Posted on 07/08/2015 9:28:10 AM PDT by Freeport
The United States of America is a great country. You can debate absolutely anything, whether or not it has merit, and whether or not it's any of your business.
But guns? There's nothing to debate. Throw out all the numbers and expert opinions. I've got your expert right here, and it's called EXPERIENCE.
Just before midnight June 30th, my husband, Chuck de Caro, and I and our Weimaraner were four days into an all-American, cross-country road trip. We'd just dined with a friend in Albuquerque and intended to hit historic Route 66, then stop for the night.
Realizing it was late and Route 66 is no fun in the dark, we stopped at a pet-friendly Motel 6. Chuck showered; I went to the car for dog food.
The armed guard patrolling the second floor was engrossed in a phone conversation, instead of checking the parking lot.
I unlocked our door, picked up the food I'd placed at my feet and was assaulted by a jackass with a big, silver semi-automatic weapon.
He shoved me into the room. I was airborne and landed on the bed. He shut the door and stood behind it, gun on me, debating his next move.
He didn't expect Chuck to open the bathroom door. My husband (Air Force Academy, U.S. Army Special Forces), said "What's going on here?" and advanced into the room. Stark naked and dripping wet, he maneuvered himself in front of the small table between the beds, concealing two small .380 legal handguns we'd brought in from the car.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Not bad.
Based on legal history I would change a few things.
I would make the explanatory clauses into separate sentences and include words to the effect that there may well be numerous unenumerated reasons.
The sentence protecting the right should do away with the word "right" since it has been read to imply that only an existing right was being protected without details about that right.
Instead, I would prohibit the federal or state governments from passing any law denying to unimprisoned and uninstitutionalized persons over the age of 14 the liberty to make, sell, buy, trade, keep, bear or use any type of weapons or items even weakly related to such items except where unjustified harm is done to others. No registration, licensing, or other mandates may infringe the liberty protected and no requirement shall exist to mark weapons for identification.
I would then add that the above does not include weapons which derive their destructive power from fission or fusion of atoms or self-replicating organisms.
I'm sure that anti-gunners will find flaws in this, but it would be better than what we have now.
Remember, we also have over 200 years of liberal mucking with history to shape our wording.
for later,
ok... here is my question...
if a government goes rogue and the people rise up, would the president order the armed forces to use ordnance on the population???
if so, then we have not only the right but the duty to possess ordnance...
does this clear up the issue?
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.