Posted on Feb 1, 2017
Should the 2d Amendment be amended to remove the confusing first phrase?
150K
3.25K
1.43K
275
275
0
What say you? Make it clear and unambiguous. One possible text:
"The right of the people to defend themselves, their property and their Nation being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
"The right of the people to defend themselves, their property and their Nation being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
2nd Amendment
Constitution
Freedom
Militia
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 492
234
234
0
I fear that any attempt to open a discussion on the language of the Second Amendment will also open the gates allowing the hyterical rabble led by the Progressive Left who would use it as an opportunity to attack the fundamental/natural/God-given right to self-defense
(234)
(0)
SGM Charles Twardzicki
God, at least in the bible, tells us to turn the other cheek not grab your 9mm and kill the person.
(0)
(0)
PFC Scott O'Connor
God/Jesus also said "If you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.” Luke 22:36. Then, there's Exodus 22; “If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; but if it happens after sunrise, the defender is guilty of bloodshed”
SGM Twardzicki, with due respect, if you truly believe in "turning the other cheek", as it were, why did you join the Army/Military? My point being, turning the other cheek and military service are likely to be diametrically opposed.
I would guess that, based on the shear number of firearms in private hands in the US, the vast majority of them ARE for self defense uses, primarily. Self defense is about wisdom of knowing when to use it. If a person is approaching and just wants to fist fight and the odds are fairly even, then make it a fist fight. If The Rock is coming at me and moving like a Kung Fu grandmaster, the odds are NOT even, and I would be in fear for my life.
My point being, self denfense, up to and including the same capability, is an inalienable right, and to give the government the ability to stop that is self defeating.
As to the original point, the language is fine. Our "national" reading comprehension is the problem. If we as a modern world spent more time cultivating the written and spoken word, as opposed to Twitter, etc et. al., we would be able o understand it as written, in th esame manner which it was written.
SGM Twardzicki, with due respect, if you truly believe in "turning the other cheek", as it were, why did you join the Army/Military? My point being, turning the other cheek and military service are likely to be diametrically opposed.
I would guess that, based on the shear number of firearms in private hands in the US, the vast majority of them ARE for self defense uses, primarily. Self defense is about wisdom of knowing when to use it. If a person is approaching and just wants to fist fight and the odds are fairly even, then make it a fist fight. If The Rock is coming at me and moving like a Kung Fu grandmaster, the odds are NOT even, and I would be in fear for my life.
My point being, self denfense, up to and including the same capability, is an inalienable right, and to give the government the ability to stop that is self defeating.
As to the original point, the language is fine. Our "national" reading comprehension is the problem. If we as a modern world spent more time cultivating the written and spoken word, as opposed to Twitter, etc et. al., we would be able o understand it as written, in th esame manner which it was written.
(1)
(0)
SFC Robert Hills
SGM Charles Twardzicki - Great response, best to just let the other sonofabitch kill you and/or your family. The bad guy will be punished later while you are dead.
(0)
(0)
182
182
0
I say leave it alone, the Founders worded it that way for a reason. 1st Amendment "or the right of the people peaceably to assemble...". 2nd Amendment "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". 4th Amendment "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects...". 5th Amendment "No person shall be held to answer...". 9th Amendment "... shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.". Those are just the ones that refer specifically to "the people" and not "the accused" or "the Owner" in 6A and 3A respectively. The Founders were a lot more careful with and respectful of language than we are now and worded the Bill of Rights the way they did to preserve the rights and primacy of the Individual over the State.
(182)
(0)
SGT Perry Spencer
Is it not our duty to defend our country against our enemy both foreign and domestic? Our enemy currently is domestic. We as a people have allowed the enemies to infiltrate our government and become leaders and in so doing we are in danger of losing all everyone of us has fought to defend. We have allowed the Fienstiens, Pelosies and everyone in this circle of theirs to slowly undermine and change our country. We have Muslims running for office who's only goal is to destroy our country and take it over. There will be a time when we will have no rights unless we take hold and take back these offices back. There was a time when a government official could not hold office if they were foreign born or held a different belief that was in our constitution. Look at us now. Muslims in office. Haters of our country are running it. Our constitution is constantly attacked and slowly being amended to suit their own agenda. I know I sound like a leftist or maybe an extremest but I assure you I am not. I have; just as many or all of you, lived in a country I love long enough to see what is slowly taken place. I tell you you all that unless we weed these bad apples out, we will become a nation that is no longer free. So you see it's not about the constitution as a whole but rather the one who are in control and that are pushing to change it to a point where we no longer have a choice.
(7)
(0)
PO2 Charles Fanning
SGT Perry Spencer - I do agree overall with your comment but I have to point out were I see the problem is actually percolating and flowing from. It has several initials like CNN HLN ABC NBC CBS, We saw during the 2016 election cycle how one candidate could do no wrong, and we kept hearing how bad the other candidate was. We saw were the one candidate literally had the rules of their own party changed to help them and the news applauded it. We saw were 2008 cycle were they did not do do-diligence and purposefully ignored and lashed out at anyone pointing out their omissions. Now we have them telling the american people that it is their job to tell people how to think. And I will not get into what is happening on our college campuses. We as vets that believe and take seriously the oath we took need to help Gently educate the younger American generation what the True meaning of the US Constitution is as written, not as "interpitated" It is not a "living document" But a hard copy of how we as americans have and will survive and thrive if followed.
(6)
(0)
SFC Charles McVey Sr.
Lt Col John Tringali - Read the final statement at the end of the Constitution as signed by the Secretary Recorder of the Convention.
(0)
(0)
LTC Gene Moser
SFC William Allen - The NRA wants to get rid of the nominative absolute. But that's why the 2nd was written.
(0)
(0)
123
123
0
The problem you face is that you will need a Constitutional Amendment to make that happen. LEAVE IT ALONE!
(123)
(0)
SFC Charles McVey Sr.
SSgt Jim Gilmore - I also spent several years in a Catholic Middle School and High School after attending Public School in grades 1-6, was raised Roman Catholic and at 17 while in Basic I was Baptized Southern Baptist at the Louisville Baptist Church which was and is a member of the Southern Baptist Convention.
(0)
(0)
SPC Don Wynn
SFC Charles McVey Sr. - OK, so, I have not and did not state that we are a simple Democracy. However, we are a FORM of Democracy since we do ELECT/CHOOSE our representatives. As representatives, they are directed by our Constitution, thus we are further a Constitutional Republic. If the Constitution had not called for ELECTED representation, but rather APPOINTED ones, but still directed by the Constitution, then we would be a sole Republic. Bottom line, we both elect our representation AND even vote, on a limited basis, for certain legislation. But then I will assume that you would consider that 'liberal garbage' and dismiss it as left wing propaganda. Have at it, but as long as we elect representation, that makes us a FORM of democracy! If you have a problem with the word, that is not my concern. I understand how our government works, or rather, how it SHOULD work, and while some of it, IMHO, could be improved, I have no desire to see it changed.
(0)
(0)
SGT Jay Costanzo Sr
At Sandy Hook they found multiple half empty magazines. He was changing mags as he went room to room, like levels of a video game.
(0)
(0)
SFC Charles McVey Sr.
SSgt Jim Gilmore - Excuse me for attempting to provide an educated discourse to your idea regarding the 2nd Amendment. Have a nice day.
(0)
(0)
63
63
0
Any revision would suggest that the 2nd Amendment is not clearly a statement of the right of the people as INDIVIDUALS to "keep and bear arms" as it is presently written.
That intended "clarification" may be viewed as weakening the present meaning of the Amendment. Certainly, Justice Stevens leaves himself open to such criticism of his views as to what he thinks the 2nd Amendment means by his "suggested change".
Justice Stevens thinks five words will "fix" the 2nd Amendment.
“When serving in the Militia” --- Justice Stevens grasps at a straw, wishing that adding these five words will “clarify” the intent of the Founders, while in fact he intends frustrating their intent with an illogical suggested “fix”, hoping desperately to salvage the “Militia only” or “collective right interpretation” of the 2nd Amendment.
Grammatically –---- the 2nd Amendment clearly states and guarantees a pre-existing individual “right of the people”, certainly not a “right of the [ORGANIZED] Militia” which was composed of a limited minority of “the people” (originally only free, White, able-bodied, male citizens 18-45 years old were conscripted into the Militia by the Militia Act of 1792).
Logically –---- why should the Bill of Rights, concerned with the protection of individual rights of citizens, make any senseless guarantee that “the Militia” has the right to be armed, or that the fraction of the total “people” in the organized Militia may rightfully be armed only “when serving”?
The idea of the “Militia” having its right to be armed recognized in the Bill of Rights is as ludicrous as a Constitutional amendment stating and guaranteeing that “the ARMY has the right to bear arms”. I have searched the Constitution for such an authorization, and found no mention that any army Congress is authorized to raise may be manned by armed troops.
That arms-bearing by any military force, be it militia or “regular troops”, is implicit ---- it needs no explicit statement. It is in the very nature of ANY kind of army ---- militia or regulars, be those troops volunteer, conscripted, or mercenary --- to be armed.
They are ALL “ARMED forces”.
They ALL carry guns.
That is what they do.
There is no need to include an amendment in the Bill of Rights to recognize "the Militia has the right to be armed".
That intended "clarification" may be viewed as weakening the present meaning of the Amendment. Certainly, Justice Stevens leaves himself open to such criticism of his views as to what he thinks the 2nd Amendment means by his "suggested change".
Justice Stevens thinks five words will "fix" the 2nd Amendment.
“When serving in the Militia” --- Justice Stevens grasps at a straw, wishing that adding these five words will “clarify” the intent of the Founders, while in fact he intends frustrating their intent with an illogical suggested “fix”, hoping desperately to salvage the “Militia only” or “collective right interpretation” of the 2nd Amendment.
Grammatically –---- the 2nd Amendment clearly states and guarantees a pre-existing individual “right of the people”, certainly not a “right of the [ORGANIZED] Militia” which was composed of a limited minority of “the people” (originally only free, White, able-bodied, male citizens 18-45 years old were conscripted into the Militia by the Militia Act of 1792).
Logically –---- why should the Bill of Rights, concerned with the protection of individual rights of citizens, make any senseless guarantee that “the Militia” has the right to be armed, or that the fraction of the total “people” in the organized Militia may rightfully be armed only “when serving”?
The idea of the “Militia” having its right to be armed recognized in the Bill of Rights is as ludicrous as a Constitutional amendment stating and guaranteeing that “the ARMY has the right to bear arms”. I have searched the Constitution for such an authorization, and found no mention that any army Congress is authorized to raise may be manned by armed troops.
That arms-bearing by any military force, be it militia or “regular troops”, is implicit ---- it needs no explicit statement. It is in the very nature of ANY kind of army ---- militia or regulars, be those troops volunteer, conscripted, or mercenary --- to be armed.
They are ALL “ARMED forces”.
They ALL carry guns.
That is what they do.
There is no need to include an amendment in the Bill of Rights to recognize "the Militia has the right to be armed".
(63)
(0)
SSG Eddye Royal
I say yes for the reason:
1. The Constitution when setup tried to be setup as a broad document that could be used throughout time and is a LIVING one and is NOT static and be modified or updated.
2. Most Americans have lost the idea that we as AMERICANS has always was able to BEAR ARMS.
3. Gun shows on a massive level has become big business, the FBI and 3 day wait period is not working We are labeling all people as Mentally ill, which I don’t believe is the case nor do most Americans.
4. Lastly Congress con not went out of its own way, truth be TOLD when President OBAMA was Elected people went out and purchased at least 12 to 50 guns and all types of rifles, and now these same people gun regulations.
1. The Constitution when setup tried to be setup as a broad document that could be used throughout time and is a LIVING one and is NOT static and be modified or updated.
2. Most Americans have lost the idea that we as AMERICANS has always was able to BEAR ARMS.
3. Gun shows on a massive level has become big business, the FBI and 3 day wait period is not working We are labeling all people as Mentally ill, which I don’t believe is the case nor do most Americans.
4. Lastly Congress con not went out of its own way, truth be TOLD when President OBAMA was Elected people went out and purchased at least 12 to 50 guns and all types of rifles, and now these same people gun regulations.
(0)
(0)
LTC Gene Moser
SFC Charles McVey Sr. - The group of words to which you refer is not a clause. It's a phrase - a nominative absolute. Just because you call an elephant a mouse because they are both gray and mammals doesn't make them the same.
(0)
(0)
SFC Charles McVey Sr.
LTC Gene Moser - With all due respect, I would suggest you read the DC v Heller Decision (2008) and the McDonald et al v The City of Chicago et al. I have not only read them sir, I have retained the in my own file system to insure that I can print them for reference if need be. I also have James Madison's Original Proposed Amendments as he submitted on June 8, 1789 and I would also suggest that you read them, They are available in their entirety online. I also have them as well as Professor Akhil Reed Ahmar's Book on the Bill of Rights as well as his coverage in same of the creation, and ratification by the Congress in 1868 of the 14th Amendment, I own and have extensively read and re-read it.
(1)
(0)
LTC Gene Moser
CW3 Harvey K. - My references were to the original Second and the approved Second. The approved Second has one independent clause and a nominative absolute phrase.
(0)
(0)
59
59
0
Problem is opening the 2nd Amendment for revision. Once you set out to do that, you risk having the amendment revised so it says only military and law enforcement can have "arms" or getting it deleted entirely. Leave it alone!
(59)
(0)
SSgt Boyd Herrst
Agree, like you say:, once opened(like Pandora's box) to many different interpretations.. certain people want the different parts changed so it will actually be more confusing , and/or give them more leeway in the future to suspend those parts of the constitution..
(4)
(0)
MSgt John McGowan
Sir, I agree with you. A rewrite would never get passed in Congress. There is too much division as it is in Congress.
(3)
(0)
SSG Eddye Royal
I say yes for the reason:
1. The Constitution when setup tried to be setup as a broad document that could be used throughout time and is a LIVING one and is NOT static and be modified or updated.
2. Most Americans have lost the idea that we as AMERICANS has always was able to BEAR ARMS.
3. Gun shows on a massive level has become big business, the FBI and 3 day wait period is not working We are labeling all people as Mentally ill, which I don’t believe is the case nor do most Americans.
4. Lastly Congress con not went out of its own way, truth be TOLD when President OBAMA was Elected people went out and purchased at least 12 to 50 guns and all types of rifles, and now these same people gun regulations.
1. The Constitution when setup tried to be setup as a broad document that could be used throughout time and is a LIVING one and is NOT static and be modified or updated.
2. Most Americans have lost the idea that we as AMERICANS has always was able to BEAR ARMS.
3. Gun shows on a massive level has become big business, the FBI and 3 day wait period is not working We are labeling all people as Mentally ill, which I don’t believe is the case nor do most Americans.
4. Lastly Congress con not went out of its own way, truth be TOLD when President OBAMA was Elected people went out and purchased at least 12 to 50 guns and all types of rifles, and now these same people gun regulations.
(0)
(0)
59
59
0
The first part of the Second Amendment really isn't confusing if you just read it, as written.
Where it becomes confusing is when ambulance chasers try to "interpret" what they "think" is written there.
Perhaps the most effective way of removing the confusion would be to remove the ambulance chasers and replace them with patriots !
Where it becomes confusing is when ambulance chasers try to "interpret" what they "think" is written there.
Perhaps the most effective way of removing the confusion would be to remove the ambulance chasers and replace them with patriots !
(59)
(0)
CW3 Harvey K.
Colonel, you will have to show me that "Lieutenant Colonel" form of direct address documented, not an anecdote. Otherwise, it will be "Lieutenant Colonel" if you are spoken about, and "Colonel" if you are spoken to.
REPOST:
BTW Colonel, the holders of both LTC and COL rank are properly addressed as “Colonel”, the same as both ranks of Lieutenant are addressed as “Lieutenant” and all General officers are “General”. I am surprised that you have forgotten that one would not say “Good morning, LIEUTENANT Colonel Moser”, but rather “Good morning, Colonel Moser”. If you really find that an undeserved appellation, in spite of established military custom, I will avoid any such form of address. In return, I ask that you please honor my request, and just call me “Harvey”.
BTW was that "gate guard" a civilian Federal Police Officer? I came across one who was completely puzzled by my ID because it was not a CAC.
"Mr. Keck, there is as much difference between a clause and a phrase as there is between a tank and a SP howitzer."
Never said there wasn't, Colonel.
REPOST:
So Colonel, you are still going on about “phrases” and “clauses”. I thought I made my use of “Militia clause” clear to you. If not, review my earlier statement.
It's too bad, that while you think “that the nominative absolute is what powers the Second”, you state that position while simultaneously demoting the “Militia clause” from “clause” to “phrase” in the linguistic hierarchy.
That's replacing a machine gun with a pistol, to continue your metaphor.
But that is all your doing. You are welcome to weaken that which you try to portray as “powerful”. As I said, I am not going to get bogged down in a matter of such clause/phrase classification which has little or no importance.
It appears you can make no reply to any question put to you, nor offer any defense of your statements. All you have done is continue to babble on about the "clause not phrase" and the mystical "power" of the nominative absolute, but offer nothing like an explanation of exactly what you think the 2nd Amendment means, and why you think so.
If you cannot do so, Colonel, our discussion is ended.
REPOST:
BTW Colonel, the holders of both LTC and COL rank are properly addressed as “Colonel”, the same as both ranks of Lieutenant are addressed as “Lieutenant” and all General officers are “General”. I am surprised that you have forgotten that one would not say “Good morning, LIEUTENANT Colonel Moser”, but rather “Good morning, Colonel Moser”. If you really find that an undeserved appellation, in spite of established military custom, I will avoid any such form of address. In return, I ask that you please honor my request, and just call me “Harvey”.
BTW was that "gate guard" a civilian Federal Police Officer? I came across one who was completely puzzled by my ID because it was not a CAC.
"Mr. Keck, there is as much difference between a clause and a phrase as there is between a tank and a SP howitzer."
Never said there wasn't, Colonel.
REPOST:
So Colonel, you are still going on about “phrases” and “clauses”. I thought I made my use of “Militia clause” clear to you. If not, review my earlier statement.
It's too bad, that while you think “that the nominative absolute is what powers the Second”, you state that position while simultaneously demoting the “Militia clause” from “clause” to “phrase” in the linguistic hierarchy.
That's replacing a machine gun with a pistol, to continue your metaphor.
But that is all your doing. You are welcome to weaken that which you try to portray as “powerful”. As I said, I am not going to get bogged down in a matter of such clause/phrase classification which has little or no importance.
It appears you can make no reply to any question put to you, nor offer any defense of your statements. All you have done is continue to babble on about the "clause not phrase" and the mystical "power" of the nominative absolute, but offer nothing like an explanation of exactly what you think the 2nd Amendment means, and why you think so.
If you cannot do so, Colonel, our discussion is ended.
(1)
(0)
PO1 Steven Bridge
Mr. Keck, thank you for cutting to the chase. Seems some people were born to expound without being encumbered with a responsibility to provide logic with their diatribes.
(2)
(0)
CW3 Harvey K.
PO1 Steven Bridge - Thank you for your endorsement of my view, which you apparently share. Simply put, everyone is entitled to his opinion and is free to express it. That does not exempt him from an explanation and defense of exactly HOW he came to form that opinion.
(1)
(0)
SSG Eddye Royal
I say yes for the reason:
1. The Constitution when setup tried to be setup as a broad document that could be used throughout time and is a LIVING one and is NOT static and be modified or updated.
2. Most Americans have lost the idea that we as AMERICANS has always was able to BEAR ARMS.
3. Gun shows on a massive level has become big business, the FBI and 3 day wait period is not working We are labeling all people as Mentally ill, which I don’t believe is the case nor do most Americans.
4. Lastly Congress con not went out of its own way, truth be TOLD when President OBAMA was Elected people went out and purchased at least 12 to 50 guns and all types of rifles, and now these same people gun regulations.
1. The Constitution when setup tried to be setup as a broad document that could be used throughout time and is a LIVING one and is NOT static and be modified or updated.
2. Most Americans have lost the idea that we as AMERICANS has always was able to BEAR ARMS.
3. Gun shows on a massive level has become big business, the FBI and 3 day wait period is not working We are labeling all people as Mentally ill, which I don’t believe is the case nor do most Americans.
4. Lastly Congress con not went out of its own way, truth be TOLD when President OBAMA was Elected people went out and purchased at least 12 to 50 guns and all types of rifles, and now these same people gun regulations.
(0)
(0)
38
38
0
That meme reminds me of a conversation I once had. It was the lead-up to the Bush/Gore election, and I was in a bike shop with the shop owner and another customer. The subject of the election came up, and I mentioned that this time, I'm a single-issue voter. "What's your issue?" "Guns." "Why?" Because I believe in the Constitution, and I believe that if a President (or any other official) is going to ignore and violate the Constitution, that's where they're going to start.
Then the other customer spoke up. It turns out he's a doctor from New York. He asked me if, with just a normal rifle, could a person shoot a man-sized target from one or two football fields away? I said yes. He asked me, "Doesn't that scare you?" I told him absolutely not. "Do you have any idea how many guns there are in this country? There are well over 100 million guns. If this was going to be a problem, IT WOULD ALREADY BE A PROBLEM! The people who buy these guns aren't the problem in this country." He disagreed, thinking that anyone owning a gun is a ticking time bomb, and someone with a rifle is just waiting for the opportunity to shoot someone from one or two football fields away.
The conversation went on for a while. In the end he left, still scared, and unhappy and a little pissed that I not only didn't accept the basis for his fear, I shot it down so forcefully.
Then the other customer spoke up. It turns out he's a doctor from New York. He asked me if, with just a normal rifle, could a person shoot a man-sized target from one or two football fields away? I said yes. He asked me, "Doesn't that scare you?" I told him absolutely not. "Do you have any idea how many guns there are in this country? There are well over 100 million guns. If this was going to be a problem, IT WOULD ALREADY BE A PROBLEM! The people who buy these guns aren't the problem in this country." He disagreed, thinking that anyone owning a gun is a ticking time bomb, and someone with a rifle is just waiting for the opportunity to shoot someone from one or two football fields away.
The conversation went on for a while. In the end he left, still scared, and unhappy and a little pissed that I not only didn't accept the basis for his fear, I shot it down so forcefully.
(38)
(0)
SSgt Christopher Brose
SSG Eddye Royal - The Constitution of the United States is not a "living" document, it is a legal document. You don't get to ignore or arbitrarily change the terms of your mortgage or cell phone contract or any other legal document you sign. If you want to change anything like that, there is a process you have to go through. The Constitution is no different. I think the rest of your arguments are spurious and incorrect, but it's at least a discussion we can have -- and if you really think the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States needs to be changed, you are welcome to get 2/3 of both houses of Congress and 3/4 of the states to agree with you, and then you can change it however you like.
(5)
(0)
GySgt Craig Averill
SSG Eddye Royal - Stop with your B.S. Already, try reading it
The Constitution is a LEGAL and BINDING CONTRACT among the Sovereign States and is NOT a Living Document by any stretch of the imagination, no more than your mortgage Contract is. Because all the Sovereign States have signed this CONTRACT it is known as a COMPACT.
Our RIGHTS are GOD GIVEN and non negotiable. Our Centralized Government was INSTITUTED to DEFEND and SECURE our RIGHTS, end of story.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. "
""On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823"
"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
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785
"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
"I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence ... I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
"To disarm the people...[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788
"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
"...the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone..."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
- William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783
“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778
"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803
"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance ofpower is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves."
- Thomas Paine, "Thoughts on Defensive War" in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789
"For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, December 21, 1787
"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
"[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789
The Constitution is a LEGAL and BINDING CONTRACT among the Sovereign States and is NOT a Living Document by any stretch of the imagination, no more than your mortgage Contract is. Because all the Sovereign States have signed this CONTRACT it is known as a COMPACT.
Our RIGHTS are GOD GIVEN and non negotiable. Our Centralized Government was INSTITUTED to DEFEND and SECURE our RIGHTS, end of story.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. "
""On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823"
"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
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785
"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
"I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence ... I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
"To disarm the people...[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788
"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
"...the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone..."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
- William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783
“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778
"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803
"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance ofpower is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves."
- Thomas Paine, "Thoughts on Defensive War" in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789
"For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, December 21, 1787
"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
"[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789
(4)
(0)
CPL Douglas Chrysler
The picture is of an AMA protest. So, I researched the subject for any medical person who wants to argue. It shuts them up.
(3)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
1LT (Anonymous) Where is the line in "mental illness?". I'll bet dollars to donuts that given enough time, I can find at least one qualifying "mental illness" listed in the current DSM for over 75% of Americans, whether it is narcissism, depression, traumatic stress, mania, paranoia, obsession, who knows. Last stat I saw - which is a while ago and I am too lazy to research - says over 20% of American adults have some level of depression. Making this a pre-requisite opens the door to stripping guns away from everyone but a VERY very few. And there are some psychiatrists who feel that even desiring to have a gun is a sign of mental instability.
"Why do you want to own a gun?" "To protect myself and my family, should the need arise.". "Do you think this is likely?" "No, but it doesn't hurt to be prepared." Obsessive - mentally ill - no gun.
"Yes, I think it is likely.". Paranoid - mentally ill - no gun.
I am chronically depressed. I have dealt with depression for over 25 years. I also own a gun. I have literally never fired it. I keep meaning to get out to the range, but paying the bills and going to school keeps getting in the way... I know, I know, excuses. But I digress. I have a verified diagnosed "mental illness.". I receive VA disability for this mental illness. However this in no way, shape, or form prevents me from being a responsible gun owner or increases my likelihood of using my gun inapproriately. But your standard is likely to strip me of my right to keep and bear arms, which "shall not be infringed."
Don't get me wrong, there are SOME mentally ill people who should not be around weapons of any sort, to include firearms. However making "mental illness" the standard and not "due process" through some sort of competency hearing IN THE COURT is the wrong way to go about it.
"Why do you want to own a gun?" "To protect myself and my family, should the need arise.". "Do you think this is likely?" "No, but it doesn't hurt to be prepared." Obsessive - mentally ill - no gun.
"Yes, I think it is likely.". Paranoid - mentally ill - no gun.
I am chronically depressed. I have dealt with depression for over 25 years. I also own a gun. I have literally never fired it. I keep meaning to get out to the range, but paying the bills and going to school keeps getting in the way... I know, I know, excuses. But I digress. I have a verified diagnosed "mental illness.". I receive VA disability for this mental illness. However this in no way, shape, or form prevents me from being a responsible gun owner or increases my likelihood of using my gun inapproriately. But your standard is likely to strip me of my right to keep and bear arms, which "shall not be infringed."
Don't get me wrong, there are SOME mentally ill people who should not be around weapons of any sort, to include firearms. However making "mental illness" the standard and not "due process" through some sort of competency hearing IN THE COURT is the wrong way to go about it.
(1)
(0)
35
35
0
First, I have always been against the use of "living document". This has been used by the left to channel their progressive agenda.
Second. The original Bill of Rights was written at the beginning of our nation. The term "Militia" referred to the common man, who in the beginning of the Revolutionary War, brought their weapons and joined together to fight tyranny. That is why it is the right of all citizens to own weapons/arms. To fight tyranny, and for self protection of himself and his home(family, neighborhood,state and country). End of discussion.
Second. The original Bill of Rights was written at the beginning of our nation. The term "Militia" referred to the common man, who in the beginning of the Revolutionary War, brought their weapons and joined together to fight tyranny. That is why it is the right of all citizens to own weapons/arms. To fight tyranny, and for self protection of himself and his home(family, neighborhood,state and country). End of discussion.
(35)
(0)
PO2 Keith Reese
SSG Eddye Royal - how many times are you going to post that same comment over and over and over?
(2)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
MSG John Wirts - “the Second Amendment does not give you the right to keep and bear arms, That is defined as a God given right.”.
Respectfully, negative. It’s an amendment, like any other amendment. It can be repealed or amended, like any other amendment. Thinking it can’t be is the first step to ensuring it eventually will be, which would be most unfortunate.
Respectfully, negative. It’s an amendment, like any other amendment. It can be repealed or amended, like any other amendment. Thinking it can’t be is the first step to ensuring it eventually will be, which would be most unfortunate.
(0)
(0)
MSG John Wirts
Well Well Anonymous the cowards way to avoid repercussions for your mistakes! Go crawl back under your rock!
"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.". Now lets look at this "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" The nay sayers say this means the National Guard or Reserves! BS! We did not have a standing Army Much less National Guard or Reserves, the militia would be every abled male between the ages of 18-80. Today that would include females also! This did not allow them to have weapons it required them to have firearms reloading tools(powder horns, powder, flints, lead, and lead molds"! For the protection of their community! One thought look closely at communities which TRY TO BAN FIREARMS! The more strictly they ban firearms the higher their crime rate goes! Because outlawing guns does not make criminals, give up their guns! It only takes guns away from law abiding citizens! I would say if you believe so strongly in gun control, I would recommend whoever outlaws guns or establishes gun free zones, should have to have their name on the law or the regulation establishing gun free zones or communities! If anyone is killed in a gun free community or business, the person who signed off on establishing the gun free community or business should be charged as an accessory to what ever crime is committed, injury, or murder, as though he/she conspired with the criminal in enabling the commission of the crime!
"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.". Now lets look at this "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" The nay sayers say this means the National Guard or Reserves! BS! We did not have a standing Army Much less National Guard or Reserves, the militia would be every abled male between the ages of 18-80. Today that would include females also! This did not allow them to have weapons it required them to have firearms reloading tools(powder horns, powder, flints, lead, and lead molds"! For the protection of their community! One thought look closely at communities which TRY TO BAN FIREARMS! The more strictly they ban firearms the higher their crime rate goes! Because outlawing guns does not make criminals, give up their guns! It only takes guns away from law abiding citizens! I would say if you believe so strongly in gun control, I would recommend whoever outlaws guns or establishes gun free zones, should have to have their name on the law or the regulation establishing gun free zones or communities! If anyone is killed in a gun free community or business, the person who signed off on establishing the gun free community or business should be charged as an accessory to what ever crime is committed, injury, or murder, as though he/she conspired with the criminal in enabling the commission of the crime!
(0)
(0)
28
28
0
If so I'd rather any prefatory statement be left out altogether and get straight to the point i.e. "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." This way there is no need to wring hands on what the Founding Fathers meant. To take it to a Trumpian level "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall NEVER EVER EVER EVER be infringed."
(28)
(0)
CPT Alfred Smiley
Except that is WAS infringed -- by the National Firearms Act of 1934. And then it was infringed again by the Gun Control Act of 1968. And then again by the Assault Weapon Import Ban of 1989. All three of these laws are still in effect and rigidly enforced.
(0)
(0)
PVT Mark Dorton
CPT Alfred Smiley - National Firearms Act of 1934. The first attempt at federal gun-control legislation, the National Firearms Act (NFA) only covered two specific types of guns: machine guns and short-barrel firearms, including sawed-off shotguns. It did not attempt to ban either weapon, but merely to impose a tax on any transfers of such weapons. This was just a tax.
(0)
(0)
CW3 Harvey K.
PVT Mark Dorton - It think it more accurate to describe the NFA as an "UNjust tax".
When the NFA of 1934 was put in place, the $200 fee to register a "controlled item" like a silencer was equivalent to about $3,800 in today's inflated currency.
Obviously, the purpose of that tax was not the only proper, moral purpose of taxation, to raise funds to pay for the expense of fulfilling the constitutional duties of the government, but rather to hinder, limit, obstruct, and generally harass anyone who dared to wish to own a “controlled item”, against the wishes of a powerful clique behind that law.
When the NFA of 1934 was put in place, the $200 fee to register a "controlled item" like a silencer was equivalent to about $3,800 in today's inflated currency.
Obviously, the purpose of that tax was not the only proper, moral purpose of taxation, to raise funds to pay for the expense of fulfilling the constitutional duties of the government, but rather to hinder, limit, obstruct, and generally harass anyone who dared to wish to own a “controlled item”, against the wishes of a powerful clique behind that law.
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
CPT Alfred Smiley - Just because these so-called laws were enacted, does not make them lawful. The Constitution specifically states that they cannot infringe. Therefore the politicians violated the constitution they swore an oath to support and defend.
(0)
(0)
21
21
0
this one Comment is Spot on and If you cant understand it you are the Problem...
and the reason we don't speak Japanese German or Russian is because of the 2nd Amendment...
and the reason we don't speak Japanese German or Russian is because of the 2nd Amendment...
(21)
(0)
Cpl Daniel Burton
There is a certain element that needs to be addressed, the second amendment was adopted December 15 1791 so to apply an amendment with this age is difficult is today's era, saying that i personally believe every law abiding American citizen has the right to own and use their firearms, however the way it's written means different things to different people so updating this amendment to current terminology in to modern terms would definitely clear the old English that is causing confusion in uneducated Americans would be beneficial. But the odds of this happening are little to none
(0)
(0)
PO1 Don Mac Intyre
It is pretty clear, concise and well stated. I do not think it needs any clarification, and if some is required I suggest the Federalist Papers. This Amendment like the others in the "bill of rights" clearly says what government CANNOT do.
(2)
(0)
PO2 Robert Cuminale
Paper #46 is the one that speaks on the right of the people to be armed as a protection against tyranny.
(2)
(0)
SSG Eddye Royal
I say yes for the reason:
1. The Constitution when setup tried to be setup as a broad document that could be used throughout time and is a LIVING one and is NOT static and be modified or updated.
2. Most Americans have lost the idea that we as AMERICANS has always was able to BEAR ARMS.
3. Gun shows on a massive level has become big business, the FBI and 3 day wait period is not working We are labeling all people as Mentally ill, which I don’t believe is the case nor do most Americans.
4. Lastly Congress con not went out of its own way, truth be TOLD when President OBAMA was Elected people went out and purchased at least 12 to 50 guns and all types of rifles, and now these same people gun regulations.
1. The Constitution when setup tried to be setup as a broad document that could be used throughout time and is a LIVING one and is NOT static and be modified or updated.
2. Most Americans have lost the idea that we as AMERICANS has always was able to BEAR ARMS.
3. Gun shows on a massive level has become big business, the FBI and 3 day wait period is not working We are labeling all people as Mentally ill, which I don’t believe is the case nor do most Americans.
4. Lastly Congress con not went out of its own way, truth be TOLD when President OBAMA was Elected people went out and purchased at least 12 to 50 guns and all types of rifles, and now these same people gun regulations.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google