" ---- So the real question seems to be, can we have the a constitutional freedom to bear arms, and still allow restriction and regulation?
Reasonable restrictions do seem to be the way to go, acknowledging the Amendment, but molding it, as we've done with much of the Constitution. The trick is finding that balance between freedom and reasonable regulation. Gun ownership is indeed a right - but it is also a grand responsibility. With responsibility comes the interests of society to ensure that guns are used safely and are used by those with proper training and licensing.
If we can agree on this simple premise, it should not be too difficult to work out the details and find a proper compromise.
Recognizing that the need to arm the populace as a militia is no longer of much concern, but also realizing that firearms are a part of our history and culture and are used by many for both personal defense and sport, this site has proposed a new 2nd Amendment - an amendment to replace the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution.
This proposed text is offered as a way to spark discussion of the topic.
Section 1. The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Section 2. The right of the people to keep arms reasonable for hunting, sport, collecting, and personal defense shall not be infringed.
Section 3. Restrictions of arms must be found to be reasonable under Section 2 by a two-thirds vote of Congress in two consecutive sessions of Congress before they can be forwarded to the President for approval.
This proposed amendment is a truer representation of how our society views our freedom to bear arms. --- "
Constitutional Topic: The Second Amendment - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net Address:http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_2nd.html
______________________________________
The man that wrote this proposal for repealing the 2nd Amendment is howling mad..
__ And robertpaulsen cites his website at every opportunity.
178 P_A_I
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this - care to explain? I'm happy to expand on my views as time allows.
191 steve802
Your comment that,
" -- This proposed amendment is a truer representation of how our society views our freedom to bear arms. --- " is quite delusional.
I'd say at BEST, possibly 50% of Americans would agree that " -- Reasonable restrictions do seem to be the way to go, acknowledging the Amendment, but molding it, as we've done with much of the Constitution. -- "
Indeed, I do advocate for the repeal of our current 2nd, to be replaced with the text of an amendment that is unambiguous as to its meaning.
The recent paper by the Justice Dept says that the 2nd is unambiguous. It is an individual right, and the reference to militia is self explanatory. -- Did you bother read to it, or is your mind made up?
The fact that people can debate the actual meaning of the 2nd means, to me, that it is flawed. I want to protect the rights of gun owners and users, for purposes that are reasonable and normal. If the "wrong people" take hold of the courts, can't you see the text of the current 2nd amendment being interpreted in a way that would allow the confiscation of guns? I can, though only in my maddest of nightmares ... but I can also see, in a polar opposite nightmare, a society with no restrictions on guns, and society of the gun.
Horrors, a society like New Hampshire's, where men have had the freedom to carry concealed guns about for over 200 years? What a nightmare!
With both sides pulling so hard, so we have reached an equilibrium, but it may not be very hardy. My replacement amendment protects that which is the most important, in my opinion. If the discussion can be kept civil, I welcome more opinion ... though this may not be the thread for that.
The original thread criticizing your site [and views on guns] is still available. -- Feel free to defend yourself there.
In fact, why did you abandon that effort initially? -- You got a lot of civil responses, and never answered.
I didn't try to quote statistics ... but my feeling (and granted, it is solely my feeling) is that if you asked the average person on the street what the freedom to bear arms means, they would not disagree that it means the freedom to own guns for the purposes of sport, hunting, and personal defense. More knowledgeable persons might mention the militia. But I don't think most people associate the 2nd with the militia. I know the Constitution backwards and forwards, and my own opinion, as expressed on that page, is that the inclusion of the militia in the 2nd is obsolete. I expanded on these views in the FR post you referenced in your next message.
The recent paper by the Justice Dept says that the 2nd is unambiguous. It is an individual right, and the reference to militia is self explanatory. -- Did you bother read to it, or is your mind made up?
I read it, but it was some time ago - but regardless, I disagree with their conclusion. The fact that we can debate it at all indicates to be ambiguity. Of course, pro-gunners say it is not ambiguous and the RKBA is absolute. And, of course, anti-gunners say it is not ambiguous and the RKBA is infinitely regulatable. This paradox indicates ambiguity. To me at least.
Horrors, a society like New Hampshire's, where men have had the freedom to carry concealed guns about for over 200 years? What a nightmare!
As I understand it, my own state, Vermont, also allows unrestricted concealed carry - which is fine for Vermont, and fine for New Hampshire. We cannot say that what is good for Vermont and New Hampshire is, by definition, good for New York or Florida or California. In those states, restricting concealed carry is a reasonable restriction - in Vermont or New Hamshire, it could become one in the future.
The original thread criticizing your site [and views on guns] is still available. -- Feel free to defend yourself there. In fact, why did you abandon that effort initially? -- You got a lot of civil responses, and never answered.
Ah, I understand your reference now ... I wasinvolved on that thread for several days, I don't think I abandoned it. I stopped responding to the thread and, in fact, looking at the thread because I felt I made all the pertinent points I wanted to make, nothing new was being said, and time no longer permitted me to keep up. I came here because I wanted to address your concerns that I am "howling mad."