Comments on: Rewriting the Second Amendment

By: James Stephen

James Stephen — Fri, 21 Feb 2014 16:32:00 +0000

The 2nd Amendment is not that complicated. It protects an individual right to bear arms. The militia clause simply gives one reason for the law being passed. (D. C. v. Heller) Back then, politicians believed they were accountable to the people and gave them reasons for the laws they passed.

A militia is not a government organized military unit. The Constitution confirms this by treating the militia and the armed forces as two different entities. The militia originally was made up of all able-bodied males in the community who provided for the defense and law enforcement since there was no police force and the army was far away.

“And let’s remember that when Second Amendment was written in the late 19th Century, the firepower of the weapons was just a pittance of the strength of today’s armaments. Would the Founding Fathers have said that people have the right to bear nuclear weapons?”

Our rights expand based on evolving technology. Unless you think that because the internet did not exist in the 18th century, it is not protected under the 1st Amendment. Do not tell the NSA about this argument, they might use it as the basis to undermine our 4th Amendment rights.

I reject your proposed 2nd Amendment since it does not offer adequate protection for the individual’s right to bear arms. It is interesting though that you bring up Chicago, they have heavy gun restrictions, the type you would probably favor, and yet disarming the people did not stop the criminals. On the other hand, rural areas have far more guns and yet they do not have the same problems. Criminals do not like to be shot, who could have seen that coming?

By: Arthur Lieber

Arthur Lieber — Mon, 30 Dec 2013 15:38:00 +0000

In reply to berriesandblood. It's a tough thing to do. I believe that 40 or so years ago more teachers considered gun control to be a norm and they passed that along to students. I wish that we had more politically progressive teachers now.

By: berriesandblood

berriesandblood — Mon, 30 Dec 2013 15:15:00 +0000

In reply to Arthur Lieber.

I for one DO talk about that very fact…but, most people want to argue and dismiss it…..repetition is my friend. 🙂

By: Arthur Lieber

Arthur Lieber — Sun, 29 Dec 2013 16:56:00 +0000

In reply to berriesandblood. Thanks so much. It would really help if we could begin our conversation on gun control with the perception that the Second Amendment is too confusing to be the basis of conversation. In that case, gun activists would have to justify all the homicides by gun that we have in this country.

By: berriesandblood

berriesandblood — Sun, 29 Dec 2013 16:29:00 +0000

I am suspicious of the Founding Fathers…they were brilliant men but just how brilliant were they if they did not take the time to measure future progress? They seem to have foreseen other obstacles like the fine-line-power of a corporation…why not the progression of gun power?
Sometimes I think the deliberate blurring of the 2nd Amendment came from people who were really not so brilliant afterall or who had a grander idea that may run contrary to actual freedom.

All the 2nd Amend has done so far is arm people so they can shoot whomever they choose to shoot, divide a mass of people…half being giddy about weapons and the other half trying to find a common ground…..all completely unsuccessful up to date.

By: berriesandblood

berriesandblood — Sun, 29 Dec 2013 16:22:00 +0000

Indeed!!!!