search
top

Rewriting the Constitution

The National Constitution Center, a false-flag organization that, under the banner of educating the public, is really part of the progressive project to destroy said document. They are proposing repealing the Second Amendment. The Inquirer is taking a poll. Feel free to vote.

26 Responses to “Rewriting the Constitution”

  1. Shootin' Buddy says:

    This is what we call “an admission against interest”.

    Remember when Major Owens, arguably one of the dumbest men to serve in Congress, made the same proposal? Right, he was admitting that the right to arms is invididual right and means that there is a wall between our guns and the government.

  2. TS says:

    That gave me a good chuckle. Of course this is an admission that the 2A doesn’t read that way, and if this is what the founding fathers wanted, they would have written it like that. But what exactly does this new right protect? If a lieutenant asks for an officer’s gun while they investigate a suspect shooting, the officer can tell the lieutenant, “piss off, I know my rights!”. Or when they ask Marines to disarm while in the barracks, they can cite that Amendment 28i recognizes their God given right to keep and bear arms as long as they are in active duty.

  3. Patrick H says:

    My rewrite:

    “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be questioned by the federal government, nor the several states or any other governmental body. Protected arms shall include at least any man portable weapon, including machine guns, and any accessories such as magazines, but shall not include nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. A well-trained militia, being composed of all abled body citizens, is necessary to the security of each state and the county. “

    • Sebastian says:

      Well, you see, it doesn’t include chemical weapons. Lead is a dangerous chemical you see, so that ammunition your using….

      Hey… I’m sure the founding fathers never would have believe the logic pretzel people would make out of something that’s pretty plainly clear.

      • Patrick H says:

        Haha yeah I know. We all know how the courts and people can twist things. This was just a quick attempt at a rewrite. It would probably have to be as long as the Constitution itself to make it clear and it still wouldn’t be enough.

      • HappyWarrior6 says:

        If all we have to be concerned about in that cause would be how to construct bullets out of something other than lead, that would be a far cry better than what we have now. ;)

        Heck as it stands it looks like we’ll still have to figure that out!

        • TS says:

          I don’t think that’s all we would have to worry about. They’d go after those chemical weapons of mass destruction that use sulfur, charcoal, and potassium nitrate.

    • Honestly, the simplest “fix” is a “sauce for the goose” amendment clarifying that anything in common usage by LEOs or the armed forces at the company level or below is protected for civilian usage.

      That ensures that the meaning continues to evolve with new technology.

      • Geodkyt says:

        Chris — pretty good. It WOULD need some tweaking, to nail it down, but keep it technology neutral.

        I would say, rather than defining it in terms of “company level” (what’s a “company” defined as? What’s a “company” defined as next year? {wink})

        1. Neither Law Enforcement nor the Armed Services may use, possess, or bear any weapons where that category of weapon is restricted from similar possession or use by fully sovereign adult citizens. (I.e., do not currently have their civil rights restricted by a court adjudication due to mental capacity or criminal conviction. You can change “citizens” to “legal residents” if you prefer.)

        2. This prohibition shall not apply to peaceable and secured transport of restricted weapons by law enforcement or the military from a place where law enforcement or the military may lawfully use, possess, and bear them them to a place where they may lawfully use, possess, and bear them.

        3. This prohibition shall not apply to possession or use of restricted weapons by the military or law enforcement against (or possession in readiness against attacks from) enemies of the nation in cases of foreign invasion, or a Congressionally declared war or state of insurrection.

        4. This prohibition shall not apply to possession or use of prohibited weapons by law enforcement or the military within federal enclaves, nor prohibit possession or use of restricted weapons by state controlled law enforcement or military forces within designated state governmental enclaves.

        5. This prohibition shall not apply outside the national territory of the United States. For the purposes of this amendment, the national territory of the United States includes the several states, territories, and possessions of the United States, but does not include wholly governmental enclaves overseas such as military bases or embassies.

        6. Fully sovereign adult citizens may be prohibited arms in sensitive areas. For the purposes of this amendment, sensitive areas are defined as clearly marked areas, with checkpoints and security reasonably capable of ensuring that no unauthorized arms will be found within, a location where citizens may reasonably, safely, and securely, disarm and store a carried arm, and an assumption of liability and risk on the part of the government for the physical safety of citizens and their property within the sensitive area. This prohibition shall also apply to privately owned property open to the general public, with the owner and/or proprietor taking the place of the government. (Yes, there is a good and reasonable case to be made for keeping guns out of certain areas, like jails, mental hospitals, ammunition bunkers, etc. But if it ain’t important enough to guard, it ain’t very sensitive, is it? Likewise, if you want to be “open to the public”, you can’t discriminate against peaceable practice of civil rights. private home or private club, i.e., places not open to the general public? Discriminate all you want.)

        • SinEater says:

          You need to check #3.
          There is already language being used by the FBI and other government agencies to label preppers and 2nd Amendment advocates as terrorists. The language could be changed in a hot second to read insurrectionists instead. And technically we are already in a War on Terror and a War on Drugs.
          And I think a reiteration of posse comitatus in the first sentence would make it more clear.

    • Jeremiah says:

      If anything is done, simply clarify that 2A means any weapons by any able bodied citizen. (this excludes the mentally ill and criminals) Don’t forget that the first cannon and naval vessels pressed into service were privately owned. Those are strategic weapons. The difference is technology and time, but serve the same general purpose (strategic). Limiting by type of weapon ignores that weapon technology changes and types drift and change over time. That’s the beauty of the 2A as it stands- there are no limitations. This is the travesty of the arms control acts (from various years) as they re-write intent of 2A based on the whims of Congress.

      • Jeremiah says:

        By first pressed into service, I mean the Revolutionary War. Sorry for leaving that out.

      • Geodkyt says:

        1. Cannon were not “strategic” weapons. That word doesn’t mean what you think it does, and never has. (Even 20th century, nuclear capable, guns were not “strategic” weapons — I say “were”, because AFAIK, nuclear artillery shells are now wholly out of service in all nuclear powers.)

        2. Cannon, while not banned, were not “arms” as defined by 18th Century terms.

        a. They were “pieces of ordnance”, and had “arms” assigned to them — the “arms” of a cannon are the tools to service the piece. The “arms” of an artilleryman were neither the cannon, nor the tools to service the piece, but the weapons and equipment he needed to be an effective artilleryman aside from the cannon and its accoutrements — swords, pistols, and longarms (usually shortened, like carbines and musketoons).

        b. Just because something is not banned at a given time, does not mean it is Constitutionally protected. Private whaling was not banned until 1972. That doesn’t mean that whaling was a Constitutionally protected right in 1791, but the right magically disappeared in 1972 — it only means that, until 1972, Congress had not banned whaling.

        c. Just because something is not covered by a specific, enumerated protection, does not mean it isn’t covered by a different (perhaps even unenumerated) protection. There is no enumerated Right to Keep and Wear Condoms, but it has been ruled to be an unenumerated right and Constututionally protected.

        d. In other words, cannons and 18th Century regulations about them are irrelevant to RKBA.

        3. “Arms” DOES have a fairly specific 18th century meaning, especially relating to arms for individuals (whether enrolled regular soldiers or militiamen).

        a. It is the weapons and minimal necessary combat equipment to be effective in a firefight — firelock, sidearm(s) (bayonet, sword, pistol, and/or axe/tomahawk, depending on when and where), and the minimum combat equippage (cartidge box). It includes the minimum accoutrements considered necessary for the individual to maintain the weapon, but did not include consuambles (such as ammunition).

        b. It DID NOT include unit support weapons or special purpose weapons such as grenade launchers, grenades, wall guns, cannon, mortars, etc. (yes, all of theose weapons were farily common in 18th Century military use). “Arms” also varied based on military duties (MOS in modern terms).

        c. Arms DID NOT include clothes, horses & tack (for cavalry), tentage, food, water bottles, etc. However, militia regulations often required that militiamen provide some or all of these items, such as minimum ammunition stores (ammunition is, in 18th Century terms, neither “arms” nor “ordnance”, but “munitions” like every other piece of military equipment that is not “arms” or “ordnance”). They frequently required militiamen who wished to be mustered as something other than line infantry to provide the specialized kit of their posting (you want to be cavalry, you gotta bring your own horse & tack, etc. NOTE — militia artillery units did not necessarily have to supply their own cannon — if the state or federal government wished a particular militia unit to be artillery, they would issue them ordnance from stores if available).

        c. In modern terms, that equates “arms” to a military rifle in parity with current issue, sidearms (bayonet, pistols), magazines for both rifle and sidearms, web gear, and (these days, given universal issue) body armor and helmets. because arms are useless without ammunition, and the militia is supposed to be ready for service (at least as line infantry) without taking time to issue stores from government armories and militia regulations always included the individual showing up with at least a basic load of ammunition, ammunition is implicated as falling under the same protection, despite not being (technically) “arms”.

      • SinEater says:

        I know this might come across as pedantic but I believe the restriction on firearm possession by criminals needs review.
        How many people have been convicted of felonies for possession of a small amount of a recreational drug?
        How many people have been convicted of felonies for an honest mistake?
        How many people have been convicted of whatever ridiculous and/or unjust law some moron politician has decided was a good political move to get passed?
        I would like there to be a separate trial and a separate set of laws for the removal of a person’s Constitutional Rights.
        I see this language on a lot of blogs:
        If the person is not a danger to society and was released from supervision as such then that person has paid their debt to society and should have all rights restored.
        If the person *IS* a danger to society and should have their Constitutional Rights removed, then they are too dangerous to have free and unfettered access to the rest of society.

  4. HappyWarrior6 says:

    So now we’re editorializing upon, “let’s make our own country.” This is a favorite among elementary school children.

  5. Jim says:

    Funny how it’s essentially 90% against. Turns out our president had his numbers flipped.

    • Archer says:

      He always has. If you ask me, the “Progressives” heard the accurate statement, “90% of Americans support gun laws in keeping with the intent of the Second Amendment” (i.e. shall not be infringed) but somehow only absorbed the first six words. Just like they read the part about “A well-regulated Militia,” but somehow completely miss the part about “the right of the people.”

      Short attention span, maybe.

  6. Andy B. says:

    I always look for a motive other than what is apparent.

    Based on past history of “unscientific” polls like this (where anyone can ring in, and the motivated faction spreads the word to like-minded people) they have to have been pretty certain that the outcome would eventually fall heavily in our favor. Or, they are totally delusional, which is always a possibility.

    But assuming they have a few rational people in their mix, what was the real motivation for this exercise?

  7. Andy B. says:

    This is a sincere question: What are some past examples proving the National Constitution is a “false flag” outfit, as opposed to a typical organization that has a variety of influential dingbats on its board, who come up with a mix of ideas, some of which are between dumb and unsavory?

    It just sounds like that kind of organization, where the movers and shakers include a lot of new and old money nephews of bankers and moms of politicians, all convinced they are potential fonts of “nice ideas.” The “ideology” of such organizations can wander all over the map.

    • Sebastian says:

      Oh, it’s not a conspiracy or anything. Just that they’ve always seem more interested in promoting a progressive view of the constitution rather than other points of view. One would think an organization serious about the Constitutional education would present all sides rather than promoting one point of view.

  8. Archer says:

    So basically, they’re looking to dissolve the “unorganized militia” as described in 10 USC 311, and make gun-owner eligibility hinge on military/police service.

    ‘F’ that.

    Remember, if you’re voting, that they’re asking if you accept or reject the “new” amendment, the effect of which is described above, and the text of which is below the poll question.

  9. Brice says:

    Notice there is a link under that for another poll on a different site, the percentages are the same, but lots fewer votes.

  10. Crotalus says:

    Most people who voted on this poll figured it out It’s running about 91% “reject” to 9% “approve”

  11. Brad says:

    Only those with facebook profiles or passwords can log on to comment at the NCC. I don’t. But if I did this is what I would have said…

    What kind of sick joke is this so-called “revision” of the 2nd Amendment? Just what is such a revision supposed to accomplish? What practical real world policy could the revision stop?

    In truth the revision would not stop the government from doing anything. In truth, the revision is just a sneaky proposal to repeal the 2nd Amendment without first admitting that the 2nd Amendment actually protects citizens rights from government interference.

    If those who dislike the right to keep and bear arms were more honest, they would put forward an alcohol-prohibition style amendment which would repeal the second amendment while also granting the government power to regulate the use and possession of weapons.

  12. Zermoid says:

    Just voted, currently:
    Reject 95.1% (2,212 votes)
    Approve 4.9% (114 votes)

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Thursday news and opinions | Walla Walla TEA Party Patriots - [...] Rewriting the Constitution [...]
top