• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Write a New 2nd Amendment

Tigerace117 said:
Your claiming nobody has died due to accidental discharge?
Click to expand...

do you not read what I write. when less than 600 firearms are involved in accidental shooting deaths out of 350million+ that is a statistical zero. .00000171
 
jimbo said:
Then should that not extend to the other amendments? Like speech? religion? voting? Bad voting causes far more harm than bad shooting.
Click to expand...

IQ test for voting would lead to some really interesting changes especially if say 95 was the cutoff

or better yet, tax returns as a requirement to vote.
 
TurtleDude said:
IQ test for voting would lead to some really interesting changes especially if say 95 was the cutoff

or better yet, tax returns as a requirement to vote.
Click to expand...

How about:

A mandatory class. The exact duration being left up to the states.
A mandatory test.
A background check.
Payment of a fee.
A wait period.

Then you get a little card that allows you to vote. Which you must show if you are exercising your right.
 
jimbo said:
How about:

A mandatory class. The exact duration being left up to the states.
A mandatory test.
A background check.
Payment of a fee.
A wait period.

Then you get a little card that allows you to vote. Which you must show if you are exercising your right.
Click to expand...

same before you write a letter to a congressman or attend a church service or have an abortion or engage in sex
 
legalimmigrant said:
If a grade school kid wrote:

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.

...he would be scolded and ordered to take remedial classes in English. It is really that awful.
Click to expand...
I don't understand how that possibly could be misconstrued.
family-guy-bear-arms.jpg
 
Last edited:
Tigerace117 said:
Why? Because the Illuminati is planning to set up the one world government and even the crazy people will be needed to resist their deprivations?
Click to expand...

What in the hell are you talking about?
 
Tigerace117 said:
How many people have died because of accidental discharges? When kids get their hands on their parents firearms? Etc, etc, etc
Click to expand...

Are you speaking from a position of ignorance? Sure sounds like it.
 
blackjack50 said:
If you were to rewrite the 2nd amendment as to what you would have it state in regards to ownership of "arms" and self defense as a whole.
Click to expand...

the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
 
blackjack50 said:
If you were to rewrite the 2nd amendment as to what you would have it state in regards to ownership of "arms" and self defense as a whole.
Click to expand...

I am sure it can be reworded a little.
Every citizen not in prison or jail can purchase any firearm that law enforcement,military and other government agencies uses. States,cities and the federal and other governments are banned from imposing registration,limits on how many someone can buy, waiting periods,micro-stamping, permits, licenses, classes, taxes higher than what someone pays for groceries and other everyday items and anything else as requirement to purchase firearms. Citizens may carry openly or concealed and federal and other governments can not prohibit this.Anywhere that secret service and other security details for elected officials is allowed to carry their guns then so shall citizens be allowed to carry their guns as well. Any attempts by elected or appointed officials to circumvent this will be punished with 10 years in prison and a permanent ban on any elected or appoint office.
 
legalimmigrant said:
If a grade school kid wrote:

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.

...he would be scolded and ordered to take remedial classes in English. It is really that awful.
Click to expand...


I don't see anything wrong with it. As Justice Scalia discussed in Heller, it was not uncommon to include prefatory clauses in laws:

The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief). Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose. See generally Volokh, The Commonplace Second Amendment, 73 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 793, 814–821 (1998).


It was James Madison who drafted the proposed Bill of Rights, and the members of Congress who created the final draft were learned men. They used English far more precisely than most of the modern leftist dim bulbs today who resent the Second Amendment. I see what some of these specimens write here, and it's hard not to laugh.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
I would define infringe. we have seen people claim that this term allows anything other than a complete ban. That is a lie of course but it is common among the bannerrhoid movement
Click to expand...

That's pretty much what Justice Stevens claimed in his dissenting opinion in Heller:

"Until today, it has been understood that legislatures may regulate the civilian use and misuse of firearms so long as they do not interfere with the preservation of a well-regulated militia. The Court’s announcement of a new constitutional right to own and use firearms for private purposes upsets that settled understanding . . . ."


In that view, there is no limit at all to the restrictions government may place on the individual right to keep and bear arms, as long as a restriction doesn't interfere with the preservation of a government militia.
 
matchlight said:
That's pretty much what Justice Stevens claimed in his dissenting opinion in Heller:

"Until today, it has been understood that legislatures may regulate the civilian use and misuse of firearms so long as they do not interfere with the preservation of a well-regulated militia. The Court’s announcement of a new constitutional right to own and use firearms for private purposes upsets that settled understanding . . . ."


In that view, there is no limit at all to the restrictions government may place on the individual right to keep and bear arms, as long as a restriction doesn't interfere with the preservation of a government militia.
Click to expand...

Justices are not known for understanding the English language in plain and simple terms. They want to pretend the meaning is so obscure only they can see it or interpret.
 
Tigerace117 said:
The right of the citizen to own/possess a firearm shall not be infringed; however, prior to purchasing a firearm, the citizen must undergo no less then fifteen(15) hours of firearms safety and training and have successfully undergone a physiological test to prove that they aren't mentally ill.
Click to expand...

I agree fully!
 
legalimmigrant said:
If a grade school kid wrote:

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.

...he would be scolded and ordered to take remedial classes in English. It is really that awful.
Click to expand...

Hear is your chance, rewrite as you think is correct trying not to change the meaning or at the time stated intention. Are you better than a grade school kid?
 
My rewrite;

All Men have the right to defend themselves, their property, and those incapable of defending themselves with whatever means that is available.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Tigerace117 said:
The right of the citizen to own/possess a firearm shall not be infringed; however, prior to purchasing a firearm, the citizen must undergo no less then fifteen(15) hours of firearms safety and training and have successfully undergone a physiological test to prove that they aren't mentally ill.
Click to expand...

OK what will the training achieve, because it really is silly to ask for things that do nothing of use.

What psychological test do you refer to and what will it determine. This is important to know because maybe we should be doing this test at school age and removing those who do not pass to some desert island were they can do no harm.

I'm often astounded at the oppressive nature of those who fear something..
 
Crimefree said:
OK what will the training achieve, because it really is silly to ask for things that do nothing of use.

What psychological test do you refer to and what will it determine. This is important to know because maybe we should be doing this test at school age and removing those who do not pass to some desert island were they can do no harm.

I'm often astounded at the oppressive nature of those who fear something..
Click to expand...

I'm not a shrink, so if you want exact questions I'm afraid I can't help you. You'd have to ask a professional. But, once again, letting people who think the toaster is reporting on them to the CIA have firearms probably isn't the best idea.

Training teaches people how to properly handle a firearm safely without accidentally harming themselves or others.

People have to go through drivers ed before they get a car; this is the same idea.
 
Tigerace117 said:
I'm not a shrink, so if you want exact questions I'm afraid I can't help you. You'd have to ask a professional. But, once again, letting people who think the toaster is reporting on them to the CIA have firearms probably isn't the best idea.

Training teaches people how to properly handle a firearm safely without accidentally harming themselves or others.

People have to go through drivers ed before they get a car; this is the same idea.
Click to expand...

Driving a car is not an enumerated right. Imagine a world where you needed a license to speak in public, practice your religion in public, or to freely associate in public.

Imagine needing special schooling and proving your competence to vote.

A right delayed is a right denied.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Tigerace117 said:
I'm not a shrink, so if you want exact questions I'm afraid I can't help you. You'd have to ask a professional. But, once again, letting people who think the toaster is reporting on them to the CIA have firearms probably isn't the best idea.

Training teaches people how to properly handle a firearm safely without accidentally harming themselves or others.

People have to go through drivers ed before they get a car; this is the same idea.
Click to expand...

FFS really? Drivers Ed to get a car? Where, when?
 
Aberration said:
Driving a car is not an enumerated right. Imagine a world where you needed a license to speak in public, practice your religion in public, or to freely associate in public.

Imagine needing special schooling and proving your competence to vote.

A right delayed is a right denied.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Hell, maybe we'd have better choices then Hilary or Trump if the voters had to prove their competence. :mrgreen:
 
The People, both individually and/or collectively, have an inherent right to self-defense against criminal assault or tyrannical oppression. To effectively exercise this right, The People also have, collectively and/or individually, the right to obtain, possess, carry and lawfully use any and all arms and ammunition which are useful for self-defense, hunting, sport, infantry militia service, or other lawful purposes. The only weapons which may be restricted from The People are those which can be proven to have no sport, hunting, self-defense or militia service function, and are instead strategic weapons systems or weapons of mass destruction which are incapable of being used in a lawful manner safe to innocent bystanders. The only individuals whose right to bear arms may be removed are those currently in custody for criminal or psychiatric reasons, or those who have previously committed a violent felony. The only places where the right to bear arms may be restricted are government facilities and buildings, private property not open to the public, and facilities where gunfire could result in catastrophic destruction such as chemical warehouses. Otherwise, no act of any branch or division of government, or non-governmental organization, may impede or restrict the right to arms of any peaceable person who is a citizen or lawful resident of the United States of America.
 
Crimefree said:
Justices are not known for understanding the English language in plain and simple terms. They want to pretend the meaning is so obscure only they can see it or interpret.
Click to expand...

That's why I favor originalist justices like Scalia was, and Thomas is. Their guide for determining what a part of the Constitution means is what the available evidence shows most ordinary, reasonable people in this country would have taken it to mean at the time, and what courts in the years following took it to mean.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom