Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 56

Thread: Revising the 2nd

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    47

    Revising the 2nd

    As a moderate, I would like to propose a change in the verbiage of the Second Amendment due to a change in times and advances in weapons technology. The NRA's hardline stance and their acceptance of public mayhem in our communities without care or conscience further necessitates such a change. They should be reminded that government has a responsbility to protect the citizenry from terrorists, outlaws, and other extremists. Enough is enough. Let me propose a first draft:

    "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, military weapons and accessories shall be prohibited and other arms used for sport, hunting, and self defense be limited by reasonable regulation and thorough background checks."

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,575
    Your suggestion for a revision speaks of a lack of basic understanding of the purpose of the bill of rights in the constitution. The bill of rights was to restrict the authority and power of government rather than further empower it. Your suggestion to violate this basic concept due to recent events ignores this purpose and essentially negates the reason for existence. Under your proposal what would prevent the rest of the bill of rights from being revised to state that the rights mentioned do not exist if government deems them disruptive to ensuring public peace and safety?
    If one cannot have an argument without resorting to hyperbole, name calling and emotional rhetoric, then they have lost the argument from their first post.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Phuket, Thailand
    Posts
    239
    Quote Originally Posted by Xenamnes View Post
    Your suggestion for a revision speaks of a lack of basic understanding of the purpose of the bill of rights in the constitution. The bill of rights was to restrict the authority and power of government rather than further empower it. Your suggestion to violate this basic concept due to recent events ignores this purpose and essentially negates the reason for existence. Under your proposal what would prevent the rest of the bill of rights from being revised to state that the rights mentioned do not exist if government deems them disruptive to ensuring public peace and safety?
    Ignore Xenamnes Peter, he seems to forget all the additional amendments that were made after the Constitution was signed and that the world has changed in the last 240 or so years. In another's words Xenamnes "When the 2nd amendment was signed, the most offensive firearm was a musket.... You can have have all the muskets you want, go crazy"
    "Truly I was born to be an example of misfortune, and a target at which the arrows of adversary are aimed"

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Hdreams View Post
    Ignore Xenamnes Peter, he seems to forget all the additional amendments that were made after the Constitution was signed and that the world has changed in the last 240 or so years.
    The first ten amendments to the constitution is what's referred to as the bill of rights. The additional seventeen amendments are separate and not counted as such as they are to fulfill different purposes and empower government rather than restrict it. It is not a matter of forgetfulness but rather a matter of proper differentiation.

    In another's words Xenamnes "When the 2nd amendment was signed, the most offensive firearm was a musket.... You can have have all the muskets you want, go crazy"
    Such logic has been rejected by the supreme court of the united states on the basis of absurdity. Not just with firearms but all aspects of modern life such as electronic communication and digital media. The courts refuse to lend credibility to the notion that protections in the constitution apply only to the technology and standards that were available at the ratification of the constitution.
    If one cannot have an argument without resorting to hyperbole, name calling and emotional rhetoric, then they have lost the argument from their first post.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Phuket, Thailand
    Posts
    239
    Quote Originally Posted by Xenamnes View Post
    The first ten amendments to the constitution is what's referred to as the bill of rights. The additional seventeen amendments are separate and not counted as such as they are to fulfill different purposes and empower government rather than restrict it. It is not a matter of forgetfulness but rather a matter of proper differentiation.



    Such logic has been rejected by the supreme court of the united states on the basis of absurdity. Not just with firearms but all aspects of modern life such as electronic communication and digital media. The courts refuse to lend credibility to the notion that protections in the constitution apply only to the technology and standards that were available at the ratification of the constitution.
    The level of harm that can be caused by a private citizen with modern assault weapons as opposed to a 18th century musket is vastly different, i already know your views towards the Bill of rights Xanamnes. I believe that the bill only exists to protect the citizens of the nation and must evolve as threats appear and change as out-dated views pass. You believe the bill is the model of a society and was founded in infinite wisdom and must remain unchanged from now until the destruction of the U.S...

    All societies evolve and if this is held up by the out-dated views of 18th century politicians, however wise and right their positions and actions at the time it can lead to only a few results... Inequality, social unbalance and grievance, disharmony of the government and the people and the fragmentation of society.
    "Truly I was born to be an example of misfortune, and a target at which the arrows of adversary are aimed"

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Valencia. Spain.
    Posts
    2,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Hdreams View Post
    I You can have have all the muskets you want, go crazy"
    Where does this document even mention 'firearms'? Doesn't it just give the right to bear arms? So all firearms could be removed and you could retain the right to be armed.... with pointed sticks.
    How to make yourself look a fool in one sentence....

    (P.S. worshiping only has 1 p not 2.)
    --johnson--.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Hdreams View Post
    The level of harm that can be caused by a private citizen with modern assault weapons as opposed to a 18th century musket is vastly different,
    And this point is of absolutely no relevance to the overall discussion regarding the importance of the constitution. The constitution cannot be revised simply because of isolated incidents by the people due to outside influences. For instance the fourth amendment was not revised in response to the Oklahoma City Bombing by Timothy McVeigh in order to do away with the need of a search warrant.

    i already know your views towards the Bill of rights Xanamnes. I believe that the bill only exists to protect the citizens of the nation and must evolve as threats appear and change as out-dated views pass. You believe the bill is the model of a society and was founded in infinite wisdom and must remain unchanged from now until the destruction of the U.S...
    The bill of rights is not for the purpose of protecting the citizens from their fellow citizens but rather actions carried out by the government. It cannot be modified in the way you are proposing.

    All societies evolve and if this is held up by the out-dated views of 18th century politicians, however wise and right their positions and actions at the time it can lead to only a few results... Inequality, social unbalance and grievance, disharmony of the government and the people and the fragmentation of society.
    And what is stop these results from occurring the moment a few politically motivated elected officials decide that they know what is for the best and are willing to modify the founding documents of the nation to codify their beliefs into law? What would stop a later elected official from deciding their predecessor was wrong and changing it back to the way it was in retaliation? What steps would there be to prevent a constant back and forth bickering of immature nature over who is right and how the constitution should be respected and recognized? What would prevent an administration from deciding to do away with the constitutional concept of election and simply implement monarchies and hold power for the duration of their lifetimes?
    If one cannot have an argument without resorting to hyperbole, name calling and emotional rhetoric, then they have lost the argument from their first post.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Dani View Post
    Where does this document even mention 'firearms'? Doesn't it just give the right to bear arms? So all firearms could be removed and you could retain the right to be armed.... with pointed sticks.
    It is interesting to note that you have claimed to live in the nation of Australia. Despite the nation Australia possessing no keep and bear arms provision in their constitution the government still allows for the ownership of firearms and has not seen fit to enact or enforce a "pointed sticks only" policy for the people that live there.

    Would you care to explain why this is so? Why have no nations made attempt to enact and enforce a "pointed sticks only" policy despite supposedly being civilized in nature compared to the united states? Why do all countries continue to allow for some form of legal gun ownership by the people when they know full well these firearms can be used by individuals of ill will for the purpose of murdering families and children?
    If one cannot have an argument without resorting to hyperbole, name calling and emotional rhetoric, then they have lost the argument from their first post.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,660
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterV View Post
    As a moderate, I would like to propose a change in the verbiage of the Second Amendment due to a change in times and advances in weapons technology. The NRA's hardline stance and their acceptance of public mayhem in our communities without care or conscience further necessitates such a change. They should be reminded that government has a responsbility to protect the citizenry from terrorists, outlaws, and other extremists. Enough is enough. Let me propose a first draft:

    "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, military weapons and accessories shall be prohibited and other arms used for sport, hunting, and self defense be limited by reasonable regulation and thorough background checks."

    I'll counter:

    "A well armed people being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of a responsible person to bear any and all arms shall not be infringed."

    Unless you understand the purpose behind the creation of the second amendment you will not know how best to change it.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Phuket, Thailand
    Posts
    239
    Xanamnes
    And what is stop these results from occurring the moment a few politically motivated elected officials decide that they know what is for the best and are willing to modify the founding documents of the nation to codify their beliefs into law? What would stop a later elected official from deciding their predecessor was wrong and changing it back to the way it was in retaliation? What steps would there be to prevent a constant back and forth bickering of immature nature over who is right and how the constitution should be respected and recognized? What would prevent an administration from deciding to do away with the constitutional concept of election and simply implement monarchies and hold power for the duration of their lifetimes?
    You realise that this is what already happens right?

    One President or congress institutes tax cuts/raises, regulation/de-regulation, war/peace, etc...
    You already live in an America where administration change the policies but in respect of the 2nd amendment an 18th century protection against Monarchy and dictatorship has no place in the modern world. Under threat from Indians, highwaymen, nature and the threat of invasion for Britain i can see how a well armed militia was necessary. The population was also much smaller and their was no standing army as such until after the war of independence.

    Now flash forward to 2013...

    America has the largest, most well funded and technologically advanced destructive force on the planet that has ever existed in its armed forces. The vast majority of Americans, 94% agree that gun reform is overdue... To advocate the requirement of an armed civil force on the basis of fear of something that their is no evidence for is akin to locking yourself in the basement and prepping for the Rapture. Ironically these demographic groups are the same.

    6% of the U.S population is stuck in the past for the simple reason they love their guns... their is no legitimate reason existing in a modern society for having an Ar-15 or M4 in the hands of private citizens. The majority of deaths by guns are either caused by the owners of the firearms or or an accident involving someone they know. We have been through this in the other thread Xenamnes, you showed their why you have no evidence or even basis for your views... Simply moving to another thread does not mean your evidence had changed, merely that you wish to forget.
    "Truly I was born to be an example of misfortune, and a target at which the arrows of adversary are aimed"

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,539
    The Bill of Rights can be amended just like any other part of the Constitution. The US seems be headed in that direction anyway with all the Second Amendment rulings in recent years which favor a right that is narrow in scope and a power of government to regulate guns that is very broad in scope.
    "Indeed, not a word in the constitutional text even arguably supports the Courtís overwrought and novel description of the Second Amendment as 'elevat[ing] above all other interests' 'the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.' Ante,at 63."
    -Justice Stevens on the Heller ruling

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Hdreams View Post
    You realise that this is what already happens right?
    That is why I am asking. Under the proposal suggested by the member PeterV and that you seemingly support what is there to prevent the same "tit for tat" approach from being applied to the constitution? Changing enacted policies and laws from one administration to another is one application we are already one issue we are seeing. What is to prevent this petty bickering from being used by a particular political affiliation to elevate their concepts to a standard higher than law?

    Under the standard of revising the bill of rights to empower the government to protect the people from their own bad behavior in the way a parent does a child what would prevent someone with politically idealistic similarities to New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg from calling for a revision to implement a constitutional ban on food additives some scientists claim directly contribute to obesity?

    Were you not one who objected to the notion of nanny state types of government?

    One President or congress institutes tax cuts/raises, regulation/de-regulation, war/peace, etc...
    You already live in an America where administration change the policies but in respect of the 2nd amendment an 18th century protection against Monarchy and dictatorship has no place in the modern world. Under threat from Indians, highwaymen, nature and the threat of invasion for Britain i can see how a well armed militia was necessary. The population was also much smaller and their was no standing army as such until after the war of independence.
    Just as the member Dani you assume that I live in the united states. No statement to support this assumption has been made on my part as it is of no relevance. Specific manners of speech and spelling are all easy to replicate and implement in order to maintain ambiguity and uncertainty.


    Now flash forward to 2013...

    America has the largest, most well funded and technologically advanced destructive force on the planet that has ever existed in its armed forces. The vast majority of Americans, 94% agree that gun reform is overdue... To advocate the requirement of an armed civil force on the basis of fear of something that their is no evidence for is akin to locking yourself in the basement and prepping for the Rapture. Ironically these demographic groups are the same.
    And how do you believe a standing military force changed anything on the domestic level?

    The current military force does not have the ability or authority to safeguard the populace against isolated criminal behavior. What would you propose? Do you support the implementation of martial law on united states soil for the purpose of regulating the day to day activity of united states citizens? Do you support military checkpoints where drivers and pedestrians are randomly stopped and their compliance is forced under threat of execution via a volley from automatic rifle fire?

    Furthermore it has not been proven that ninety four percent of the some three hundred million united states citizens support the enactment of new firearm restriction laws. Do you have conclusive scientific proof to support these figures and prove them accurate?

    6% of the U.S population is stuck in the past for the simple reason they love their guns... their is no legitimate reason existing in a modern society for having an Ar-15 or M4 in the hands of private citizens.
    Explain why. If you believe then this elaborate on your reasoning. Lay out in concrete terms why absolutely no private individual who is not affiliated with the military or police has a legitimate or justified need for firearms of modern design, and then elaborate on why retired police officers are permitted an exception to this standard.

    The majority of deaths by guns are either caused by the owners of the firearms or or an accident involving someone they know.
    Please provide proof of this statement being accurate.

    We have been through this in the other thread Xenamnes, you showed their why you have no evidence or even basis for your views... Simply moving to another thread does not mean your evidence had changed, merely that you wish to forget.
    I have spent the time reviewing the various statistics suggested regarding other nations and their annual homicide rates. At present time the only conclusion I can reach is that the data is inconclusive. Further study is warranted.
    If one cannot have an argument without resorting to hyperbole, name calling and emotional rhetoric, then they have lost the argument from their first post.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
    The Bill of Rights can be amended just like any other part of the Constitution.
    It can and at the same time it cannot.

    The process does exist. But no congressional representative seems willing to support the political backlash that would come from attaching their name to a proposal to codify the standard of removing fundamental rights held by the people. Should any congressmen go before the media and voice their support for eliminating the requirement for a warrant or the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment they would likely never be a politician again.

    If ninety to ninety four percent of the populace truly supported greater firearm prohibition and control laws in the wake of the Sandy Hook incident at least one politician would have supported the proposal of repealing the second amendment.

    The US seems be headed in that direction anyway with all the Second Amendment rulings in recent years which favor a right that is narrow in scope and a power of government to regulate guns that is very broad in scope.
    Lower court rulings amount to very little. The last two supreme court rulings dealing with the second amendment outright forbade and rejected the request to restrict the second amendment in a manner that favors judicial interest balancing.

    In short the ambiguous concept of "public safety" is not recognized by the supreme court as a legitimate excuse to prohibit or greatly restrict firearms ownership. This was made clear when they determined the handgun ownership prohibition for the city of Chicago was unconstitutional despite their continued high crime rate.

    These are facts that must be recognized and addressed. They cannot be ignored simply because they contradict political idealism.
    If one cannot have an argument without resorting to hyperbole, name calling and emotional rhetoric, then they have lost the argument from their first post.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Valencia. Spain.
    Posts
    2,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Xenamnes View Post
    It is interesting to note that you have claimed to live in the nation of Australia. Despite the nation Australia possessing no keep and bear arms provision in their constitution the government still allows for the ownership of firearms and has not seen fit to enact or enforce a "pointed sticks only" policy for the people that live there.

    Would you care to explain why this is so? Why have no nations made attempt to enact and enforce a "pointed sticks only" policy despite supposedly being civilized in nature compared to the united states? Why do all countries continue to allow for some form of legal gun ownership by the people when they know full well these firearms can be used by individuals of ill will for the purpose of murdering families and children?
    FFS!!!! Have you had a 'personality/humour by-pass' in the past??
    How to make yourself look a fool in one sentence....

    (P.S. worshiping only has 1 p not 2.)
    --johnson--.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Phuket, Thailand
    Posts
    239
    Quote Originally Posted by Xenamnes View Post
    It can and at the same time it cannot.

    The process does exist. But no congressional representative seems willing to support the political backlash that would come from attaching their name to a proposal to codify the standard of removing fundamental rights held by the people. Should any congressmen go before the media and voice their support for eliminating the requirement for a warrant or the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment they would likely never be a politician again.

    If ninety to ninety four percent of the populace truly supported greater firearm prohibition and control laws in the wake of the Sandy Hook incident at least one politician would have supported the proposal of repealing the second amendment.



    Lower court rulings amount to very little. The last two supreme court rulings dealing with the second amendment outright forbade and rejected the request to restrict the second amendment in a manner that favors judicial interest balancing.

    In short the ambiguous concept of "public safety" is not recognized by the supreme court as a legitimate excuse to prohibit or greatly restrict firearms ownership. This was made clear when they determined the handgun ownership prohibition for the city of Chicago was unconstitutional despite their continued high crime rate.

    These are facts that must be recognized and addressed. They cannot be ignored simply because they contradict political idealism.
    Firstly, alot of political figures support gun reform, before and after the recent spate of gun deaths. The NRA and gun lobby is one of the most powerful groups their is and they are tightly interwoven with the tea party and conservative Republicans. If you have as you claim some knowledge of the way in which the 3 centers of legislature work in the U.S then you must understand how easy it is to prevent any new legislation passing the Senate or the House of Representatives from even a vast majority. The Senate and House are pretty much obstacles to change and for all the moaning about any administration enacting laws and getting anything done in even a 2 term presidency it is vastly simple to block, delay, filibuster or even hijack bills and laws. This is exactly what happens at every turn.

    For all the supposed fear of the government it could never hope to take over, this is the absurdity of the claim of the NRA and gun rights activists.


    And how do you believe a standing military force changed anything on the domestic level?
    The police force is already armed, the military protects from foreign threats... what else is their that a personal citizen would possibly need an AR-15 for? Hostile Badgers?

    I will link all the relevant sources for you Xenamnes but i already know that the only answer i will get from you is this....
    I have spent the time reviewing the various statistics suggested regarding other nations and their annual homicide rates. At present time the only conclusion I can reach is that the data is inconclusive. Further study is warranted.
    "Truly I was born to be an example of misfortune, and a target at which the arrows of adversary are aimed"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •