modernizing the 2A.

[downzero]

2) Felons existed at the time the Bill of Rights was ratified.

That is true, but "felony" did not mean the same thing.

All felonies in those days were capital offenses. The list of them was short, such as burglary, robbery, murder, and rape. Today, in Indiana, theft--of anything--regardless of its value, is a felony. The problem with making "felony" the dividing line is that the state gets to decide what a "felony" is, and that definition is DRASTICALLY broader than it was in 1787.

Furthermore, there would be no need for a discussion as to whether "felons" could bear arms, because those convicted of felonies would be dead. The rest of us would be free.

Therefore, any discussion about felonies and the 2A needs to consider this point. And they often don't, because people think "felony" means the same thing in 2012 as it did in 1787 or even 1600. It doesn't!

If you don't believe me, read some old British cases. I once wrote a paper on one from the 1600s. The defendant was convicted of both robbery and murder. It turned out that there wasn't any evidence of the murder charge, so that was overturned. It didn't matter though, because the punishment was the same for the robbery--hanging. And that's the punishment he received.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

How about if you do infringe you will be sentenced as a traitor to the country and locked up for life?

You are still adding words. There is no stronger phrase in the English language than "Shall Not."

And traitors are hung or shot, not imprisoned.

That is true, but "felony" did not mean the same thing.

All felonies in those days were capital offenses. The list of them was short, such as burglary, robbery, murder, and rape. Today, in Indiana, theft--of anything--regardless of its value, is a felony. The problem with making "felony" the dividing line is that the state gets to decide what a "felony" is, and that definition is DRASTICALLY broader than it was in 1787.

Furthermore, there would be no need for a discussion as to whether "felons" could bear arms, because those convicted of felonies would be dead. The rest of us would be free.

Therefore, any discussion about felonies and the 2A needs to consider this point. And they often don't, because people think "felony" means the same thing in 2012 as it did in 1787 or even 1600. It doesn't!

If you don't believe me, read some old British cases. I once wrote a paper on one from the 1600s. The defendant was convicted of both robbery and murder. It turned out that there wasn't any evidence of the murder charge, so that was overturned. It didn't matter though, because the punishment was the same for the robbery--hanging. And that's the punishment he received.

GREAT point! Funny how even threat of death for lower crimes still did not deter people, why on earth do people think jail time will? At least they didn't have to deal with better criminals in a few years like we do.

 

[jon5212]

^^ Good point, then lets do it.

 

[indyrun]

1) Should the mentally ill (or w/e your preferred term is) be allowed?
Yes I know this in an extremely broad label, be specific with your response if you want.

Seems the mentally ill are running the federal government.

 

[rugertoter]

Personally, I'd be ok with pressing the reset button and starting all over again with the original document and the first 10 amendments.

That would be the best thing to happen in a long time.

 

[mrjarrell]

Originally Posted by GodFearinGunTotin
Personally, I'd be ok with pressing the reset button and starting all over again with the original document and the first 10 amendments.

That would be the best thing to happen in a long time.

As long as they include the 14th Amendment, then I'm not opposed to it. The 14th is what is going to win the war on guns and many other battles.

 

[Raskolnikov]

I've highlighted some concerning passages in red. While they may appear a matter of semantics for some, they certainly are not.

Rights are inherent to people, not governments. They are granted by God, or nature if you will, and cannot be granted or revoked by government. They can, however, be infringed.

It is however a practical matter of those who obey the law, or are in a position of sound mind (despite being on INGO), to continue to possess the means of self defense.....while removing those not otherwise qualified or competent for the time being.

The right to defend oneself is more basic a right than the right to the means of self defense. Just because one is incarcerated or deemed of unsound mind, doesn't remove the right to defend oneself....merely some level of means to do it.

That is true, but "felony" did not mean the same thing.

All felonies in those days were capital offenses. The list of them was short, such as burglary, robbery, murder, and rape. Today, in Indiana, theft--of anything--regardless of its value, is a felony. The problem with making "felony" the dividing line is that the state gets to decide what a "felony" is, and that definition is DRASTICALLY broader than it was in 1787.

Furthermore, there would be no need for a discussion as to whether "felons" could bear arms, because those convicted of felonies would be dead. The rest of us would be free.

Therefore, any discussion about felonies and the 2A needs to consider this point. And they often don't, because people think "felony" means the same thing in 2012 as it did in 1787 or even 1600. It doesn't!

If you don't believe me, read some old British cases. I once wrote a paper on one from the 1600s. The defendant was convicted of both robbery and murder. It turned out that there wasn't any evidence of the murder charge, so that was overturned. It didn't matter though, because the punishment was the same for the robbery--hanging. And that's the punishment he received.

Points very well taken, guys. Thanks for the input. Lots of new things to consider!

 

[smokingman]

Changing it would be a bad idea.With your number 5 being the worst idea ever.Who determines what training you need? Maybe you need to have served in the military,or perhaps training should cost $2000.00(adjust up for inflation)per session with 3 sessions required before you are allowed to own a firearm.There would be no need to ban firearms,they could just change the training requirements to be unobtainable to the average person.

For an interesting take on the Declaration read about the early French translations done by Jefferson.

[SIZE=+1]Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness became
"[/SIZE][SIZE=+1][SIZE=+1]la liberté, la sécurité, la propriété et la résistance à l'oppression "
[SIZE=+1]Translated back to English.[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=+1][SIZE=+1][SIZE=+1][SIZE=+1]liberty, security, property, and resistance to oppression


[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]
[/SIZE]

 

[Kmcinnes]

O.k. So the OP has the Gadsden "Dont tread on me" flag as his Avitar and he wants to change or rewrite the Constitution and Bill of Rights? Does anyone else thinks this is kind of ironic?

Simply put.......I think its THE stupidest thing I have ever heard and would be the downfall of our country! No offense to the OP, But that sounds like an idea that the libtards would have!

 

[Titanium_Frost]

The "libtards" as you called them have no need for rewriting the Constitution, they flagrantly disregard it and we stand by and do nothing.

 

[Kmcinnes]

The "libtards" as you called them have no need for rewriting the Constitution, they flagrantly disregard it and we stand by and do nothing.

I completely agree!

 

[armedindy]

"but how do we make it nationally uniform."

armedindy does not understand this language...

 

[mikedippert]

O.k. So the OP has the Gadsden "Dont tread on me" flag as his Avitar and he wants to change or rewrite the Constitution and Bill of Rights? Does anyone else thinks this is kind of ironic?

Simply put.......I think its THE stupidest thing I have ever heard and would be the downfall of our country! No offense to the OP, But that sounds like an idea that the libtards would have!

None taken. After reading the Flag thread I fully expected most responses to beat me down. Most of you have much more experience with guns and life than I do. I'm still young and learning. Much of what I posted was spur of the moment thoughts I hadn't fully thought through. I still think a 27 word statement allowing any and every citizen to own weapons is a little vague though. This country was founded on an ideal of anti-oppression by the government, that all men were created equal. Yet the 13th amendment abolished slavery. And it took several Amendments to grant voting rights women and non-whites. Voting is the backbone of Democracy, yet those rights were not immediately granted to everyone. The need and existence of Amendments defining those basic citizen rights is all the proof I need to believe our forefathers did not (and could not) possess the forethought to address future issues.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

None taken. After reading the Flag thread I fully expected most responses to beat me down. Most of you have much more experience with guns and life than I do. I'm still young and learning. Much of what I posted was spur of the moment thoughts I hadn't fully thought through. I still think a 27 word statement allowing any and every citizen to own weapons is a little vague though. This country was founded on an ideal of anti-oppression by the government, that all men were created equal. Yet the 13th amendment abolished slavery. And it took several Amendments to grant voting rights women and non-whites. Voting is the backbone of Democracy, yet those rights were not immediately granted to everyone. The need and existence of Amendments defining those basic citizen rights is all the proof I need to believe our forefathers did not (and could not) possess the forethought to address future issues.

The 2A is the most direct, specific, and powerful statement in the entire Constitution, it reads that way for a REASON! There should be NO restrictions by the government on weapons possessed and carried by the citizenry. If we cannot be trusted with our own safety, if personal responsibility has gone by the wayside and we are some how "safer" by restricting weapons we are already doomed.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting what is for dinner, liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." -Benjamin Franklin

As to your last sentance- that is the thought process of young individuals taught and trained to be dependent on the System for their survival. No one has to tell me how to behave in this world, certainly not some smart guys who got fed up with oppresive government with no representation and started their own.

I only need TWO rules to live my life by and if everyone else would there would be no problems in this world: Love the Lord with all my heart and treat my neighbor as myself. Those are the greatest Commandments.

 

[Bunnykid68]

None taken. After reading the Flag thread I fully expected most responses to beat me down. Most of you have much more experience with guns and life than I do. I'm still young and learning. Much of what I posted was spur of the moment thoughts I hadn't fully thought through. I still think a 27 word statement allowing any and every citizen to own weapons is a little vague though. This country was founded on an ideal of anti-oppression by the government, that all men were created equal. Yet the 13th amendment abolished slavery. And it took several Amendments to grant voting rights women and non-whites. Voting is the backbone of Democracy, yet those rights were not immediately granted to everyone. The need and existence of Amendments defining those basic citizen rights is all the proof I need to believe our forefathers did not (and could not) possess the forethought to address future issues.

May be the backbone of a democracy, but a true democracy is the downfall of a republic.

 

[arthrimus]

None taken. After reading the Flag thread I fully expected most responses to beat me down. Most of you have much more experience with guns and life than I do. I'm still young and learning. Much of what I posted was spur of the moment thoughts I hadn't fully thought through. I still think a 27 word statement allowing any and every citizen to own weapons is a little vague though. This country was founded on an ideal of anti-oppression by the government, that all men were created equal. Yet the 13th amendment abolished slavery. And it took several Amendments to grant voting rights women and non-whites. Voting is the backbone of Democracy, yet those rights were not immediately granted to everyone. The need and existence of Amendments defining those basic citizen rights is all the proof I need to believe our forefathers did not (and could not) possess the forethought to address future issues.

True, it did take a long time to deliver those freedoms, but that has nothing to do with the forethought of our founding fathers. There was a very strong abolitionist movement even among the founders, and while most of them also owned slaves, they did recognize that it was wrong, and something that needed to be corrected. The problem was that they were trying to tie this ragtag nation of rebels together, and the cultural conditions would not have allowed things like abolition or suffrage at the time.

If they had made those pushes all at once then the formation of this nation would have failed before it began. The nation was not ready to right those wrongs yet, and our founding fathers were wise enough to build a document that encompassed the rights of all men when the time came that we would cast off our evils. The constitution was ready made to protect the rights of all men, that's the beauty of it, and that's what makes it so timeless.

The job of the constitution is not to establish rights for the citizens, it assumes that we have inherent God given rights, and it sets out to define what our government cannot do to us, not what it can do. The truth is that the government has no right, constitutionally, to do almost anything beyond defending us from our enemies and executing justice upon criminals. All other things are infringements and overreaches.

 

[sgtonory]

So the 2A says anyone can own a gun. But is that really a good thing? The country has changed a lot in the last 221 years. My reasoning for this post is b/c I see so many interpretations of the constitution and how it applies to modern day. We have things the founding fathers never could have dreamed of.

1) Should the mentally ill (or w/e your preferred term is) be allowed?
Yes I know this in an extremely broad label, be specific with your response if you want.

2) Should criminals be allowed?
Tax evasion and battery are two very different felonies.

3) What age should ownership be allowed?

4) Immigrents?

5) Depending on your opinion, how do we filter out people.

6) It should be a state level issue, but how do we make it nationally uniform.


I'm sure there are more, I can add them to this post as they get brought up.

You have a Don't tread on me as your avatar but you are asking questions that would affect other people. That would be treading on them. We all have unlimited rights as long as we don't infringe on another person rights. So my answer is its non of you business who has a gun or not just like it non of my business if you have one.

 

[Jeremiah]

the second amendment is unimportant. the 9th and 10th amendment say it clearly, the constitution does not ban citizens from owning guns, there fore it can't. So the import restrictions, the NFA acts, are all unconstitutional.

 

[minuteman32]

"All citizens of the United States of America shall not be restricted in the ownership, transport or use of any arms (firearms, knives or other weapons of any kind), for sport, individual or common defense. No restrictions shall be placed on the size, caliber, gauge, length, length of barrel or operating mode (manual, semi-automatic, fully automatic) or location said arms are carried, used, transported or stored.
Furthermore, no level of government, local, state or federal, nor any branch thereof, shall be permitted to possess or use any form of arm for any purpose, that is denied the individual citizen.
An violation of this amendment shall be prosecuted to the fullest as treason."

That should just about do it, I think. (-:

 

[IndyDave1776]

"All citizens of the United States of America shall not be restricted in the ownership, transport or use of any arms (firearms, knives or other weapons of any kind), for sport, individual or common defense. No restrictions shall be placed on the size, caliber, gauge, length, length of barrel or operating mode (manual, semi-automatic, fully automatic) or location said arms are carried, used, transported or stored.
Furthermore, no level of government, local, state or federal, nor any branch thereof, shall be permitted to possess or use any form of arm for any purpose, that is denied the individual citizen.
An violation of this amendment shall be prosecuted to the fullest as treason."

That should just about do it, I think. (-:

This is a truly terrible time to be out of rep!