• Mossberg Owners is in the process of upgrading the software. Please bear with us while we transition to the new look and new upgraded software.

Question Of The Month. April 2014

ripjack13

Resident Sawdust Maker
Staff member
Administrator
Supporter
"Philanthropist"
Howdy,
This is a monthly series of questions topic for everyone to join in on the discussion. Some of the later questions may have a poll, and some will not. Don't be shy now, go ahead and post an answer and vote in the polls....

With all the Anti's claiming the Constitution is outdated, my QOTM to you is...


Is it Time for a New and Improved Second Amendment?

Is it feasible to do so?
How would you word it?
What would the ramifications?

Lots of Questions here...let the debate begin.

**Rules**
There is no minimum post requirement. :D

ps...sorry this one is late. :(
 
Maybe an updated version that reflects the more modern times perhaps? But, certainly once you open this can of worms...can you close it again? Could you be sure it would be re-written in the flavor you were hoping for? Might be worse off than before.

I say, let it stand. It's meaning is as relevant today as it was when it was written.

Times change...but tyrants are always tyrants.
 
No. The founding fathers put it that way for a reason.

If you start opening up the bill of rights to major revisions, then you are guaranteeing that they will all go away and be radically changed. The ramifications would be disastrous.

there just has to be an understanding that they are not meant to be read literally. Technology changes. Times change. So interpretation must stay in line with the foundation of the amendment, while taking into account modernity.
 
Some of the greatest men in history helped write that document! Revisions that will help not hinder could be made maybe limit it to text?
 
I would not change anything. It's just fine the way it is.

It is time to change some of the politics and ways people act and think.

Like many others, I took an oath once, to support and defend the constitution. I've studied it in school and university. It's just as good as when it was written.
 
Opening up the Constitution to the possibility of change would only end badly.

Once it's open, it won't only be to those who seek to change it for the better. The Second Amendment won't be the only one they go after either. Some things are best left alone and our Constitution is at the very top of that list...
 
If changed to this and the Anti's had no say...

"In order to provide for the common defense from tyranny and afford the individuals ability to defend themselve, family and property; the right to own and bear arms of any type or configuration shall not be regulated, legislated against or in any other way infringed upon."
 
Great posts fellas! Keep em coming!
 
I believe, Rip, that you are referring to a Constitutional Convention, one that allows the Constitution to be rewritten by people who have limited agendas and tunnel vision. The Founding Fathers, having just come out of a turbulent time in our history, took years to hammer our the document that outlines how our government is supposed to work. Even then, they needed to come up with the Bill of Rights that gave us the Amendments that we hold most dear. Those men were visionaries that somehow saw and planned for the exact things we are seeing today.

Look at our so-called leaders today. There is not one among them that holds a candle to those back in the 1770's. I wouldn't let them rewrite a Dr Suess book let alone our Constitution. A Constitutional Convention is something that the likes of Feinstein, Pelosi, Obama and others salivate over...a way to rid the roadblocks that are meant to keep them from doing the very things they are trying to do today.

So, my answer is a resounding "NO!" to you question. It is written the way it is for a reason. It is our history and it does not need to be changed. Our definition of "new and improved" is the exact opposite of the left's version, in which there are zero protections for bearing arms and, therefore, zero protections from a government hellbent on turning us all into so many cattle, herding us to and fro.
 
It's not the US constitution that needs any changes, it's the people that use/abuse it strictly for selfserving or misinformation. They are the real threat......

Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk
 
NO!!!!

I keep hearing from this group and that group that the constitution needs to be revamped or dismissed because "times have changed", "it's no longer relevant", etc. Nothing should raise a bigger red flag than someone saying that the one and only document that actually grants us rights and protects us from our government is irrelevant. Given the social and political climates right now and in the foreseeable future, I cannot envision any changes that would be ratified that would actually be for the betterment of the people, esp when it comes to the 2A.
 
i say dont touch it. its clearly an plainly worded. you let someone go to tampering with it then it gets out of control... if it aint broke then dont fix it."

or in the words of Dimeon Dave "dont go ninjyin on somethin that dont need ninjyin on.
 
I am not for opening the Bill Of Rights to 2014 interpretation or modification for the reasons already stated by others. I will however make the assumption that I have been charged with rewriting it at a Constitutional Convention that was called by the states.

As written:
“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.”

My proposal:
“The individual has a right to defend themselves with arms against crime and tyranny at home or in public. A well armed individual, being necessary for their own security and that of the free state, the right to keep and bear all arms shall not be infringed. No taxation or fee's are permitted against those exercising their right to arms.”

I debated over very short and sweet or more lengthy and try and lock it down. I obviously went the more lengthy route. I did remove a line about punishments up to hanging for anyone that infringed on the right.
I know it will be hard but try and think like an irrational liberal nut job and pick it apart…I have thick skin.
 
In MY OPINION, we do not need to amend the 2nd. Its fine the way it is.

BUT, if enough people feel strongly to the contrary i would rather that we follow the constitutional process than simply ignore or circumvent the law, as we have done since 1968 (arguably 1934). I understand that if we ever had an honest and open debate as our FFs intended for us as "times change" that we might have even more restricted gun laws, but when just ignore the Constitution we weaken our country and surrender our liberty in a far more dangerous manner. This business of ignoring the Constitution has GOT to stop. Without it we are nothing but serfs to the bank owners.
 
Back
Top