by rule, method or forms; put in good order” disciplined, capable, well-drilled, well-trained, able
Militia: “The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades, with officers of all grades, and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations” men between ages of 15 and 45 able to bear arms, who drill and are available for call-up
Necessary: “1. That must be; that cannot be otherwise; indispensably requisite. It is necessary that every effect should have a cause. 3. Unavoidable; as a necessary inference or consequence from facts or arguments.”
Free: 2. In government, not enslaved; not in a state of vassalage or dependence; subject only to fixed laws, made by consent, and to a regular administration of such laws; not subject to the arbitrary will of a sovereign or lord; as a free state, nation or people. The opposite of how the colonists felt themselves under Britain.
State: 5. A political body, or body politic; the whole body of people united under one government, whatever may be the form of the government. All people united under government.
Right: “10. Just claim; immunity; privilege. All men have a right to the secure enjoyment of life, personal safety, liberty and property. We deem the right of trial by jury invaluable, particularly in the case of crimes. Rights are natural, civil, political, religious, personal, and public. 11. Authority; legal power. We have no right to disturb others in the enjoyment of their religious opinions.” Not subject to restriction.
People: “1. The body of persons who compose a community, town, city or nation.” All people, not necessarily united in government.
Keep: “1. To hold; to retain in one's power or possession; not to lose or part with; as, to keep a house or a farm; to keep any thing in the memory, mind or heart. 2. To have in custody for security or preservation.” To possess under your own power.
Bear: 2. To carry; to convey; to support and remove from place to place; as, "they bear him upon the shoulder;", "the eagle beareth them on her wings.“12. To possess and use as power; to exercise; as, to bear sway.” Carry anywhere.
Arms: “1. Weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body. Sire arms, are such as may be charged with powder, as cannon, muskets, mortars, &c. A stand of arms consists of a musket, bayonet, cartridge-box and belt, with a sword. But for common soldiers a sword is not necessary.” Not Small Arms, a Stand of Arms, no “except sire arms or crew-served weapons or cannon”.
Shall not be: not may not or maybe not, or might be, or could be
infringed: “Broken; violated; transgresses.”

6. Constitutional Protection: Key Words
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.
Words were chosen carefully.
It is the people, not the state, states or militia whose right shall not to be infringed.
The right is to keep and bear arms, not to access, practice or only keep or only bear.
Arms are not small arms, are not a specific type of arms, there is no prohibition on types arms, understanding of larger weapons with high lethality (mortars and cannon) was widespread

7. Defend Self From Government
Founders had observed war of self defense against government
Understood risk of tyrannical government and wanted to guarantee balance of power
Jefferson even endorsed violent clashes
Modern militias CAN challenge national forces
Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Ukraine
Numerical, terrain advantages, capture of equipment and defection from government forces quickly even odds.

8. Defend Self From Government
Governments are scary
They kill more people than criminals BY FAR
In the 20th century most countries herded citizens into concentration camps at one point or another (US to Japanese)
It is hard to herd armed people into camps
Nazi Gun Control legislation enabled their genocides (JPFO studies on this-also link US Gun Control Act of 1968 to the Nazi text directly)
Armed Jews are scarier than disarmed Jews: Warsaw Ghetto Uprising

9. Defend Self From Government
The first gun control law National Firearms Act of 1934 was wrought with problems
Allegedly a revenue raising measure, not a ban
State’s case claimed short barreled shotguns in specific were not militia weapons as not used by any military (falsely)
Ignored that NFA 1934 also taxed Machine Guns, definitely used by Militaries
No defense counsel or brief submitted to Supreme Court
Very tricky, specific, semi-dishonest argument involving serial numbers won case
Even the A-USA in the first gun case before the court acknowledged the 2nd amendment is intended to protect military style weapons.
Registration leads to confiscation, there has been no example of national registration schemes not followed by confiscation of some or all registered weapons

10. Defend Self From Government
Chemical Biological Radiological and Nuclear Weapons, Autonomous Weapons?
These are scary
People probably should not have them
Maybe we need a constitutional amendment
I would prefer governments not have them either, they are the only ones proven to have used them before, and will likely again.

11. Defend Self From Criminals
It is certain that in addition to protection from government, people are entitled to protect themselves from violence by criminals
This derives from the natural right to self defense
Founders understood the need, living before an era of police, and it is acceptable to argue this as a reason AFTER arguing protection for government (same with hunting)
Police cannot respond fast enough to save lives, just investigate after
Police cannot have legal obligation to protect people’s lives (case law has held this)

12. Defend Self From Criminals
Criminals do not obey laws-hence they are criminals
They will not obey gun laws
Only law abiding citizens will
Ordering the law abiding to disarm creates easy victims: “victim disarmament”
Any area the law abiding citizen’s right to bear arms is infringed will become a target for a criminal: ALL of the recent mass shootings occurred in legal (albeit unconstitutional) ‘gun-free’ zones
Lawful gun owners OFTEN end shootings with minimal or NO casualties.
Not being armed equally to criminals means the law abiding fight at disadvantage
Reload times kill (must have full capacity mags)
Don’t require the law abiding to bring a knife to a gun fight or a pistol to a rifle fight, or fists to an anything fight

13. Bad Arguments
It is bad to end the debate with god or nature and not include the constitution, most people cant handle esoteric, or belief arguments. This argument shuts down debate.
It is bad to interpret the constitution however we please, this renders it useless. This argument shuts down the debate.
It is bad to begin the argument of defense of self from government but not follow it all the way through its logical progression, that all existing gun control law is null as unconstitutional. This surrenders logical consistency and truth.
It is bad to begin to argue pragmatics on crime and self protection without including first protection from government, it is not the intent of the amendment.
It is wrong to even allow the opponents to use the phrases (let alone use them ourselves) ‘hunting and sporting’ these are not the intent of the amendment, do not derive from the right to self defense, and most importantly come from GCA 1968 which came from Nazi Gun Control laws

14. Definitions (Military not Legal)
Vehicles usually require a crew to employ and always require a large crew to maintain
E.G. Tanks, Helicopters, Jets, Armored Cars
Crew Served Weapons (CSW) require 2 or more people to employ
Weapons:
Cannon: CSW Large gun 40mm or larger, usually direct fire (flat trajectory)
Howitzer: CSW Large Indirect fire cannon
Mortar: CSW High angle indirect fire weapon
Grenade launcher: gun that fires grenades usually 37 mm or larger (close range indirect fire)
Machine Gun: CSW (usually) Often Belt Fed Gun that fires as long as the trigger is depressed, Heavy is .50cal Medium is .308cal and light .223 Cal (or near these calibers in soviet arms)
Sniper/Special purpose scoped rifle: CSW (when properly used) Long range (1000+ yd) rifle with a scope usually .308 cal or above
Designated Marksman Rifle (DMR): Medium Range (500-800 yds) rifle with a scope, usually .308 cal
Battle Rifle: Medium Range rifle (0-500 yds)
Assault rifle: Smaller caliber rifle for use by assault force, not suppression, light, close-range (0-300)
Carbine: Smaller caliber or powder compromise between a rifle and a submachine gun used for people not expected to be in combat or who MUST have light weight (paratroopers etc.) (0-300)
Submachine Gun: SMG small carbine that shoots a pistol caliber to limit recoil used for very close work that requires fast fires close assault, room clearing (0-100 yds)
Shotgun: Large bore gun for close range work can be automatic, semi-automatic or pump, usually fed fro m a tubular internal magazine newer models include detachable (0-100 yds)
Machine Pistol: An SMG, or a small SMG that looks like a pistol
Pistol: Semi automatic , automatic , or revolving chambered gun operable with one hand with much less powder than even a carbine round (often in calibers .45 and below)
Parts
Clip: a stripper clip has a number of rounds held together on a piece of metal for pushing into the gun rapidly, there they are stored in an internal magazine, “stripper” clips push the rounds off and into the magazine “en bloc” clips go into the guns magazine themselves
Magazine: Where rounds are stored before firing , internal magazines are rare anymore, much more common are detachable magazines often abbreviated “mags” the only military reason for limiting capacity is weight and unwieldy designs, this usually results in 20 rounds for .308, 30 for .223 and around 8-20 for pistols based on caliber size
It has become a legal debate since someone arbitrarily picked “10” as a magazine capacity limit in California, anti gunners say “high capacity” pro gun folk say “full capacity” or just “mag”
Belt: Disintegrating or reloaded (older or soviet) belts fire all rounds linked together fed from a bag or a box. Machineguns use this

Ammunition Round (Ammo, round or Cartridge) the complete package a gun fires (powder, bullet, casing, primer)
Bullet: Projectile that flies from a gun usually smaller and non-explosive
Casing: the brass that encases the powder, crimps to the bullet and holds the primer, ejects from gun after firing
Round: Individual unit of complete ammunition, includes bullet, casing, powder and primer
Shell: Canon or Howitzer bullet OR shotgun complete usually with plastic casing
Grenade: small explosive, can be designed to be thrown (hand-grenade) or fired from a launcher (it can only be either-or)
Measurements:
Caliber: imperial measures from groove to groove in hundredths of an inch diameter ex. .308
MM: metric measurements of lands to lands in mm, usually followed by a metric measurement of the length of the cartridge ex. 7.62x51

15. Rapid responses to opponents
Mass killings:
Not statistically rising or falling
Occur with similar volume and intensity per capita in nations with intense arms control (wiki rampage killings)
Highest casualty US school killing was in the 1920s, used explosives
Legally obtained automatic weapons have been used in 2 crimes in US history, one by a cop
Cops commit more illegal gun violence than concealed carry permit holders
Why don’t cops get mugged?
Guns are equalizers: 225lb 6’2 man vs 5’9 120lb woman: the outcome only changes when she has a gun

16. Pro Gun Organizations (Biased list)
Revolutionary War Veterans of America
Teach the historical connection between guns and the revolution, skills necessary to shoot
“no politics after 1776”
Gun Owners of America
Second biggest Pro gun lobby, second highest profile, very libertarian
“The only no-compromise gun lobby In Washington” –Ron Paul
National Association for Gun Rights
Rocky Mountain roots, anti-UN streak
“No compromise” est. 2000
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
Scholarship on gun control and genocide, especially Nazism
“America’s most Aggressive Defender of Firearms Ownership”
Citizens for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Strong critic of Obama Policies, especially fast and furious
“The Common Sense Gun Lobby”
National Rifle Association
The big dog, huge money (even its opponents admit the bulk of this comes from individual gun owners)
More willing to compromise than the above, but being pushed away from compromise by the above
Founded by Union Army Officers to ensure marksmanship for future soldiers
Independent Firearms Owners Association
Enforce the laws we have now, don’t persecute gun owners, NRA has gone too conservative because of the above
“Effective Solutions for Complex Criminal Justice Problems”
Libertarians:
Reason.com (good youtube video, some articles)
Cato Institute

Response by SFC Wade W. made Oct 11 at 2015 12:55 AM

2015-10-11T00:55:13-04:00

You don't have a response for me. No, enforce the laws that we currently have and all states should be like Arizona, no restrictions on carrying for all persons who can legally purchase.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Oct 11 at 2015 1:22 AM

2015-10-11T01:22:10-04:00

The Bill of Rights was intended to protect the citizens from a tyrannical government. The Second Amendment has this as its primary purpose, and was written in order to prevent the kind of usurpations the nation experienced experienced under British rule. Since human nature has not changed, this need has also not changed.

We see a lawless POTUS currently in office that writes or ignores laws at his personal whim, and feels unconstrained by our Constitution. This is EXACTLY the sort of abuse of coercive power by the government that our Constitution was designed to protect the people against.

This is not the time to limit or abolish the protections afforded us by the Second Amendment - or any of the others in our Bill of Rights.

Response by MSgt Niclas Svensson made Oct 11 at 2015 2:27 AM

2015-10-11T02:27:27-04:00

I picked "other" because I can't answer 100% yes to any of the other choices.

Restricting types of weapons:
The word "need" comes up a lot and it is very subjective. Does the average citizen NEED an automatic weapon or a rocket launcher, or a tank? Most would say no, and I would tend to AGREE. Others would ask does the average citizen NEED an AR or AK variant semi-automatic rifle? Some would again say no, and I would tend to DISAGREE. It is too subjective to draw any real hard lines... Who gets to make that decision on what someone "needs"?

Restricting people who can keep and bear arms:
I agree that convicted felons and mentally disabled people (read as: deemed a danger to themselves or others/forcibly institutionalized) should be restricted from owning firearms. I do not agree with the idea that ANYONE who has EVER had some type of mental health issue (read as: EVERYONE IN THE HISTORY OF EVER) should be restricted...that path leads to eventual disarming of the people.

Leave things the way they are:
The way things are going, we are slowly losing our rights little by little...the end result is the eventual disarming of the people. It will take a long time, but it will happen.

Repeal all existing infringement:
Can't say I agree with this 100% either because I am in favor of background checks for ALL firearm sales (to check for felony convictions, etc...) and I also think some sort of firearms safety course should be a requirement for someone who owns a weapon.

So there you go... I'm a unique and beautiful snowflake and you cannot capture my thoughts in a poll...lol

Response by SGT Steve Oakes made Oct 11 at 2015 3:21 AM

2015-10-11T03:21:09-04:00

I think it should be constitutional carry in all States. If you can buy you can carry concealed. I would definitely support continued background checks. I also would eliminate no carry zones, they do not make sense. If someone is carrying legally why would we not trust them to act responsibly? If they are criminals your not going to stop them with the law anyway. And I think the same blood alcohol levels as driving should be enforced when carrying. If you are to tipsy to drive you damn sure should not be armed! IMHO.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Oct 11 at 2015 4:17 AM

2015-10-11T04:17:12-04:00

Excellent explanation.

To the question itself. Does the 2a need amending itself? The only exclusions I can possibly agree with would be that of WMDs, however it is far easier to regulate materials & acts, than the weapons themselves.

I have slowly adopted the following debate stance when it comes to the Protections (et al) of "Screw you." Any time, anyone, wants to infringe on them which is usually started with the phrases of:

1) there should be a law
2) why is it allowed
3) the government should

I simply and quickly respond with "Screw you" to which I am called an @%^hole, asked why won't I listed to their reasoning, etc. I then proceed to listen to their argument, in depth and repeat "Screw you" with a far more in-depth rebuttal.

I think this should be the standard response to all the clauses of the Constitution.

Response by SGT Rick Ash made Oct 11 at 2015 6:16 AM

2015-10-11T06:16:22-04:00

The Founding Fathers had it right, even for the current generations ruled under the 2cd Amendment. Leave it alone unless Obama has somehow limited anything through Executive Action.

Response by SGT Jimmy Carpenter made Oct 11 at 2015 7:41 AM

2015-10-11T07:41:53-04:00

"Shall not be infringed"

No interpretation needed.

Response by SrA Jonathan Carbonaro made Oct 11 at 2015 7:46 AM

2015-10-11T07:46:33-04:00

Reapeal every gun law on the books, get rid of the ATF and you will see a drop in crime. Start with the NFA of 1934 and go from there till you get to the present day. Get rid of every states gun laws as it violates the national constitution...

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 11 at 2015 7:50 AM

2015-10-11T07:50:44-04:00

Capt Richard I P. No. The second amendment, protects the right of self defense. Having the right of self defense is the right to preserve one's life and to preserve other's lives. The right to self defense also protects the right to free press, free speech, and the freedom of assembly. Not having a armed citizens prevents us from ensuring our other rights remain intact and opens us up to having other rights removed.

Response by MSgt Curtis Ellis made Oct 11 at 2015 5:13 PM

2015-10-11T17:13:06-04:00

Personally, I feel that an amendment would further enable "law makers" to clarify/justify further limitation of this Amendment as well as identify "who can" and "who can't", and, as you all know, we would have no real "say so" in any of this; and if that happens, God help us, as no one would be happy with the results...

Response by MSG Kirt Highberger made Oct 11 at 2015 9:46 PM

2015-10-11T21:46:48-04:00

Leave it alone, Fix the damn homeless situation.
More frigging people die homeless than by deadly force. WAKE UP AMERICA

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 12 at 2015 2:25 AM

2015-10-12T02:25:29-04:00

Criminals don't follow the law! If the government doesn't have plans to declare martial law or further infringe on out rights they have no need to fear from law abiding citizens having weapons to defend themselves.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 12 at 2015 8:25 AM

2015-10-12T08:25:38-04:00

go ahead and try to amend it, and see what happen :)

Response by PO2 Steven Erickson made Oct 12 at 2015 9:53 AM

2015-10-12T09:53:16-04:00

Picked #4. I believe that the Federal government should completely devolve itself from firearm regulations, to the extent that it needs to ensure that the States do not infringe on our rights.

I believe in some regulations (e.g., Class III firearms, explosives, etc.), but inherently believe that God gave me my life, and no man can tell me where, when and how I defend it. I am, of course, responsible for my actions, and should be punished if I violate another citizen's rights (e.g., unjustified use of a firearm).

This is, Capt Richard I P., one of the BEST arguments I've seen, both in content and in format. Well, done, sir! Well done!

(Now, can I get a copy of the PowerPoint, or do I have to make my own and plagiarize yours? lol)

Response by 1LT Aaron Barr made Oct 13 at 2015 7:49 AM

2015-10-13T07:49:49-04:00

If it is amended, it should only be so to state that it is an individual right so we don't risk 5 asshats on the Supreme Court trying to overturn Heller.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Oct 13 at 2015 2:44 PM

2015-10-13T14:44:38-04:00

Yes. I chose "Yes, restrict the people who can keep and bear arms "..
As for whom, I don't believe criminals, the insane or children should have ready access to firearms... That's not too terrible right?

Response by PO1 John Miller made Oct 14 at 2015 4:35 AM

2015-10-14T04:35:07-04:00

Keep the Constitution and Bill of Rights and repeal all other laws as I personally believe that they are unconstitutional.
With that said, some people think that "civilians" should not own WMD's or fully automatic weapons. The argument is "They don't need them." The simple response is to say something like "You don't NEED a sports car that is capable of 200+ MPH but yet you want one. How is owning a full-auto AK47 or a Glock 18 any different?" Simply put, it's not. I don't know how I can explain it any differently.

Also, it's right there in the language: "The right of the people..." last I checked, I am part of "the people."

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 14 at 2015 6:20 AM

2015-10-14T06:20:00-04:00

Being a sweet little snowflake I fall gently to the ground. lol. You forgot "I do not like any of the choices". lol. But seriously it is just another power grab, at the hands of a government that makes it illegal to collect rain water and camping on your own land. lol COL Mikel J. Burroughs . And I am also a little teapot, short and stout.

Response by SFC Dr. Joseph Finck, BS, MA, DSS made Oct 15 at 2015 10:36 AM

2015-10-15T10:36:10-04:00

The Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights and Constitution was written correctly and has been soundly interpreted by the US Supreme Court. What is needed is backing for enforcement of existing laws, aggressive enforcement strategies, and just punishment for violators.

Response by SPC Luis Mendez made Oct 15 at 2015 2:01 PM

2015-10-15T14:01:59-04:00

NOPE, No need for more political gibberish language.

What happens is that everyone who quotes the Amendment quotes it incompletely. The First part of the Amendment mentions a "Well Regulated Militia...." Then afterward it mentions the right of the People.

The People have Rights. The People Ought to have ALSO Accountability, Liability, Duties and Responsibilities. And that my friends is what this Constitution DOESN'T Say. Simply 'cause that is Find in the Scriptures [Bible] NOT in man made, Concocted, "Constitutions".

Now; About the issue of the "Well Regulated Militia". If we go next to the Constitution it will tell us what that "Well Regulated Militia" is. It's what eventually became know as the National Guard of each State and the Reserves. Ref. Article I, Section VIII; Article II, Section II. At least to me that's quite Clear.

But of course! What I'm saying? For sure some Harvard Law School Educated Lawyer, can come up with half a dozen refutations. Let Not him try using Latin, 'cause as a Hispanic I can understand some Latin.

Response by SGT Mark Sullivan made Oct 17 at 2015 12:22 PM

2015-10-17T12:22:03-04:00

A criminal always has one advantage over regular Joe Civilian, the jump. The criminal knows that he/she is going to commit a crime, well before the intended victim. Yes, the possibility of someone being armed is a deterrent. I honestly think that controlling weapons and and amending the 2nd Amendment is fools play. Especially when we haven't even acknowledged the actual problem. Why are people so afraid to recognize that we have a mental health issue, and have created a society where peoples first reaction to resolve a problem is through violence. The most recent example is the Portsmouth, VA mother who barged into her sons Elementary School, to force her son to fight another child in the classroom. There are other examples, of where a mother attended her daughters street fight, to ensure her daughter won. These are just a few examples of this, but, this is what has been happening in the United States. When people attempt to compare the United States to other countries, they fail to recognize the one simple fact. People in other countries know how to handle themselves differently, and not through violence. Whereas, in the United States, it is the norm. We glorify gangs, we glorify criminals, through movies and media outlets. We have a basic attitude of what's mine is mine, and if you have something I want give it to me or else. Thuis is not as gun control issue, this is a mental health issue.

Response by SPC John Decker made Oct 17 at 2015 2:20 PM

2015-10-17T14:20:09-04:00

In my opinion, the inclusion of the 2nd amendment in the bill of rights, other than allowing for performing our duty, as described in the Declaration of Independence (... it is their duty, to throw off such Government,...), was worded the way it was because the government did not have, or didn't think it would have, enough money to provide arms to the Militia, if it became necessary to call them up.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 18 at 2015 4:10 PM

2015-10-18T16:10:50-04:00

Repeal any legislations restricting where a person can carry any manner of weapon. (Guns/knives/blunt weapons) Age restrictions may stay in place as children are still developing self control/discipline.

Response by SSgt Christopher Brose made Oct 24 at 2015 4:28 PM

2015-10-24T16:28:12-04:00

I would have a helluva lot more respect for the anti-gun crowd if they would actually propose getting what they want via an actual constitutional amendment. Their current tactic is to use murders for propaganda, try to pass laws and worry about the constitutionality of them later, and/or get them passed by judicial fiat (which also means they want to stack the judiciary with judges chosen by ideology rather than qualifications).

Response by SSG Gerhard S. made Nov 1 at 2015 2:56 PM

2015-11-01T14:56:56-05:00

It does not needed to be amended. It is clearly written in English... Taken in the context it was written it makes perfect sense. Only those WISHING it said something other than what it does say, are intent on claiming it is unclear, outdated, or in need of revision.

Response by 1stSgt Eugene Harless made Nov 4 at 2015 3:52 PM

2015-11-04T15:52:40-05:00

A firearm in the hands of a law abiding citizen is not a threat to any other law abiding citizen or a fair governnment. A citizen who decides to harm others, steal or attack the goverment will find a tool to do it with. A hateful, twisted mind is more dangerous than an inanimate object

Response by SPC Charles Griffith made Nov 7 at 2015 12:55 AM

2015-11-07T00:55:16-05:00

The language is clear "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" Roll them ALL back.

Response by SSgt Robert Dant made Nov 8 at 2015 12:32 AM

2015-11-08T00:32:52-05:00

I think we are all getting a little confused by many of the changes that are proposing that our founding documents should be changed. I simply look at it that our founding fathers were a lot smarter than we as they did not wear any clocks of politically correct. They fought hard to free this nation and then fought hard amongst themselves to deliver one of the greatest nations in the world. Even if we took all the guns off the street - those wanting them would still get them. So why limit my freedom to protect myself - even from my own government if it gets stupid (and very close to it now).

Response by Capt Jeff S. made Nov 11 at 2015 2:54 AM

2015-11-11T02:54:15-05:00

Response by SPC Rory J. Mattheisen made Dec 22 at 2015 11:59 PM

2015-12-22T23:59:18-05:00

Semi-automatic, low capacity mags. 2nd Amendment gives states the right an armed militia. The current interpretation was bought and paid for by the NRA and arms manufacturers. The current debate and subsequent sales spikes serve only them. Every time they lie to people about "gun bans" sales explode, google gun tax increase, see who did it and who is benefiting from filling folks full of fear.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Dec 23 at 2015 4:06 PM

2015-12-23T16:06:37-05:00

No sweat as far as the suggestion for new amendment.
We will never see the Constitution amended or modified in any of our lifetimes due to the requirements for passage. It would take a Constitutional Convention and that would open it up for everything and there would go what we all know and value, not to mention risking our lives to protect it from enemies, foreign and domestic. We are in far more danger from illegal
Executive Actions that no one seems to want to reign in.

Response by TSgt Kenneth Ellis made Dec 23 at 2015 8:20 PM

2015-12-23T20:20:06-05:00

Then Obama should push for abrepeal of the 2nd amendment . Just like with the 28th amendment on prohibition. I'm not sure if this is the right amendment though.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 24 at 2015 12:04 AM

2015-12-24T00:04:54-05:00

A citizen should have any weapon that the government uses. A free person has to be virtuous and moral. Freedom requires personal responsibility and self control. If one does not practice either of those characteristics the state has to force control.

Response by A1C Melissa Jackson made May 7 at 2016 3:22 PM

2016-05-07T15:22:29-04:00

I voted for unique and beautiful snowflake because the idea amused me deeply.

I don't think the second amendment should be amended AT ALL. However, I think it could use some clarification in a twenty first century framework. For example- the amendment calls for a well-regulated militia. WHAT constitutes such an organization? I think of national guard when I read that. Some people think of rabble rousers with a huge number of guns and ammunition taking over bird refuges in protest over not being given carte blanche to graze their cattle on federal land.

Should we restrict weapons in general? Should we restrict how and WHERE a person can tote a weapon? Should we restrict WHO can carry a weapon? What about taking the proper countermeasures to prevent an unqualified person (like a child) from accessing the weapon? By the way- I am using the word WEAPON on purpose.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 7 at 2016 4:40 PM

2016-05-07T16:40:43-04:00

No more and no less than the others need amending. As with the others the need is subjective and depends on one's views and the current SCOTUS rulings.

Response by COL Sam Russell made May 10 at 2016 7:49 AM

2016-05-10T07:49:16-04:00

4--"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
One of the first signs of a tyrannical government is disarming its populace, and thus removing their ability to "dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another."
The only time I am disarmed is when I go to work because the government that I serve insists that neither I nor my comrades-in-arms can be trusted with weapons at home station. The rent-a-cop security at the Pentagon even insists on confiscating my Army issued Gerber multi-purpose tool, before admitting me to the sanctum sanctorum.
The photograph is of my youngest daughter at our outdoor range. She is firing my father's M1917 S&W .45 revolver, the privately owned weapon that he carried during his two tours in Vietnam, as he preferred the revolver over the Army-issued semi-automatic of the same caliber.

Response by PO1 Aaron Baltosser made May 12 at 2016 6:16 AM

2016-05-12T06:16:46-04:00

Infringements like capacity restrictions, falsely characterizing a semi-automatic, magazine fed rifle as an assault rifle, stripping individuals of their right to life, granting more rights to criminals like allowing them to sue so they gain financially as a result of the commission of a crime all need to stop. We are forced to recognize all marriages in every state when that isn't in writing anywhere, but the 2nd Amendment that is in writing is refused in many stayes, infringed in others, not recognized by many. If your drivers license is good in all 50 states despite different standards required to get one, a CCW permit should be as well. No money should be involved with the permit process, and really the permit process should not be required. If you can own a firearm legally, you have the right to carry concealed. By submitting to a process where you can be told no, paying money to exercise a right...congratulations, you have relegated that right down to a privilege.

Response by MSgt John McGowan made May 12 at 2016 6:54 AM

2016-05-12T06:54:59-04:00

CAPT SIR can the SCOTUS declare the amendment null and void? The purpose of the Constitution is clear but how much can it be changed by the courts or the President?

Response by SSG Dennis Grossmann made May 12 at 2016 8:24 AM

2016-05-12T08:24:27-04:00

Yeah, taking away people's rights has worked so well in Chicago, New York, and Loc Angeles.

Response by SGT Rick Ash made May 12 at 2016 2:23 PM

2016-05-12T14:23:31-04:00

No, No, NO! Leave it alone and send a message to Obama to stop his confiscation efforts.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made May 12 at 2016 3:25 PM

2016-05-12T15:25:42-04:00

I believe in the Goal of the 2nd Amendment to provide for a Military for A New Country that didn't want a continually standing armed force that they saw as part of the Problem in Europe. The 2nd Amendment provided a Ready Reserve "A Well Regulated Militia" Also I believe in the Magna Carta, A mans house is his castle that he has a right to protect and that even means an Armed Right. By the same token Neither is a Blanket Policy for every Tom, Dick and Harry to have a Firearm and any damn one he wants. Just my Historical Perspective.

Response by MAJ David Hoyer made May 20 at 2016 12:18 PM

2016-05-20T12:18:43-04:00

No. The Second Amendment starts with "A well regulated militia, ...", so it should only apply to members of a militia. Militias would then be responsible for vetting members, which should keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have guns in the first place. Congress would decide the militia regulations. First, the Supreme Court should narrow the current broad interpretation of the Amendment.

Response by A1C Private RallyPoint Member made May 24 at 2016 6:40 PM

2016-05-24T18:40:25-04:00

Love it when people say that the Founding Fathers only meant for organized military units to have guns, when they warned against standing armies in peacetime as dangerous to liberty.

“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves... and include all men capable of bearing arms.”
― Richard Henry Lee

Response by Sgt Daniel Dombrowski made May 24 at 2016 7:07 PM

2016-05-24T19:07:40-04:00

I think the Second Amendment speaks for itself. The Founding Fathers were of above-average intelligence; they wrote beautiful and moving documents, and if they wanted to say "Citizens can't own any guns," they would have said that. They knew the citizens could revolt against a tyrannical government; after all, they just overthrew their old system of government. But the Founding Fathers realized how important it was for the people to be able to own firearms and defend themselves in the event that government became too powerful and tyrannical. They knew that power corrupts, and the Founding Fathers weren't above potential corruption. They wrote that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed at the risk of their own lives because it is the right thing to do - the government has a moral obligation to protect its citizens even from the government itself.

The only interpretation of the Second Amendment is that citizens can own firearms. Period. And for God's sake, get rid of the NFA and assault weapons bans. I'm tired of paying a $200 "tax" for a piece of paper every time I want to exercise my Constitutional right to own a silencer or SBR. It's sad that the government and the people think it's acceptable for the government to tax people for their freedom.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Jun 13 at 2016 12:13 AM

2016-06-13T00:13:23-04:00

Absolutely not! There's nothing wrong with the Second Amendment. Nor guns. No with citizens bearing weapons. Why do we keep going over this? How damn dumb are We the People? How many times must we review the facts. The narrative that is pushed every time there's a shooting has nothing to do with public safety. The safest place in America are those with the most guns and the least controls. The most dangerous places have the least guns and the most controls. It doesn't take a genius to process those verifiable facts and reach the correct conclusion. Well you wouldn't think so, would you? But there are those who don't give a damn about public safety. They only care about control and they have an army of well-intentioned fools to parrot their propaganda

Response by CDR Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 13 at 2016 4:19 PM

2016-06-13T16:19:46-04:00

I would have to say because the simple fact that the American people are divided over the very meaning and intent of the amendment (as are many RP members), and that it is not relevant in its original form for today's situation, issues, needs, and requirements of the people, it should be re-written to be crystal clear as to what rights the people have when it comes to firearms.

Unfortunately I don't think Congress or the American people in their current state of partisanship would be able to craft a new 2nd Amendment.

As far as the argument of militia and the people is similar to the chicken and the egg. They both co-exist and can't live without the other. You have to look at what the 2nd amendment is really looking for and how it gets there to understand it. The goal is the security of a free state and nothing else. Without a free state you don't have militias or free people who have rights. What is required for a free state to have security? A well regulated militia. Without a organized and trained protective force you can't defend a country against an enemy foreign or domestic (Very obvious when you look at how the militias, especially the lest well trained militias did compared to the continental army). What is a well regulated militia made up of (Especially in the 18th Century)? Militias were made up of the people. A militia needs people and it needs weapons and it needs both on a moments notice. So the people must have the right to keep and bear arms so they can be part of a well regulated militia that ensures the security of a free state. This amendment is really about the shared responsibility of citizens and the need to be part of a community based organization that protects the people, the community and the state.

So in the days of when the constitution was written it made sense. The people in small communities scattered throughout the land, needed to have firearms so that they could quickly come together in the form of a militia to protect their fellow citizens and in turn the state from whatever threatened that community and in turn the state, be it attacks from invading armies or hostile native Americans, or other hostile citizens or bands of criminals.

Is that applicable today? No. We have a professional military and a national guard to protect the United States. Could our government become tyrannical? No, just look at how little they can run things right now, plus no President, much less congress will ever have the power to become a tyrant. Congress in general and Presidents in Particular have very little actual power to do anything since it is in the hands of ordinary citizens to actually make the government work. There are to many checks and balances inside the federal government and between the federal government and the states and to many good Americans that would stand up to such an act inside the government that it will never happen.

Response by PO2 Ron Burling made Jun 21 at 2016 3:31 PM

2016-06-21T15:31:48-04:00

I believe we need to go back to the standard imposed in US v Miller, wherein the Supreme Court said the 2nd amendment mandates NO infringement on weapons of actual or potential military usefulness. BATFE can be stripped of their LE status and returned to their original, tax collecting duties and I can start looking for that 'blooper' (M79) I have always envied.

That decision was in 1939, since then there have been many 'compromises' in this arena that have always consisted of we gunners giving ground, no more!

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Oct 17 at 2016 9:12 AM

2016-10-17T09:12:06-04:00

Roll back every court decision used to interpret the 2nd Amendment and accept the literal meaning of its plain language. The only restriction is that it applies to citizens and well-behaved guests only. Convicted felons lose their claim to citizenship until after they have served their time and successfully applied for citizenship much like a lawful immigrant

Response by Cpl Dennis F. made Oct 17 at 2016 8:00 PM

2016-10-17T20:00:44-04:00

I have often thought about laying this out as you have so ably done. I have always held that we have the right to keep and bear a full carrier battle group, with full compliment of aircraft, if we can so afford it. Brief, to the point.

Response by SSG Jeremy Sharp made Oct 17 at 2016 11:11 PM

2016-10-17T23:11:42-04:00

No, upheld as written for the purpose intended.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 18 at 2016 8:43 PM

2016-10-18T20:43:50-04:00

Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 30 at 2016 11:01 AM

2016-12-30T11:01:06-05:00

NO ! we do not need to touch the constitution we need to amend the leadership starting at the top of your heap with Obama the Traitor Now going to use your own admission against you in the SSI disability you may want to rethink about PSTD or any other mental disorder claim if you want to own a firearm ever again.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 19 at 2017 9:56 PM

2017-01-19T21:56:24-05:00

Take away my right over there dead bodies

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 27 at 2017 1:21 PM

2017-02-27T13:21:42-05:00

I voted #4. The Framers of the Constitution worded everything very carefully, so that their intents could not be reinterpreted. Unfortunately, our ignorant generations have done exactly that, second-guessing our Founding Fathers.

Response by PO1 Aaron Baltosser made Apr 13 at 2017 3:18 PM

2017-04-13T15:18:43-04:00

That PowerPoint slide is a banging representation of all the complexities we face today in defending our Right to defend ourselves. We can't amend this for one reason, and that is the glut of those on the left that are chomping at the bit for those that favor self defense and the use of original intent in this amendment to make a mistake. The gravest mistake we gun loving types could make as a whole is to allow an Article 5 Convention. There are so many gun hating, would be despots and oppressors already out there and open about their intent. If they were able to see an Article 5 Convention called they would coalesce and alter the fabric of our long standing freedoms by dropping an amendment that might well pass because of the number of people that hate firearms in any form.
We have to remember, the worst shooting in American history was not done by any civilian. It was done by government agents...after they ensured 'common sense gun reforms' were visited on the people they were facing 29 December, 1890. Then those agents shots approximately 300 men, women, and children all unarmed unable to respond to the immediate threat. The threat of something similar is no less present today, and we should remain just as vigilant in protecting our Rights, all of them as our Founding Fathers were when they put them down in writing for all to see. We would be more effective in Rights protection, by forcing the recognition of the 2nd Amendment in all 50 states like we do all marriages, and drivers licenses.

Response by SGT Scott Henderson made Jun 15 at 2017 3:27 PM

2017-06-15T15:27:24-04:00

Hell yeah, and it's about fucking time too. Remove "...a well regulated militia..." People spend WAY too much time arguing over verbiage. Insert "... equal to those of the standing military." It should now read "Being necessary for the security of a free state the right of the people to keep and bear arms equal to those of the standing military shall not be infringed." Since this edit would make the NFA and GCA unconstitutional we can just do away with them right after this gets approved.

Response by SFC Mark Biggs made Jun 30 at 2017 11:31 PM

2017-06-30T23:31:24-04:00

Thanks for this lengthy, but necessary article.

Response by CWO3 Dennis M. made Jul 10 at 2017 4:00 PM

2017-07-10T16:00:17-04:00

I live in Vermont, and this state has the fewest gun laws of any state in the US. We also have the lowest crime rate per-capita. Our constitution was written before the US Bill of rights when Vermont was a republic! The following is from wikipedia;
The state has very few gun control laws, and has among the most permissive laws in the United States regarding the purchase of firearms as well as their open or concealed carry. The state's rural character, along with its strong hunting and outdoor sports traditions, have contributed to the state's permissive gun policies. Gun dealers are required to keep a record of all handgun sales. It is illegal to carry a gun in a school building or bus, or in a courthouse. State law preempts local governments from regulating the possession, ownership, transfer, carrying, registration or licensing of firearms.
The State neither issues nor requires a permit to carry a weapon on one's person, openly or concealed. This permissive stance on gun control is known in the U.S. as constitutional carry, since one's "permit" is said to be the United States Constitution. Vermont is the only state where this has always been the case (hence the alternative term Vermont carry. Vermont law does not distinguish between residents and non-residents of the state; both have the same right to carry permit-free while in Vermont.
The Vermont Constitution of 1777, dating well before the Bill of Rights to a time when Vermont was an independent republic, guarantees certain freedoms and rights to the citizens: "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State – and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power." The Vermont Supreme Court established the right to carry firearms without a permit in its 1903 State v. Rosenthal decision.
In January 2013, the City of Burlington, Vermont's most populous municipality, approved an ordinance banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines within its limits. An attempt at gun control at the local level, the ordinance would be likely to be challenged in court if enforced because Vermont has State preemption of local restrictions. The proposed ordinance was never fully enacted.

Response by CPL Ralph Moschler made Aug 10 at 2017 7:01 PM

2017-08-10T19:01:25-04:00

Judge need to do there job and we wouldn't be talking about this , you Rob a man and he shoots you it your fault ,

Response by SPC Travis Grizzard made Aug 16 at 2017 8:57 AM

2017-08-16T08:57:05-04:00

I voted 2, "Yes, restrict the people who can keep and bear arms." Restricted to who? Those who have not had their rights restrained after receiving due process. No prior restraint to be permitted.

Response by SSgt Boyd Herrst made Dec 31 at 2017 8:10 PM

2017-12-31T20:10:54-05:00

When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

Response by Maj Robert Thornton made Mar 12 at 2018 10:11 AM

2018-03-12T10:11:19-04:00

As I scrolled down the page my thumb hit the vote box for number one. It doesn't let you change it. My answer would be number 4.
The reason for the 2nd Ammendment is clear, to protect the other Ammendments and to protect the populace from the government.
The belief held by some that it is not an individual right is false. All of the Ammendments are individual rights.

Response by SMSgt Keith Klug made Mar 12 at 2018 10:15 AM

2018-03-12T10:15:18-04:00

Make this short and sweet. Not just "NO", but "HELL NO!"

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 17 at 2018 7:42 PM

2018-03-17T19:42:26-04:00

Leave me alone! I want my guns.

Response by CW5 John M. made Mar 25 at 2018 3:58 AM

2018-03-25T03:58:45-04:00

That criminals use guns to rob and kill is to be defended by good people who have guns. That includes all law-abiding citizens.

Response by SGM Bill Frazer made Mar 25 at 2018 11:49 AM

2018-03-25T11:49:32-04:00

Look, the country was fighting against a government's tyranny-It was written for the reason. Concord was the direct result of that government deciding to confiscate weapons and ammo from the citizens. At that time, every able bodied man from 16-60 was REQUIRED to be a member of the Town Militia- that was the only self defense they had, as it took days or even months for the colony/state to respond to dangers. All weapons other than artillery were Privately owned. Other nations that have started down the road with registration/confiscation have been disasters- historically almost every tyrant stated with this. Britain has to wait till specially armed police can respond to problems ( time consuming) , Australia- citizens have to wait long periods for police torespond. etc.

Response by Cpl Mark A. Morris made Mar 26 at 2018 1:25 AM

2018-03-26T01:25:08-04:00

I was willing to consider limits. Then, America was shown how information was sat on. By sitting on information, this lastest scum bag murdered children in a high school. I thought the 9-11 hijackers was a one off on the FBI letting info fall through the cracks. Now, I am very worried a lot of so called Americans in leadership positions think they know what is best for me and will allow a blood bath to get their agenda to move forward.
This march over the weekend. Those kids are pawns in a larger agenda and they have no clue about it. Who funded all those marches?
There was one FBI leader that got sacked a day before he was trying to retire. But, I bet a pay check, he was the tip of the iceberg and that was just to take the heat off the FBI.
I hope General Kelly and General Mattis are seeing and understanding what I am seeing. Even if I am off a bit, my continued readyness for anything from gangs, to Su'en worshipers and the swamp is a justification to me to be ready to defend myself, family and friends with overwhelming force, or move to cover and to ambush.
Just for the record. Everything I had was lost to a drunken fishing trip when the duck boat was tipped over. It's a dam shame. Now, I will have to re-up.

Response by 1SG Cj Grisham made Apr 6 at 2018 11:37 AM

2018-04-06T11:37:10-04:00

Crap. I touched the wrong thing, but it won't let me change my vote.

Response by 1SG Cj Grisham made Apr 6 at 2018 11:38 AM

2018-04-06T11:38:10-04:00

I'm a purest. EVERY gun control law is unconstitutional except laws that make it illegal to murder, injury or threaten others.

Response by 1LT Dan Darrell made Apr 6 at 2018 11:53 PM

2018-04-06T23:53:02-04:00

No, 2nd Amendment should not, does not, need to be changed in any manner. Have read the Constitution and The Bill of Rights, both several times. The reason for the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with "hunting", as Liberals always try to argue. The Founding Fathers knew back then the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the citizenry of this country must have the ability to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. No, Libtards, the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting, and ALL about the preservation of all the other Amendments.

Response by 1LT Dan Darrell made Apr 7 at 2018 12:11 AM

2018-04-07T00:11:41-04:00

P.S.: CPT Richard Porter . . . excellent Power Point!

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 11 at 2018 4:53 PM

2018-04-11T16:53:48-04:00

Hell no

Response by George Feist made Apr 17 at 2018 10:05 PM

2018-04-17T22:05:27-04:00

Change my vote to note. I thought I would have a yes or not choice when I touched the button

Response by PO3 David Niezabitowski made May 21 at 2018 7:36 PM

2018-05-21T19:36:59-04:00

I accidentally hit the wrong vote cause I thought it was going to show me options. No restrictions. Period.

Response by SPC Kenny Watson made Jun 11 at 2018 8:17 PM

2018-06-11T20:17:55-04:00

The 2nd Amendment should stay as is.

Response by Sgt Jeffrey Warner made Jul 28 at 2018 6:08 PM

2018-07-28T18:08:06-04:00

No guns, no protection!

Response by Sgt Jeffrey Warner made Jan 1 at 2019 10:59 PM

2019-01-01T22:59:26-05:00

The second amendment does not need to be amended or removed
It needs to be enforced!

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 6 at 2019 11:38 PM

2019-01-06T23:38:40-05:00

Although I have reservations about arming people with RPGs, Stingers, hand grenades and TOW missiles, I believe that every eligible citizen should have the right to own and carry every rifle, pistol and carbine that the military uses.

Response by SFC Bosun Frusher made Jan 11 at 2019 11:57 PM

2019-01-11T23:57:45-05:00

Only if you live on californa

Response by SSG Jess Peters made Feb 22 at 2019 1:37 PM

2019-02-22T13:37:27-05:00

If there is an amendment to the second, it should only be made stronger. Our government at both state and federal level have been infringing on the rights of citizens, under a constitutional right the founder thought so critical to our security it is the only one that says SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. No gun law Federal, state or local is in compliance with the intent of the second amendment. At the time it was written we the people were the militia, we remain so today. We the people had exactly the same weapons as any military, or we're at least accessible.
Today we have elected officials not only attacking our rights but pushing socialist ideals. In order to be able to repeal our constitution and install a One World order. We the people must first be disarmed. So NO to changing our Second Amendment.
A better question would be will the leadership and servicemembers of our armed forces turn on the American people in the case of a corrupt government passes laws that are unconstitutional and a rebellion ensues?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 13 at 2019 8:03 AM

2019-07-13T08:03:50-04:00

Response by SSG Robert "Rob" Wentworth made Dec 29 at 2019 12:30 PM

2019-12-29T12:30:11-05:00

Restrict the types of weapons to the mass population excluding the obvious: Governmental, State & Local authorities, with the exception of “need”.
I believe in 100% “right to bear arms”, but the the “type of arm” falls into question.
This is not a forum to pronounce that the Second Amendment is flawed.
I will leave my thought there.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 6 at 2022 10:04 PM

2022-07-06T22:04:32-04:00

Riddle me this.

If you take away the gun of a person wanting to kill people what are you left with?

Response by TSgt Chuck Mankin made Sep 17 at 2022 4:36 PM

2022-09-17T16:36:15-04:00

It needs to be simplified to say people can own and carry any weapon they choose anywhere they choose to.

Response by SGT Erick Holmes made Oct 11 at 2022 12:54 PM

2022-10-11T12:54:29-04:00

If you look at all the amendments then they all should be rewritten and revised. this is why we have State and Federal governments that will decide and how to interpret this. We all have our interpretation of what the amendment means. It's the same thing as trying to rewrite the Bible. A lot of people interpret the Bible in many different ways than what it was intended for.

Response by SMSgt Lawrence McCarter made Feb 2 at 2023 12:11 AM

2023-02-02T00:11:24-05:00

The 2nd Amendment is needed as much as it ever has been and the attempts of certain self serving groups to remove firearms from citizens Who have no history at all of violence or criminal activity while finding excuses or failing to act against actual criminals who used firearms in the commission of crimes has no legitimate purpose. This is exactly they way throughout world History that Socialist Fascist , Marxist Communist goons have taken over control by disarming the opposition while arming themselves.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 2 at 2023 7:24 PM

2023-02-02T19:24:06-05:00

As afraid as our Founders were of Federal Government there is no doubt: protection of self from invaders AND the government if they take too much Liberty.

Response by CSM Thomas McGarry made Feb 20 at 2023 2:47 PM

2023-02-20T14:47:55-05:00

How about we start by enforcing the gun laws we already have on the books! For instance that individual who shot the student from the Univ of Michigan recently had a prior gun related charge that was charged as a felony and would have resulted in at least 5 years in prison but the involved "woke" DA reduced the charges to what resulted in a misdemeanor with no jail time and thus he was not legally prohibited from purchasing and owning a firearm.

Response by SPC Raymond Allen made Feb 21 at 2023 12:42 AM

2023-02-21T00:42:39-05:00

No the 2nd Amendment doesn't need to be amended, it needs to be protected

Response by CW3 Davis Newman made Feb 23 at 2023 6:24 PM

2023-02-23T18:24:21-05:00

What needs to be amended is laws concerning violent crimes including use of firearms. If charged with violent crime, No Bail. If convicted, full time in Jail. People must learn that bad conduct has consequences.

Response by MSgt Denise Smith made Feb 27 at 2023 5:54 PM

2023-02-27T17:54:38-05:00

No, As written is as it should be applied. Restrictions only restrict the law-abiding not criminals.

Response by Cpl Ronald Jordan made Mar 6 at 2023 4:58 AM

2023-03-06T04:58:15-05:00

Look at the wording of the 2nd Amendment. There is no mention of AMMUNITION. That is then to infer this: Yes you have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. To use as a club. We control the working *business* of all weapons.

Fear your Government. Whatcha gunna do when they come for you?

FEAR YOUR GOVERNMENT

Response by LTC David Howard made Mar 12 at 2023 12:33 PM

2023-03-12T12:33:43-04:00

When I hear about demands for gun control I suggest to the person that they work on trying to get the 2nd Amendment repealed, since its obvious that their real long term goal is to outlaw the private ownership of firearms. I would prefer that they focus their efforts on the repeal goal rather than creating the endless nuisances of all the laws that restrict our gun rights, even if many of them are later thrown out as unconstitutional. There is not a chance in hell that the 2nd Amendment will be repealed but that effort seems a good way to occupy the time of those that hate the freedoms that we now have.

Response by LTC James Shannon Crow made Mar 23 at 2023 12:08 PM

2023-03-23T12:08:40-04:00

We had just won our independence because we had an armed citizenry. The only standing army in the Colonies were British. It was the civilians (the militia) who used, for the most part, their privately owned firearms that were suitable for combat (well-regulated) that defeated the British. So, We the People, being similarly armed and organized, are necessary for the security of a free State. Therefore, the government shall not infringe on the People's natural Right to keep and bear Arms. Eliminate the NFA and put firearm safety training and marksmanship training back in schools.

Response by PO3 Scott Sprayberry made Mar 23 at 2023 3:13 PM

2023-03-23T15:13:31-04:00

I clicked the wrong damned button. The 2nd amendment needs to be observed as intended. Roll back the NFA AND GCA

Response by Jimmy Ryan made Mar 23 at 2023 8:00 PM

2023-03-23T20:00:19-04:00

The phrase "shall not be infringed" was so important that it is used nowhere elsewhere in the Constitution of the United States.

Response by SFC Michael Smith made Mar 24 at 2023 3:23 PM

2023-03-24T15:23:47-04:00

I believe you’re over complicating things…#8 pretty much sums it up.

Response by SGT L. Ski made Mar 24 at 2023 6:08 PM

2023-03-24T18:08:57-04:00

This was written when you had muskets, not AR15's or full auto weapons. We now have laws (which don't work obviously) that protect the guilty (innocent until proven guilty) and the punishment is not worth the crime (steal 4 million from a veteran fund, get find 2 million (you still made 2 million profit)).
If you actually made arrested for , let's say trying to overthrow the government or lying about your taxes, or bribery or an Authoritarian type of leadership, lying or downplaying a problem that killed over a million+ people in your own country while in office, you wouldn't need to have these high powered weapons in the hands of idiots who don't know how to use them.
Other countries allow their prior military to keep their weapons and they have ZERO problems with their homicide by gun rates.
So as I see it, yes it needs to change but not until you have these idiots who want to start a civil war because they're dumber than a box of rocks disarmed and have their heads examined.
This all boils down to people thinking that they need to kill the "other side" because they don't agree with with them....but they want to live in a free country?????
You can have it your own way just as long as it's how I say... Ring a bell?

Response by Klieta Bagwell made Mar 25 at 2023 5:19 PM

2023-03-25T17:19:09-04:00

People need to be made responsible for their own actions. Always, no matter the circumstances. It is not the gun that kills, it is the person pulling the trigger. If from the time they are two, kids are made responsible for their actions, some of this would stop.

Response by SSgt Mary Burns made Mar 26 at 2023 2:34 PM

2023-03-26T14:34:54-04:00

There are those who wish to have their names on 'Do NOT sell' lists on a national list. A friend of mine's mother who was suicidal was not under observation one afternoon; she went to a dealer, bought a gun and ammo, went to the local park, and blew her brains out.
Not the first. There are many who find it too easy to procure a weapon to do something that lethal on the spur of the moment.
Since then, my friend has sought legislature called "Donna's Law" to help prevent suicide by gun. So far gun lobbyist do not want this to become law.
Just as casinos have lists of guests who voluntary do not want to be tempted to gamble and thus put their name on a list, those, for whatever reason do not want to be tempted in a low moment to have the ability to purchase a gun.

Response by PO2 Mike Vignapiano made Mar 26 at 2023 2:57 PM

2023-03-26T14:57:43-04:00

The incident in 2016 with Cliven Bundy vs Federal Agents is the perfect example of why the 2nd Amendment is needed & shouldn’t be amended. When it was written, civilians had the same weapons as the military (muskets). Nothing has changed! We all may not have the same weapons as our military, when Cliven Bundy & his neighbors took a stance against federal agents, their AR-15’s were enough to protect his land. Which when the case was brought to the Supreme Court, they ruled in favor or Mr Bundy. If not for the 2nd Amendment, his case would’ve never been heard & he would’ve lost his land!

Response by SPC Julio R. made Mar 26 at 2023 9:44 PM

2023-03-26T21:44:45-04:00

Ohhhhh boy here come the disgrace to the uniform reich wing klanservative veterans and their thank me for my service hate speech.

No one's taking ur guns away relax zero.

Response by Sgt Kenny Foster made Mar 27 at 2023 3:47 AM

2023-03-27T03:47:23-04:00

So, are you saying felons have the right to own and carry? Do they not have the right to self defense?

Response by CMDCM Gene Treants made Mar 27 at 2023 7:12 PM

2023-03-27T19:12:17-04:00

It is hard to believe that anyone would have picked #5, but there are always a few. The Second Amendment is really not hard to understand. I recently posted this in order to give some people a better understanding.

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.

First, the Second Amendment was NOT created to ensure that we would be able to hunt. As soon as someone asks me why I need an AR-15 to hunt squirrels, I know they do not understand the reasons it was enacted. The Second Amendment WAS created to preserve our freedom and prevent tyranny in America. Of course, this means that we must take action when needed so as not to allow those with privilege from taking away the rights of others, including ourselves!

The best Argument For the Second Amendment is that the proposed Constitution would have given the federal government extraordinary power, which led to one of its main objections. Anti-Federalists argued that this shift in responsibility for defense from state governments could lead them to oppression by their own government and its threats against civil liberties. Therefore, there had to be a way in which they could protect their rights. In the meanwhile, Federalists responded by saying fears were overblown because people are armed – they can’t possibly be intimidated through military force any more than Americans back then were able to stop, British troops, with muskets!

The Second Amendment was easily accepted because it recognizes an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. Both sides agreed that the people needed to have the means to suppress an overzealous Federal Government. Remember that the Anti-Federalists wanted federal government power limited, but no one argued against protections for this fundamental freedom (the right to bear arms) more than they did speech or religion; therefore there were few objections when passage happened in 1791. As a result, Speech and religion were addressed First, but the Second soon followed.

In order to look at the Second Amendment today, we need to know why this is a Hot Topic. Not much different from the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, people are divided over Gun Control. Although the Second Amendment has been heatedly debated since its inception and different sides are still arguing for or against restricting control measures on guns. Some of the measures debated are concealed carry laws, permits to purchase, Open Carry laws, use of weapons for hunting only, etc.

One side believes that the Founding Fathers wanted people able to defend themselves from external threats while another probably more convincing argument states “well if you’re going into an area full of crime then maybe don’t bring your gun because it could get you or somebody else killed.” Of course, to me, that is like saying or feeling that your neighbors have children who misbehave, so you
get a vasectomy.

Involuntarily mounting evidence has shown that the Supreme Court’s recent decision to strike down certain provisions in Chicago is not only about-face but also one with serious consequences. As a result of citing the Fourteenth Amendment, especially the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause, the city of Chicago lost the banning of handguns and other weapons.

(as a reminder, The Due Process Clause prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without a fair procedure. The Supreme Court has ruled this clause makes most of the Bill of Rights as applicable to the states as it is to the federal government, as well as to recognize substantive and procedural requirements that state laws must satisfy. The Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people, including all non-citizens, within its jurisdiction. )

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.
Our FOunders never envisioned people shooting schools or killing other citizens for fun. The debate continues!

Response by 1LT Larry Bass made Mar 27 at 2023 7:52 PM

2023-03-27T19:52:33-04:00

“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…” – George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

More background on the 2A here: https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/the-founding-fathers-explain-the-second-amendment-this-says-it-all

An example of infringement is the Cornyn-Murphy gun control legislation: https://www.gunowners.org/03102023/

The Founding Fathers Explain The Second Amendment

The Founding Fathers Explain The Second Amendment: This Says it ALL

Response by Sgt Clarence Couch made Mar 27 at 2023 8:49 PM

2023-03-27T20:49:19-04:00

YES , it does. Drop the incomplete phrase.

Response by 1SG Dario Zevallos made Mar 28 at 2023 1:36 PM

2023-03-28T13:36:37-04:00

4. NO

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 29 at 2023 3:40 AM

2023-03-29T03:40:10-04:00

It does not matter to criminals what the law says. Criminals will do as they wish and will continue to ignore/break the laws.
The only citizens affected will be those who obey the law thus giving armed criminals guns to attacked unarmed law abiding citizens who will have to to defend themselves unarmed.
Leave 2A alone!

Response by SGT Erick Holmes made Mar 30 at 2023 12:58 PM

2023-03-30T12:58:09-04:00

I agree with 3

Response by CW2 George Clogston made Apr 25 at 2023 11:42 AM

2023-04-25T11:42:05-04:00

Any Officer who so much as questions the U S Constitution should immediately resign his commission.

Response by PFC Eric Parrish made Apr 25 at 2023 1:35 PM

2023-04-25T13:35:04-04:00

The debate centers around small arms. The constitution said, Arms not small arms. So all current laws restricting weapons are unconstitutional.

Response by MSG Jeremy Jiron made Apr 25 at 2023 10:50 PM

2023-04-25T22:50:10-04:00

I question the oath of any soldier that disagrees with the constitution with an emphasis of the second amendment.

But the weak woke brain washed toxic leadership of today is against their oath, and the constitution.

Response by SN Nicola Poitras made Apr 27 at 2023 7:49 AM

2023-04-27T07:49:51-04:00

The Bill of Rights was written back in the 1700's, when weapons were black powder rifles and possibly muskets (please don't crucify me if I'm missing something I'm not a historian). With that being said, I'm not opposed to having the 2nd ammendmentment remaining as written with a couple of caveats.

1st: if you have any form of mental illness, you should have ABSOLUTELY NO access to firearms, for your own safety and for the safety if others. I have PTSD, and I have voluntarily given up all of my guns, and my husband has only hunting rifles, all with trigger locks, and we have no ammunition in the house. I'd he wants to go hunting, he buys the ammunition he needs for that day, and doesn't come home with any. Period.

2nd. NO CHILD under the age of 16 should have access to any firearm. They are not mature enough to comprehend the full extent of damage that weapon can do. I know that there will be people who say "my kid knows what that gun can do, cause I trained them". And, I suppose in certain instances, you might be correct; however, it has been proven over and over again that children do not have the cognitive ability to make a rational decision in the heat of the moment between a good choice and a bad one.

3rd. ALL ASSAULT style weapons should be deemed illegal and should, with any use, be cause for immediate death penalty, with NO appeal. These ARE NOT TOYS, they ARE NOT hunting weapons. They ARE PEOPLE KILLERS. The ONLY person's that should have these weapons are the military. They are trained and the weapons are (supposed to be) stored properly.

That is my two cents. If I have offended you, I will say Sorry, not Sorry. These are my opinions. And as they say about opinions and a#$holes - everyone has one, and they all stink.
Have a great day all.

"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."

Response by SPC Charlie Robinson made Apr 27 at 2023 8:07 PM

2023-04-27T20:07:06-04:00

Did not mean to do that. Couldn't undo it

Response by SPC Charlie Robinson made Apr 27 at 2023 8:11 PM

2023-04-27T20:11:51-04:00

My vote should have been #4. Eliminate all existing laws. They're all unconstitutional.

Response by CAPT Edward Schmitt made Apr 28 at 2023 8:33 AM

2023-04-28T08:33:36-04:00

1) I agree with ban on civilian auto weapons, explosive land mines, grenades, rocket launchers, crew served weapons, etc. All ok are semi auto rifles, & pistols, cross bows and other bow weapons, slings, etc. in other words what is currently understood

Response by MAJ Dean Thompson made Apr 28 at 2023 9:54 PM

2023-04-28T21:54:15-04:00

What needs to be amended is the citizenship of people that want to limit others freedoms according to our bill of rights!

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 29 at 2023 1:04 PM

2023-04-29T13:04:55-04:00

Response by MAJ David Hoyer made Apr 30 at 2023 4:11 PM

2023-04-30T16:11:35-04:00

Yes, it should be a requirement to be a member of a militia to keep and bear arms. The militias would then be responsible for limiting arms ownership to law-abiding competent citizens.

Response by PO1 Michael Fulgium made May 2 at 2023 8:43 AM

2023-05-02T08:43:57-04:00

Self-explanatory.

Response by SPC David Elzinga made May 4 at 2023 7:36 AM

2023-05-04T07:36:12-04:00

Looks more and more politicians don’t want to fix the problem,
Firearms can’t work by themselves, they are just a tool used by criminals to do bad things

Response by MSG Steve Collier made May 8 at 2023 11:30 AM

2023-05-08T11:30:30-04:00

Briefly, AMERICANS are armed to the teeth yet the gubermint treats us like serfs... imagine what it would be like with NO GUNS!

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 22 at 2023 3:21 PM

2023-05-22T15:21:55-04:00

As a former high-school SRO I would restrict under 21 from buying semi auto rifles and shotguns. I know this is not a popular opinion. But, when schools are under attack by former students I see it as logical. I am a huge believer in the 2nd Amendment but this is one place I would bend.

Response by SSgt Roland Cooper made Jun 3 at 2023 10:38 PM

2023-06-03T22:38:32-04:00

When you read all scary talk about “ self protection “… “defend yourself” these rights shall not violated! :-). You gotta wonder.. I just returned from Dairy Queen. Picked up a couple of hamburgers. Didn’t feel the need grab a Glock and make sure I had round in the chamber. Why? I don’t live in a War Zone. You guys get so wrapped around the axle with words written more than 200 years ago. Please try to evolve. The British aren’t coming. No need to fend off native Americans. For food - We have an outstanding grocery store infrastructure. Muskets are long gone. And yet, we kill/murder each other at a rate >40K every year. We (USA) have a problem. We are not weak. We should try do better. No other country ((civilized) has this epidemic. If you do not see this as a problem WE have a problem. There is no need to feel the need to take an AR-15 to Taco Bell. Have faith in DOD, state/county/city police departments. Home security system. Neighborhood watch programs. Barking dog. 12 gauge shotgun. No need for AR-15.

Response by CW4 Richard Norton made Jun 5 at 2023 12:39 AM

2023-06-05T00:39:08-04:00

The second amendment was written by our founding fathers that were rebelling against the legitimate government and they wanted to insure that we the people always had the means and right to do it if government were to ever become oppressive again

Response by LCpl Jeff Moore made Jun 6 at 2023 11:13 AM

2023-06-06T11:13:35-04:00

Only U.S. citizens and those without major mental health issues (bi polar, schizophrenia, etc) that prevents them from living a normal live. And all felons.

The ability of non citizens aka tourists to purchase a AR or even a glock with just a hunting license should be stopped. Remember that how the terrorists on the Florida base got his weapon.

Also there should be a background check on all transfers. I sell via a FFL to avoid legal issues with any old gun coming back to me. I had a friend that had to sell a AK that got found by customs being smuggled to Mexico. That was a major headache for him and 5k for a lawyer to clear things up.

Response by CPO David Ransom made Jun 18 at 2023 11:06 PM

2023-06-18T23:06:09-04:00

People seem to be ignoring USC Title 10, Section 246, which DOES include all males between the ages of 17 and 45 years old. You bring your own weapon for militia duty.

Response by SSG Bill McCoy made Jun 30 at 2023 8:10 PM

2023-06-30T20:10:58-04:00

Make one state's license to carry, valid in all 50 states. Best case, go to Constitutional Carry; but I'd settle for mandatory reciprocity.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Jul 10 at 2023 10:17 AM

2023-07-10T10:17:27-04:00

Belated thank you my fellow infantry officer Capt Richard I P. for posting a great question
As far as I am concerned the 2nd Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights were written with wisdom that is timeless and should not be causally amended because anti-rights folks want to infringe our rights.
I decided to vote for 4 even though I do not agree that I still need a reason

I voted up your comments and responses.
FYI MAJ Tex Hall SGT Jimmy Carpenter MSG Kirt Highberger SGT Rick Ash MSG Jeremy Jiron SPC John Bryant PV2 Stephen Bukucs COL Randall C. SPC Robert Coventry MSgt Ken "Airsoldier" Collins-Hardy Lt Col Charlie Brown LTC Private RallyPoint Member LTC Thomas Tennant LTC John Shaw PO2 Steven Erickson SSG Private RallyPoint Member

Response by PFC Leonard Baldassano made Jul 18 at 2023 3:15 PM

2023-07-18T15:15:10-04:00

If you stop American citizen from being able to purchase any type of firearm, they wish then the only ones who will have access to them all the criminals. Do you want to do something stop your kids from watching these killing video game. That’s where your violence is coming from but no one wants to admit it.

Response by Amn James Clark made Jul 21 at 2023 7:29 AM

2023-07-21T07:29:03-04:00

Yeah, everyone should be packing a suitcase nuclear weapon for self protection.

Response by SSG Frank Bova made Jul 23 at 2023 1:14 AM

2023-07-23T01:14:57-04:00

The people that are against the amendment need to be amended. The bad guys will always have firearms.

Response by SGT Keith Boettcher made Jul 23 at 2023 11:15 PM

2023-07-23T23:15:28-04:00

No, it is fine as it is written.
If anything could be modified to read those with certain type felony charges does not disqualify from ownership of a firearm

Response by PO2 David McNamara made Jul 23 at 2023 11:17 PM

2023-07-23T23:17:15-04:00

It is the only thing we have that guarantees we at least have a chance. I've never encountered a problem where I have lived, and I've never known a civilian who has died as a result of a gunshot where I've lived. The questions have to be asked, why in certain areas, and why should that determine in any way some sort of rules or changes for the rest of us?

Response by SPC Casey Ashfield made Jul 24 at 2023 1:10 AM

2023-07-24T01:10:00-04:00

The only change I would make to the 2A is to expand it. "Shall not be infringed. Regardless of barrel length, rate of fire, or scary colors."

Response by PV2 Kristie Byington made Jul 25 at 2023 12:31 AM

2023-07-25T00:31:27-04:00

The Constitution needs to be read again, not rewritten. They knew the challenges we would face & smartly framed this place. It's allowance of ENEMIES to stay living & propagate here, clawing their way into government positions & staying there. The Clintons are legacy loyalists to england & it's "majesties". democrat "feeders" are all related in some way to each other and their puppeteers. Their goal is what we are seeing. "Just this licensing board here, that unconstitutional institution there...for the SAFETY of the people...think of the children

Response by SrA Jason Adams made Aug 3 at 2023 8:43 PM

2023-08-03T20:43:20-04:00

I vote yes on #4 and I believe that every single so-called "gun control law" should be stricken down as Unconstitutional.
I have one opinion that is unpopular with a lot of people, but I've met a lot of people who feel as I do. If you commit a crime that is a non-violent felony and have completed your sentence, probation, parole, etc, you should be able to get back your Right to Bear Arms and vote. There is nothing in the 2nd amendment prohibiting this. This comes from my belief that our government, especially our federal government, was never meant to be this large and it is easy as hell to commit a felony without even knowing it.
The 2nd amendment doesn’t have any caviats to owning arms. No ifs, buts, unlesses, no take backs. If you're an American citizen, the government is prohibited from prohibiting you from owning a firearm, any firearm you like and as many as you want, armor, ammunition, or even fighter jets if you can afford one.

Response by CW3 Jim Mannion Jr. made Aug 7 at 2023 6:44 AM

2023-08-07T06:44:19-04:00

Remove restrictions on suppressors and full auto.
Plus I would like to own an RPG that would be cool

Response by SPC Amy Moysard made Aug 11 at 2023 6:54 PM

2023-08-11T18:54:34-04:00

The Bill of Rights, other amendments, and Constitution, were written to limit the government…not its citizens. If we are to rid ourselves of something, let it be the government, and it’s forever reaching hand.

Response by PFC Doyle Hayes made Sep 13 at 2023 10:15 AM

2023-09-13T10:15:56-04:00

Response by SPC John Bryant made Sep 18 at 2023 3:35 PM

2023-09-18T15:35:44-04:00

The founding fathers wrote the Constitution to protect the God give right of the people, and when Government gets to empowered over the people do to corruption then they lose sight of the basic need and who put them in office to protect them and their rights as it states We the People not we the government

Response by SGT Sam Frakes made Sep 22 at 2023 1:17 PM

2023-09-22T13:17:05-04:00

The last act of a free people is to give up their arms. Tyrants and dictators cannot long rule in a society where the people are well armed, but they can rule with impunity in a society that is not.

Response by PO1 Kevin Dougherty made Oct 1 at 2023 10:53 PM

2023-10-01T22:53:28-04:00

It's important to remember that the 2nd Amendment was written and ratified by people who remember the government, (England), attempting to confiscate their arms and ammunition. They were also comfortable with the idea of private individuals owning canons, etc.

Response by PO1 Kevin Dougherty made Oct 1 at 2023 11:22 PM

2023-10-01T23:22:21-04:00

Good compilation, going to add to my resource book for the Constitutional Citizenship course we teach. Not sure what you meant by "entity officers" in section 3 though? All military and I assume all sworn Federal officials all swear to:"support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same..."

Response by CPO Melvin Miller made Oct 9 at 2023 10:27 PM

2023-10-09T22:27:23-04:00

I think the biggest issue I have seen it is not nrcessarily the firearm itself but the ability to fire mutliple rounds as automatic and extended clips. Which none can be used in hunting, These weapons are designed to kill. Then we have the problem that ownership of such weapons is not controlled. Driveby shootings and mass murders are happening more frequently. It appears that more and more people have a fiream. Too many innocent people are being killed because the owner of the weapon dows not haveit properly secured and the other is these shootings are with extended clips. I use to own fireams for the purpose of hunting. I no longer do as my age as hindered my ability to be at the top of my game for operating such weapons

Response by SSG Watis Ekthuvapranee made Nov 29 at 2023 8:10 AM

2023-11-29T08:10:42-05:00

2
Only for those who has honorably completed at least two years in the Armed Forces. "A Well-regulated militia of the free state is necessary", not KKK, not Black Panther (not the movie here), not the Oath Keeper, but State's national guard or reserve unit. Furthermore, the way it was written leave the room for a local registration to address the detail as the local majority's consensus.

Response by SGT Tim Tobin made Dec 13 at 2023 8:50 AM

2023-12-13T08:50:28-05:00

I am in the health care field and I have seen lots of violence committed over the past 45 years. Including in the Army. Law abiding citizens do not randomly kill people.
The real problem is not enforcing the thousands of laws already in place and paying a lot more attention to people with mental illnesses. And in this venue we need to be very aware of our fellow soldiers who frequently come home with deep scars from war. Mental health is not something that should be labeled as abnormal. We all have the responsibility to look out for our fellow man and ourselves

Response by Sgt Ed Bowers made Dec 13 at 2023 10:48 AM

2023-12-13T10:48:56-05:00

I fail to understand the argument of the anti-gun folks. The 2nd Amendment guarantees we the people the right to bear arms, period. It does NOT restrict us in selecting just what those "arms" are. My last point is that calling the police while it will be necessary in almost all gun related incidents is NOT the best way to protect ones' self. The average response time in the U.S. is from about 8 minutes to 15 minutes. And that means the incident location is close to the police department. Any "invader" with a pistol or a rifle in that amount of time can rack up a huge score for dead and wounded people. And finally we never blame a car or a bus or a motorcycle for any death related incident, we place the blame on the operator. If we continue to miss the ball on this when will we begin to sentence the weapon or tool used to commit any crime to the crime to jail?

Response by SSG Nick Lanier made Dec 13 at 2023 1:29 PM

2023-12-13T13:29:22-05:00

The Second Amendment does not need to be amended. However, the D.C. v Heller (2008) case and its majority opinion need to be applied. As Justice Scalia wrote in his opinion upholding the 2nd Amendment as an individual right, "Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.". The idea that any portion of the Bill of Rights does not have a limitation is simply not factual. In our current time, the question of what is Free Speech is still being discussed. Perhaps the better approach is the idea of reasonableness as it relates to laws which may seek to curb access to guns by way of purchase. A case to watch this year is U.S. v. Rahimi, in which the question of those with domestic-violence restraining orders and possession of firearms.

Response by SSG Charles Lovejoy made Dec 14 at 2023 9:41 AM

2023-12-14T09:41:55-05:00

STOP TRYING TO REWRITE THE CONSTITUTION!

Response by SFC Benjamin Varlese made Dec 20 at 2023 3:27 PM

2023-12-20T15:27:38-05:00

A big problem with the modern generations is the don’t understand the depth and breadth of why the Constitution was written as it was. The “musket” argument is intellectually dishonest at best, and 99.9% of any gun control advocacy ignores the “inalienable right” to protect oneself from malfeasants, foreign invaders, and a despotic government.
It’s a sad day when people who swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution would even consider limiting the rights of American citizens. The Constitution was written to limit powers of the government, not the people. Whatever the government or foreign powers might use against the populace should be available to the citizenry without infringement. Period. Full stop. Without argument or legislative/regulatory approval.

Response by SPC David C. made Jan 6 at 2024 9:06 AM

2024-01-06T09:06:26-05:00

I'm struggling with this one. I'm as pro-2A as the next guy, but as an EMT I see the impact of firearms frequently. What is the practical nature of an untrained civilian owning a .50 cal just because they can afford it? Is the really a home defense or hunting necessity for a 5.56 100 round drum? On the flip side, any change to the Constitution would be made by politicians. Ignorant, agenda driven politicians who are bankrolled by much bigger fish with their own agendas. I don't have a good answer but I know doing nothing isn't working and Americans are dying en masse by the second, minute, hour, and day. I realize this is a people problem, but how do you deal with a crazy mother fucker who has access to serious firepower and hasn't been diagnosed as a crazy mother fucker or done anything illegal...until he does? Many of you have been through the VA joke of a process. Do we really want the govt basically kidnapping people, without cause, and deciding who needs what treatment or is able to own weapons? Like I said, I don't have a good answer for this one.

Response by SSG Norbert Johnson made Feb 20 at 2024 12:56 AM

2024-02-20T00:56:36-05:00

The Second Amendment was a RIGHT WITHHELD FROM THE GOVERNMENT TO CONTROLL and that is why it states "Uninfringed." The Government is not the Sovern over the USA. The sovereignty is held by the PEOPLE. The Government is the AGENCY Ordained by the PEOPLE to Administer their will in the defense of America and for Trade and Intercourse amongst the Nation States and the People. And what did we get so far? Democracy (rule by the mob) SEE Aristotle for his definition of the term.