We keep hearing overwhelming Americans support 'common sense' and reasonable measures like universal criminal background check. yeah... from the miserable wretches in DC and some state capitals!!!
Posted on 04/05/2013 4:02:09 PM PDT by Sir Napsalot
(snip) Lost in this confusion and anxiety is the possibility that a basic consensus on guns exists among Americans. Opinion polls suggest that a majority recognize a right to bear arms, subject to reasonable regulations protecting public safety. This strong dual commitment, if clarified and entrenched in our Constitution, could reassure most, though not all, of us.
Before you mock the idea of a constitutional amendment, consider that hardly anyone is happy with our unstable status quo: gun enthusiasts fear their rights are under constant threat; gun-control advocates point to the danger of illegal guns and easy access to firearms.
(snip)
Most Americans are committed to the Constitution and rely on the courts to adapt our antique highest law to modern technological and cultural developments. Many of us trust the judiciary to balance rights against the inevitable restrictions on them. But we are left with the awkward, irresolvable phrasing of the Second Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
“What part of ‘shall not be infringed’ do you not understand?” the gun-rights advocate asks. “What part of ‘a well regulated Militia’ do you not understand?” goes the retort.
(snip)
But in the 1980s, a movement to interpret the amendment as promoting the right to bear arms for self-defense emerged. It reached an apotheosis of sorts in the 2008 case, which struck down the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns. It was the first time the court had ever restricted gun regulation, but the 5-to-4 vote also suggests that the decision is not fixed doctrine.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
"This constitutional uncertainty should suggest to both sides the possibility of agreeing on a formal clarification of the constitutional text. Zealots will scoff, but many reasonable people would find reassurance in a revised Second Amendment that was properly balanced. Those who propose responsible limits, like background checks, would welcome constitutional support for common-sense safeguards. Those who worry about the slippery slope of encroachments on gun rights would find comfort in an explicit reassertion and reinforcement of the general right to bear arms."
We keep hearing overwhelming Americans support 'common sense' and reasonable measures like universal criminal background check.
Thoughts? Opinions? Can we rewrite the Constitution via Amendments to forever give our freedom away?
The hubris of these uneducated mouth breathers to think they could better the work of Madison, Mason and Jefferson is astounding.
Here is my answer to the commie lib retard who comes back with that. The educated among us know that the Bill of Rights belongs to the people of the United States. The Bill of Rights prevents the government from violating the peoples' God given rights. The Founding Fathers would NOT have wasted their time guaranteeing that the government would always have the right to form a National Guard. That's just moronic stupidity to think that. IMHO.
See? It makes sense no matter HOW you frame it, right? Opinions polls are more important than Constitutional Rights.
You don’t “rewrite” any Constitutional amendment, you propose another that acts on it and put your proposal up for a vote in Congress and then a ratification by the states. The difficulty the gun control fanatics have encountered is that every time this issue does go to ballot, they lose.
“Well regulated” at that time meant to be in good working order - as in a “well regulated” clock. Not to have a bunch of laws (regulations). There was no standing army - but all able men were to be able to grab their weapons of war at a moments notice.
” “What part of ‘shall not be infringed’ do you not understand?” the gun-rights advocate asks. “What part of ‘a well regulated Militia’ do you not understand?” goes the retort.”
They wanted the people to be armed to prevent the Govt/ militia from becoming overbearing thus well regulated.
You Sir have it right. That is exactly what “well regulated” meant in the late 18th Century.
(rewritten just a touch)
“Lost in this confusion and anxiety is the possibility that a basic consensus against homosexual marriage exists among Americans. Opinion polls suggest that a majority recognize a right to only heterosexual marriage, subject to reasonable regulations protecting public safety. This strong dual commitment, if clarified and entrenched in our Constitution, could reassure most, though not all, of us.”
Sorry, NYT, but two points are missing.
1. Militia was not part of the national army (as is the Reserve and National Guard). The Militia is the citizenry with the capacity to protect the nation in an emergency who are NOT part of the Army, Navy, AirForce, or Marines.
2. Well-regulated meant "equipped" or "provisioned." That's what made "regulars" distinctive from "Militias". That is what is unique about this 2d amendment provision. It's saying that the citizenry must be armed to defend the nation. A Militia with the basic equipment of "regulars". IOW, a right to keep and bear arms for protecting the nation from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
The writer is an idiot and trying to have it both ways parses his opinion.
The Constitution of Mexico and the USofA on the issue of 2A are not even in the same realm.
Mexico’s Constitution bars citizens from military grade arms and they are expressly prohibited from carrying them in inhabited places, subject to local law.
The 2A of America states plainly that “the People” have a right and it shall not be infringed upon.
This is the disturbing part of his screed that I couldn’t shake:
“What part of ‘shall not be infringed’ do you not understand?” the gun-rights advocate asks. “What part of ‘a well regulated Militia’ do you not understand?” goes the retort.
My reply:
What part of “The Right of The People” did you purposely gloss over?
We keep hearing overwhelming Americans support 'common sense' and reasonable measures like universal criminal background check. yeah... from the miserable wretches in DC and some state capitals!!!
Zachary Elkins is an associate professor of government at the University of Texas, a director of the Comparative Constitutions Project and an author of “The Endurance of National Constitutions.”
What part of "...shall not be infringed" do YOU NOT understand? Yes it is FIXED doctrine. You fellas better stop pushing. You apparently do NOT understand how much you are upsetting people.
BRRRAAAAWWWWWKKKK, COMMON SENSE, COMMON SENSE BRRRRAAAAWWWWKK
Squawking point parrot head drivel. The Orwellian bleating sheep have NO IDEA what COMMON SENSE means, let alone being able to define it in a debate about the 2nd.
Throw that Useful Idiot a cracker.
Hey Dumbo, Well Regulated referred to “standardization of equipment and training.”
The 2nd stands on it’s OWN, AS IS! No “common sense, brraaaaawwk” adjustments needed.
Want some “common sense” there dumbo? How about finding out what drugs the psychobabblers have been handing out like free lunch!
Almost ALL mass shooters, going back to the ‘70s, were on and off psychotropic drugs.
How bout some “COMMON SENSE” control of PSYCHIATRISTS?
These clowns and charlatans get away WITH MURDER, and are largely UNREGULATED. THEY are the cause of much grief in society.
Time to grab the psychobabblers by the hair and bodily throw them in the dock. No “weaseling” out of the interrogation.
/rant>
I don't think this was a 1980's revelation. It was always there.
-PJ
There must be 300 gun laws on the books, None of them stopped Obama and Holder from giving guns to mexican cartels, and no one went to jail for it.
Gun owners are not as stupid as politicians thin they are. We know what the end game is.
We know we are all frogs in the boiling waters, and we are trying to jump out, but liberals and crooked politicians keep shoving us back in.
One day they will push too hard and American Patriots will start pushing back.
Is a convenient way that people have of cutting off an argument. Some slopes really are slippery. Look at seat belt laws.
Cars before about 1964 or so didn't even have seat belts - they were an option. Then the government required lap belts. Then shoulder belts. Finally, they passed laws that required seat belt use. Those laws started off as a "secondary enforcement" effort. Then it became a primary enforcement effort, and now will result in a moving violation.
I wear my seat belt all the time, every time I'm in the car. I'm not arguing that seat belts are a bad thing. I'm pointing out that the slope, once wet, is dangerous.
Or, put another way, the camel, once it ever gets its nose in the tent, never lets up. Ever.
Exactly.
“Opinion polls suggest that a majority recognize a right to bear arms, subject to reasonable regulations protecting public safety”. <—— Oh yeah? Who says so?
The government cannot issue any constitutional “regulations” regarding the use and availability of firearms. The 2A is a guarantee to the people that we’ll have the means to overthrow an overweening and tyrannical government if it ever should come to that.
It means that the fox isn’t allowed to guard the henhouse. If We the People allow this then we become the chickens.
\
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.