Poll on revising the second amendment

[ShootingTheBull]

Didn't see this posted elsewhere, but ... saw this on taurusarmed, thought it should be mentioned here:

The "Constitution Center" is proposing to revise the second amendment to effectively eliminate private ownership of firearms. The exact wording of their proposal is:

PROPOSED AMENDMENT: “Because a well-regulated National Guard and Reserve, and well-regulated Federal, state, and local public safety departments, are necessary to the security of our free states and our free nation, the rights of citizens, while serving in their capacity in the aforesaid organizations, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

There are two places you can register your approval or disapproval of this proposal:
Amend the 2nd Amendment? Who should bear arms?
Vote Now: A constitutional right to bear arms

 

[biglucky]

They can try to "revise" it all they want, but that would require an amendment and all of the steps including ratification by 2/3 of the states to pass... There would be civil war long before the ratification failed if it ever made it out of Sodom on the Potomac...

 

[dustycorgill]

Interesting. Well.....interesting how stupid folks can be anyways.

 

[Southpaw]

The question:

"Do you approve or reject the Right To bear Arms amendment as proposed here?"

as it stands 90+% disagree.

Watch someone turn the meaning of the question around to show that 90% do believe in some form of change to the 2A is needed.

I also just notice they are proposing a NEW amendment and not proposing changing the 2nd.
​

 

[Texan2]

Voted. 97% against. LMAO. I think this one fail writen all over it.

 

[mosin]

I hope something like this takes hold in a few states. Personally I'm ready to disassociate from most of the fools in this country.

Fill in the blanks however you'd like.

 

[grumper]

Ben Franklin would take a gigantic turkey drumstick powered explosive shit all over Filthydelphia if he saw what his hometown had become.

 

[General Zod]

Interesting to see the Lib/Democrat "understanding" of the Second Amendment spelled out like that. Idiotic, too.

 

[General Zod]

It gets more nonsensical the more I read it. Going by this "amendment", this means firearms and other weapons would no longer be issued to the Guard/Reserve or law enforcement - if they're to "keep and bear arms" then this implies they'd need to supply their own.

 

[CrazedJava]

Sounds like a rewrite of how the 2nd Amendment was understood by Liberals for a long time. I should know, I used to be one and I always considered the "well regulated militia" to be the National Guard. Of course, that interpretation ignores the context of the rest of the amendment. Fortunately, the Supreme Court has since weighed in and made it clear what the 2nd Amendment is all about.

The problem with the revision is that it goes counter to the rest of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights does not spell out governmental powers and responsibilities, it spells out the rights of the citizens and the expectation that the government will uphold them.

As many of the predictions around concealed carry (blood running in the streets, etc.) have failed to come true and violent crime continues to drop, I am inclined to think that we need to leave the 2nd Amendment alone.

 

[General Zod]

The problem with the revision is that it goes counter to the rest of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights does not spell out governmental powers and responsibilities, it spells out the rights of the citizens and the expectation that the government will uphold them.

Exactly. Well put. NONE of the other rights the Constitution specifically protects are in any way described with restrictions. This one shouldn't be either.

 

[TX69]

No

 

[Younggun]

WTF is the "Constitution Center"?

Sounds like another lib organization that gives itself a patriotic sounding name in an attempt to vale it's anti freedom agenda.

 

[shortround]

In the founders' opinion, which made its way into the 2A, "A well regulated militia" meant that that every citizen capable of serving in the militia should be as well or better armed than any possible foe. Every able bodied male was expected to be a member of the militia.

This idea precedes the formation of the national guard or a standing army.

Sadly, less than two percent of our youths today qualify for armed service.

Having said that, it will take a bunch of fat, dope smoking, social rejects to save the republic from the tyranny of the ruling class.

 

[AcidFlashGordon]

In the founders' opinion, which made its way into the 2A, "A well regulated militia" meant that that every citizen capable of serving in the militia should be as well or better armed than any possible foe. Every able bodied male was expected to be a member of the militia.

This idea precedes the formation of the national guard or a standing army.

Sadly, less than two percent of our youths today qualify for armed service.

Having said that, it will take a bunch of fat, dope smoking, social rejects to save the republic from the tyranny of the ruling class.

Exactly. As noted in my signature:

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms."
Richard Henry Lee - 1788, Senator, First Congress

The National Guard was "created," basically, by the Militia Act of 1903...about 100 years AFTER the signing of the Constitution of the United States.

As for revising the Second Amendment, it looks like some libiturds in Washington have taken Senator Cruz' suggestion about adding the 28th Amendment to change/repeal the Second Amendment......to make what they're trying to do unconstitutionally constitutional.

 

[TX69]

WTF is the "Constitution Center"?

Sounds like another lib organization that gives itself a patriotic sounding name in an attempt to vale it's anti freedom agenda.

I too would like to know the history of this "Center".

 

[benenglish]

Actually, I like this. It's intellectually honest. It says right out that there are people who want to repeal the 2nd. This would be a much more straightforward fight than all the hidden gotchas in legislation and other dirty tricks that the antis use to erode our civil rights.

If the antis truly want to stand up for their beliefs, this is exactly what they should do - fight to replace the 2nd with something they like better.

They'll lose. I'll dedicate my life to that fight and I'm not the only one. But I would have more respect for them if they'd try to achieve their goals via clear action like this instead of the subterfuge and lies they generally employ.

 

[ROGER4314]

The move now is to selectively enforce laws that don't suit our rulers. The pot laws and gay marriage provisions are two that are being done that way right now. That is a dangerous precident for all citizens. Obama has termed the Second Amendment "obsolete and irrelevant". The First Amendment has been a thorn in Obama's side since day one of his Presidency. Are they next for selective enforcement?

The point is that they can'r choose which laws to obey or to enforce. If they don't like a law or if it's unconstitutional, the correct move is to CHANGE the law.

Flash

 

[mikeofcontex]

As many of the predictions around concealed carry (blood running in the streets, etc.) have failed to come true and violent crime continues to drop, I am inclined to think that we need to leave the 2nd Amendment alone.

Repeal the GCA of '68 would be a very good thing. In the process, destroy all 4473s and any digital record thereof.

 

[TX69]

Actually, I like this. It's intellectually honest. It says right out that there are people who want to repeal the 2nd. This would be a much more straightforward fight than all the hidden gotchas in legislation and other dirty tricks that the antis use to erode our civil rights.

If the antis truly want to stand up for their beliefs, this is exactly what they should do - fight to replace the 2nd with something they like better.

They'll lose. I'll dedicate my life to that fight and I'm not the only one. But I would have more respect for them if they'd try to achieve their goals via clear action like this instead of the subterfuge and lies they generally employ.

I vote a concrete NO. What it does show is that it can/will be changed which opens the door to tyranny.

NO.