The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: Freeper on May 24, 2013, 08:22:08 PM
-
zebonaut (140 posts)
It's time to rewrite the 2nd Amendment- How would YOU rewrite it?
Last edited Fri May 24, 2013, 01:07 AM USA/ET - Edit history (3)
Contrary to popular belief; the second amendment is not a religious tenet written in stone. I can be changed; rewritten or repealed. How would you rephrase it?
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.
How about
"A well regulated militia; being necessary for the security of a free nation, has now been achieved with a modern military; so the right of the people to keep and bear small arms; shall only be infringed insofar as background checks, and required training for the public safety."
or something to that effect...
Any better ideas?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022894319
I have a better idea, stay the **** away from our rights.
This notion that somehow a right that is spelled out in the constitution is not really a right is nothing but moonbat bullshit.
Hey DUmmies how about we take the 1st amendment, that isn't etched in stone either (using your logic), and changing it so we can ban DU?
:mental:
NYC_SKP (48,896 posts)
1. "has now been achieved with a modern military" really? let's just let drones do our thinking?
wow.
Drones the weapon of choice of 0bama.
Tumbulu (3,249 posts)
2. Here is my wish:
Firearms are for the use of trained, licensed, insured and bonded individuals only for the sole purpose of serving the community. As such the community has the right to remove firearms from anyone it deems unsafe or unstable.
:whatever:
How about your community removes your right to own and operate a computer?
oldhippie (1,425 posts)
29. So, if a community of RWers, or ....
.... fundies, in, let's say, Texas, deems that all Muslims, Blacks, Latinos other minorities and gays in their community are "unstable", then they could be deprived of firearms? And the community sets the standards for training, licensing, insurance and bonding? That would, in fact, be democracy in action. Sure you like that?
It was democrats who started disarming the black man.
clarice (356 posts)
55. How does that keep the bad guys from getting guns? nt.
Good question.
defacto7 (3,355 posts)
3. Damn, I have to reply to this again....
I would repeal it.
Let the laws of the land rule the day. There is no need in this day and age to create a right to own a weapon or anything else in particular for that matter.
I want your computer, since you have no right to own anything what would stop me from just taking it?
LAGC (4,554 posts)
12. I like the Bill of Rights just fine as it is, thank you very much.
If we start tweaking with the Second Amendment, how long before the other side wants to start tweaking with the First Amendment, perhaps eliminating the separation of church and state?
No thanks.
The first amendment does not say anything about separation of church and state, it simply says you have freedom of religion. In other words the government can not force religion on anyone, but religious people can shape and influence policy just like any citizen is allowed to by the same amendment. This notion that you can not allow your religious beliefs to influence what you want for this country is pure nonsense.
jmowreader (23,946 posts)
23. I would much rather work on the Fourth than the Second
When the Founders wrote the line about being secure in your "papers and personal effects," it's reasonably clear, to me at least, they were trying to guarantee a degree of privacy. The lack of that actual word has caused untold grief, so...
"As the right to security in one's papers and personal effects is vital to a free society, privacy in one's personal affairs shall not be abridged."
While we're here, let's deal with church-state separation: "The state may not attempt to control or influence any recognized religious organization in any way, to include levying of federal income tax on the organization or pay received from the organization by its ministers. Recognized religious organizations may not attempt to control or influence the State in any way, to include making political contributions either directly or through a third-party political group or lobbying for or against legislative actions."
And as long as we are at it: "No corporation not expressly formed as a political party or a political action committee may participate in the political process in any fashion to include donating money to politicians or political corporations or forming a political corporation as a subsidiary corporation, and no corporation formed as a political party or political action committee may earn any money through any method other than political contributions only from citizens of the United States or from the manufacture and/or sale of articles to be used in political campaigns or articles used by citizens to display membership in or affinity toward the group."
Once again the DUmmies show their ignorance, the church has just as much of a right to lobby as the ACLU and other atheist groups do.
Lots of stupidity in this thread.
Once again they show that they have knowledge, but no understanding.
-
The Amendment to replace the 2nd Amendment:
An intelligent, responsible and liberty-loving populace, being necessary to a free state, the right of people who love liberty to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
For the purposes of this Amendment, opposition to private ownership of arms shall be a rebuttal presumption of "hating liberty."
-
That thread is awesome - I highly suggest anyone with some time to spare give it a read. The DUmmy-on-DUmmy fighting is delicious.
-
What a colossal waste of time to discuss. Do you idiots actually believe that anyone is going to mess with The Bill of Rights? You libs will just have to settle for getting activist judges to pervert their meaning, like you always do.
.
-
To DU:
Sure, and while we're ****ing with things, we'll go ahead and adjust that pesky search and seizure without probable cause thingy, and that no troops quartered in private residence (the old way of wiretapping), freedom of association, because who should be able to freely associate with whoever they choose, the right to petition government, because somebody might make a politician uncomfortable, and other such sundry, mostly because they stop you ****ing leftists from creating your wet dream of a United States that just isn't America.
Maybe posting while inebriated isn't smart, but I stand by this post.
-
"2. The right of the Citizen to weapons is inviolate. A Citizen may own weapons, carry them from place to place openly or concealed, obtain such materials as enable maintenance and lawful use of them, without hindrance, regulation, or taxation. Any attempt to disarm a Citizen not in the commission of a crime shall constitute Treason, and be punished by public hanging. "
-
To DU:
Sure, and while we're ****ing with things, we'll go ahead and adjust that pesky search and seizure without probable cause thingy, and that no troops quartered in private residence (the old way of wiretapping), freedom of association, because who should be able to freely associate with whoever they choose, the right to petition government, because somebody might make a politician uncomfortable, and other such sundry, mostly because they stop you ****ing leftists from creating your wet dream of a United States that just isn't America.
Maybe posting while inebriated isn't smart, but I stand by this post.
Inspired by strong drink, Brother Vagabond speaks!
-
"2. The right of the Citizen to weapons is inviolate. A Citizen may own weapons, carry them from place to place openly or concealed, obtain such materials as enable maintenance and lawful use of them, without hindrance, regulation, or taxation. Any attempt to disarm a Citizen not in the commission of a crime shall constitute Treason, and be punished by public hanging. "
Agreed.
Given the change in public attitude in the States about concealed carry, a new amendment would more likely go our way than theirs.
-
Every white male Christian must carry at all times at least 2 semi automatic weapons capable of firing 20 rounds each before reloading.
Hey, WTH, it works for me..... :-)
-
At least the DUche is trying to do it correctly. Now would the Second Amendment ever get anywhere near being constitutionally repealed or amended? NO. That is why fascist leftist donks (BIRM, BIRM) try to get around in their corrupt and sneaky ways.
-
Every white male Christian must carry at all times at least 2 semi automatic weapons capable of firing 20 rounds each before reloading.
Hey, WTH, it works for me..... :-)
One must be an 'assault rifle.' The other must be a handgun. :-)
-
Tumbulu (3,249 posts)
2. Here is my wish:
Firearms are for the use of trained, licensed, insured and bonded individuals only for the sole purpose of serving the community. As such the community has the right to remove firearms from anyone it deems unsafe or unstable.
Try it moonbat, and someone will put a 168 grain .308 through your ugly face.
-
To DU:
Sure, and while we're ****ing with things, we'll go ahead and adjust that pesky search and seizure without probable cause thingy, and that no troops quartered in private residence (the old way of wiretapping), freedom of association, because who should be able to freely associate with whoever they choose, the right to petition government, because somebody might make a politician uncomfortable, and other such sundry, mostly because they stop you ****ing leftists from creating your wet dream of a United States that just isn't America.
Maybe posting while inebriated isn't smart, but I stand by this post.
There is another way to post?
-
Try it moonbat, and someone will put a 168 grain .308 through your ugly face.
Well, I suppose the plus side for said moonbat is he wouldn't have much of an ugly face left afterward.
-
The BOR is supposed to protect the rights of citizens by restricting the powers of government, not the other way around. Why do you not get that, DUmmies?.
Never mind, it's a rhetorical question.
-
The BOR is supposed to protect the rights of citizens by restricting the powers of government, not the other way around. Why do you not get that, DUmmies?.
Never mind, it's a rhetorical question.
Exactly.
If the primitives manage to redefine the BoR as granted by the government, and not rights in which the government can't interfere, then they win. Thankfully most of the movement toward this notion is recent, and there are a couple hundred years of data to thwart their goals.
-
Exactly.
If the primitives manage to redefine the BoR as granted by the government, and not rights in which the government can't interfere, then they win. Thankfully most of the movement toward this notion is recent, and there are a couple hundred years of data to thwart their goals.
To say nothing of the 300 million guns in the hands of 80 million lawful gun owners, providing covering fire for that data.
-
Given the ways that military affairs and the roles of regular forces, militias, and citizen sovereignty have mutated since 1789, a more apt and clear meaning would be something like:
"A well-regulated regular military, naval, and law enforcement force being necessary to the international security of a Nation, and an armed Citizenry being the last and final bulwark against misuse of those forces by a tyrant or autocrat, the right of mentally competent adult Citizens to keep and bear any arms shall not be infringed by Congress, the Executive, or any of the governments of the States, their lower governments, or any instrumentality of any of the preceding."
Now, that's probably not what the DUmmies had in mind, I grant you...
-
You want to take what away from me, DUmmies?
MOLON LABE, ****ers.
-
"2. The right of the Citizen to weapons is inviolate. A Citizen may own weapons, carry them from place to place openly or concealed, obtain such materials as enable maintenance and lawful use of them, without hindrance, regulation, or taxation. Any attempt to disarm a Citizen not in the commission of a crime shall constitute Treason, and be punished by public hanging. "
Hi5 for this!
-
Why don't we just skip the bullshit and have that civil war they are always talking about and then we will see what gets changed.
-
LAGC (4,554 posts)
12. I like the Bill of Rights just fine as it is, thank you very much.
If we start tweaking with the Second Amendment, how long before the other side wants to start tweaking with the First Amendment, perhaps eliminating the separation of church and state? No thanks
Re tard.