The Mark

Would you support an amendment strengthening the 2nd amendment?

As in, an amendment which would eliminate any possiblity for arguement that the 2nd amendment only applies to militias....or related arguements which have been used to infringe on what in my opinion are our rights.

If so, what would you consider proper wording/meaning for such an amendment?

__________________
The Mark-----Way off, right on, or somewhere in between, it all depends on your point of view.

Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~
R. Buckminster Fuller

CaptainCourtesy

This seems to predispose that the 2nd Amendment was worded either ambiguously, allowing for a variety of interpretations, or worded with individual rights in mind, not state rights. I would think that attempting to strengthen/alter the 2nd Amendment would weaken gun-rights positions.

__________________
"Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

====||:-D

The Mark

Perhaps.

I have seen various arguements on this website that attempt to cite the 2nd amendment in some way which supports more stringent controls on gun ownership. Personally, I feel that these arguements hold no merit, but I worry that others may be misled by them.

These thoughts prompted the question that I posed.

CaptainCourtesy

Don't misunderstand me...I think it is a good question, very worthy of debate. In an original way it hits the core of the 2nd Amendment debate. I'm just trying to put a little paradoxical spin on it.

I have difficult with the question, and that is why I think it is a good one. Personally, I am pro-gun control. I see no purpose for the average citizen to have a gun, and I see the problems that could be caused by them to be greater than the benefits of safety. Now hold on a minute. From a Constitutional/legal/rights perspective, I think any kind of gun banning is illegal and against the 2nd Amendment. Though I, personally, want nothing to do with guns, my personal beliefs in this matter are contrary to the rights of others and to the spirit of the 2nd Amendment. Guns were never meant to be banned. I do agree with licensing and safety course requirements.

But you see, the reason why I like your question and why it is thought provoking is because I would vote 'no' because, I believe that doing so would give the radical anti-gun lobby ammunition to show that the 2nd is an individual right, leading to the possibility of radical gun bans, which I believe would be dangerous and unconstitutional. Just a different way of thinking, but made me think outside of the box.

Curious George

I think the 2nd Amendment is clear enough as it is. The problem is not that the text isn't strong enough. The problem is that the courts are famous for twisting the meaning of the text to their own political ideology or to the popular mood of the time.

I don't know how much stronger you can make it:

"The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Either abide the constitution or change it. That's my opinion. This habit we have of just ignoring it when it doesn't agree with us makes us look ridiculous.

The Mark

Perhaps something like this would be stronger:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms for self-defense and defense of the homeland shall never be infringed, limited, rescinded, interfered with, or prohibited by any decree of law, decision by court, or policy by the executive branch or any of its agencies."

I read it in a book somewhere...I think.

Of course, there is the argument that insane murderers and the like should not be allowed firearms. I have trouble with that one, because while I do think that it might be a good idea to prevent insane murderers from having guns, what would stop them?

If an insane murderer were outside of a high-security mental institution (which is where he/she would most likely be if the police captured them), they would most likely have somewhat easy access to weapons, since it would seem that they would not care about where they purchased a weapon.

I wonder what the firearm crime rate would be if there were no restrictions whatsoever on them.

Would we have gang wars in LA involving tanks? (Not exactly a firearm, but you get my point.)

Or would it have the effect that some believe, and lower the crime rate?

Of course, then you get into the argument about what constitutes "arms".

I need to get some sleep.

Odd that I seem to write more when tired..........

Curious George

I actually think the second amendment should be revised or replaced. "Arms" could technically mean anything, up to and including a nuclear bomb or a "laser." That was a little Dr. Evil humor there. What I mean is the 2nd Amendment, interpreted literally, would allow someone to put a giant "laser" on the moon that could destroy the planet. Since the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, there would be nothing stopping them. Whether or not that kind of individual freedom is a good thing will need to be left up to others to decide, but I think most of us can agree that the very idea of one's crazy neighbor Steve parking his tank in the common driveway probably makes most normal people feel a little uneasy.

The "well regulated militia" portion is pretty well outdated and it leads people to believe for some reason that, since a militia is apparently no longer necessary, that the right to keep and bear arms can be infringed. Failing that argument, as I believe gun grabbers always have, they usually move onto the "well regulated" bit. This is where they seem to get their way from what I understand. They somehow think that regulation of militia is in some way meant to mean regulation of arms, even though the right to keep and bear such arms, it is clearly said, "shall not be infringed."

It's all very confusing.

Anyway, a little revision and clarification would be nice. Preferably we get to hold onto guns for protection and killing things that are not human, if you're into that kind of thing, but we disallow nukes and "lasers" and such.

Or maybe I'm just talking out of my ***. I'm tired too.

Unfortunately I'm stuck in this office for another 3 hours and 20 minutes.

TurtleDude

I would settle for the Supremes ruling what the correct intent demands-that all federal gun control laws involving small arms are unconstitutional and that the 14th amendment applies that guarantee to the states.


Having people like Schumer and FEinsweine indicted for treason would be a nice biproduct of such a finding

__________________
SUPPORT OUR SOLDIERS

jamesrage

I voted other because I think the supreme court should rule that the right to bear arms is a individual right as our forefathers intended.

__________________

The Mark

While I agree that individuals owning nuclear weapons or giant moon-based lasers could present problems....

Yeah, that would just present problems.....although it might mean that someone fed up with the Middle East could nuke it......

Indeed.

We need to be able to use "arms" to kill humans in certain situations.

Other than that, I agree.