Strong Willed TEXAS Woman

[ravells]

My point is that the second amendment needs more clarity so it makes sense in a modern context.

As it currently stands, it allows everyone without exception the right to bear arms. It needs to specify the exceptions otherwise a lot of lawyers are going to get rich arguing about the extent to which it should be curtailed.

[lukster]

Originally posted by ravells
My point is that the second amendment needs more clarity so it makes sense in a modern context.

As it currently stands, it allows everyone without exception the right to bear arms. It needs to specify the exceptions otherwise a lot of lawyers are going to get rich arguing about the extent to which it should be curtailed.

I think it very unlikely Americans could agree on a "clarification" that would satisfy everyone enough to result in a constitutional amendment passing. I would also find it abhorrent should the SC decide to take matters into their own hands and reinterpret the constitution. For better or worse, we're going to live with the second as is for a long time.

[lazs2]

No ravs...  It does not need to be clearer.   Once you decide who the "people" is there is no conflict.  You can't infringe on their right to keep and bear arms.

You can't take away their rights and... more, the federal government should defend people from states who would infringe on those rights.

Are we violating the second at this time?   Most certainly.    Will it be easy to restore rights?  no.. it will be no easier than the civil rights struggle was.

Miller said that if a gun was not useful as a military arm then it could be restricted under the second..   It is obvious that they were wrong out of ignorance.  in the first miller decision one of the judges had a full auto submachine gun war trophy in his closet and was assured by the ATF liars that he would not have his right to own it infringed.   They claimed that a sawed off shotgun was worthless for war.  This is obviously (to even a casual historian) wrong.

The latest federal ruling in DC states that the second is an individual right.   This is tantamount to saying a woman has a right to get an abortion or that negroes are human.

Just saying so is the first step..  the debate will continue.

But... I feel that people are starting to get the point that the second is just what it says... and individual right and a human right given to us by the creator.. something a government has no right to infringe on.

Groups like the aclu have an agenda that is counter to human rights in this case and are ashamed of it.. they try to ignore the whole issue because they know they are wrong.

lazs