38 for the 27.

Jarod

Jarod

Well-known member
Contributor
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.

It appears that the NRA and the Gun Lobby have been able to manipulate the plain meaning of this Amendment to remove the first part.

It is also clear that the very nature of "Arms" is vastly different today than it was in 1791.

I belive it is now necessary to amend the Constitution once again.

28th Amendment -

"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall be abolished but regulated and limited as perscribed by the Congress of the United States and the Various States."


Poetic that 27 people were killed and it would be the 28th Amendment.
 
Jarod said:
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.

It appears that the NRA and the Gun Lobby have been able to manipulate the plain meaning of this Amendment to remove the first part.

It is also clear that the very nature of "Arms" is vastly different today than it was in 1791.

I belive it is now necessary to amend the Constitution once again.

28th Amendment -

"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall be abolished but regulated and limited as perscribed by the Congress of the United States and the Various States."


Poetic that 27 people were killed and it would be the 28th Amendment.
Click to expand...

Keep dreaming. Won't happen.
 
Jarod said:
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.

It appears that the NRA and the Gun Lobby have been able to manipulate the plain meaning of this Amendment to remove the first part.

It is also clear that the very nature of "Arms" is vastly different today than it was in 1791.

I belive it is now necessary to amend the Constitution once again.

28th Amendment -

"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall be abolished but regulated and limited as perscribed by the Congress of the United States and the Various States."


Poetic that 27 people were killed and it would be the 28th Amendment.
Click to expand...

The best evidence I can give you concerning our difference of opinion on the meaning of the 2nd amendment is to point out the purpose of the Bill of Rights. No portion of those amendments was written to give anything TO the gov't. It was about the rights of the people.

Our founding fathers had just completed a revolution to throw off the yoke of tyranny. And they had done so with citizen soldiers. They wanted to preserve the ability to do that again, should our own gov't become tyrannical.


I think you misjudge the ability of armed citizens. Yes, the military has more guns and more high tech weaponry. But there are plenty of examples of gov'ts being thwarted and even overthrown by small groups of determined people.
 
Jarod said:
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.

It appears that the NRA and the Gun Lobby have been able to manipulate the plain meaning of this Amendment to remove the first part.

It is also clear that the very nature of "Arms" is vastly different today than it was in 1791.

I belive it is now necessary to amend the Constitution once again.

28th Amendment -

"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall be abolished but regulated and limited as perscribed by the Congress of the United States and the Various States."


Poetic that 27 people were killed and it would be the 28th Amendment.
Click to expand...

1) There is NOTHING poetic about that were it to occur.

2) You clearly should not be practicing law if you cannot even comprehend the second amendment.
 
WinterBorn said:
The best evidence I can give you concerning our difference of opinion on the meaning of the 2nd amendment is to point out the purpose of the Bill of Rights. No portion of those amendments was written to give anything TO the gov't. It was about the rights of the people.

Our founding fathers had just completed a revolution to throw off the yoke of tyranny. And they had done so with citizen soldiers. They wanted to preserve the ability to do that again, should our own gov't become tyrannical.


I think you misjudge the ability of armed citizens. Yes, the military has more guns and more high tech weaponry. But there are plenty of examples of gov'ts being thwarted and even overthrown by small groups of determined people.
Click to expand...

Not to mention the simple fact that it assumes the military would side with the government political regime. How many of our military would support attacking the US populace? How many would support cleaning house in DC?
 
Superfreak said:
Not to mention the simple fact that it assumes the military would side with the government political regime. How many of our military would support attacking the US populace? How many would support cleaning house in DC?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be so sure. And I for one wouldn't put my faith in it. Yea they take an oath to defend against enemies foreign and domestic, but they are taught to follow orders first and foremost
 
I Love America said:
I wouldn't be so sure. And I for one wouldn't put my faith in it. Yea they take an oath to defend against enemies foreign and domestic, but they are taught to follow orders first and foremost
Click to expand...

You think they are mindless drones? There is a huge difference between being asked to fight in a foreign land and being asked to fight your neighbors/family etc...

Obviously it would depend on what brought about the fight.
 
Jarod said:
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.

It appears that the NRA and the Gun Lobby have been able to manipulate the plain meaning of this Amendment to remove the first part.

It is also clear that the very nature of "Arms" is vastly different today than it was in 1791.

I belive it is now necessary to amend the Constitution once again.

28th Amendment -

"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall be abolished but regulated and limited as perscribed by the Congress of the United States and the Various States."


Poetic that 27 people were killed and it would be the 28th Amendment.
Click to expand...

The shooting in Conn is the direct result of trading liberty for order/security.

Where was the police/government? We traded liberty for security/order. We make these schools gun free. There's a sign out in the front stating this, letting everyone know that there's no guns to stop anyone who want to kill a bunch of kids, and adults.

If teachers would have had quick access to gun(s), most, if not all these kids would still be alive. The killer had to break in I heard. Making enough noise to alert teachers to get their guns, but instead they're totally dependent on the government to help them. Which of course, not around when you need them.

This is what happens when you trade liberty for security. You lose both liberty, and security, and deserve neither.

“A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both, and deserve neither” Thomas Jefferson
 
Last edited:
Jarod said:
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.

It appears that the NRA and the Gun Lobby have been able to manipulate the plain meaning of this Amendment to remove the first part.

It is also clear that the very nature of "Arms" is vastly different today than it was in 1791.

I belive it is now necessary to amend the Constitution once again.

28th Amendment -

"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall be abolished but regulated and limited as perscribed by the Congress of the United States and the Various States."


Poetic that 27 people were killed and it would be the 28th Amendment.
Click to expand...


Yeah, poetic. :palm:
 
Liberty said:
The shooting in Conn is the direct result of trading liberty for order/security.

Where was the police/government? We traded liberty for security/order. We make these schools gun free. There's a sign out in the front stating this, letting everyone know that there's no guns to stop anyone who want to kill a bunch of kids, and adults.
Click to expand...
oh, Liberty. How dare you try to place blame on the police or government. Haven't you been following the liberals on this? this is the direct fault of the NRA and redneck gun owners. /sarcasm
 
SmarterthanYou said:
oh, Liberty. How dare you try to place blame on the police or government. Haven't you been following the liberals on this? this is the direct fault of the NRA and redneck gun owners. /sarcasm
Click to expand...

Oh well.

Yes, I'm ready to give up my guns.

I'll feel safer.
 
Jarod said:
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.

It appears that the NRA and the Gun Lobby have been able to manipulate the plain meaning of this Amendment to remove the first part.

It is also clear that the very nature of "Arms" is vastly different today than it was in 1791.

I belive it is now necessary to amend the Constitution once again.

28th Amendment -

"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall be abolished but regulated and limited as perscribed by the Congress of the United States and the Various States."


Poetic that 27 people were killed and it would be the 28th Amendment.
Click to expand...

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government”

Thomas Jefferson
 
WinterBorn said:
The best evidence I can give you concerning our difference of opinion on the meaning of the 2nd amendment is to point out the purpose of the Bill of Rights. No portion of those amendments was written to give anything TO the gov't. It was about the rights of the people.

Our founding fathers had just completed a revolution to throw off the yoke of tyranny. And they had done so with citizen soldiers. They wanted to preserve the ability to do that again, should our own gov't become tyrannical.


I think you misjudge the ability of armed citizens. Yes, the military has more guns and more high tech weaponry. But there are plenty of examples of gov'ts being thwarted and even overthrown by small groups of determined people.
Click to expand...

So explain to me why they used the word REGULATED? What was the intent or purpose of the first clause of the Amendment?
 
Superfreak said:
Not to mention the simple fact that it assumes the military would side with the government political regime. How many of our military would support attacking the US populace? How many would support cleaning house in DC?
Click to expand...

I have faith and trust our Military will do as trained, to follow the chain of comand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top