A Law Professor Rewrites the Second Amendment

[FRANKIE]

A Law Professor Rewrites the Second Amendment...And Eliminates All Those Pesky Guns - The Truth About Guns

The Second Amendment’s idiosyncratic and anachronistic focus on militias and “arms” degrades the concept of self-defense. The right to safeguard one’s life should not be conflated with or reduced to the right to use a weapon, especially a weapon that is so much more likely to inflict injury and...

www.thetruthaboutguns.com

 

[SomeSoldier]

 

[dsdmmat]

Bodily autonomy would eliminate jab mandates

 

[SomeSoldier]

Bodily autonomy would eliminate jab mandates

No it wouldn't. It would be used for abortions. The mandates would fall under protecting everyone from everyone else.

 

[Phazer]

Fine!

Let the Left get behind a Convention of States and they can propose all of the constitutional amendments that they wish. They can even propose an amendment to repeal the second amendment. None of their crackpot ideas would make it out of the convention, let alone get ratified by the states. But...a lot of good could still come from popular amendments (term limits, balanced budget, states' ability to overturn SCOTUS ruling or federal statute with a supermajority of state legislatures, etc).

 

[Xae289]

Hahahahaha! So the Second Amendment protects your individual right to self defense by guaranteeing the ability to keep and carry means of self-protection for the stated purpose of protecting our collective freedom.

She doesn't like that. So she rewrites it so that there is a vague reference to self-defense with no legal guarantee to effective means of securing such. All the while implanting a constitutional right to abortion and a Trojan Horse that would give the government the ability to justify countless abuses of an individual's rights in the name of "health and safety".

 

[TEOTWAWKI inc.]

SMH!

I'm rewriting the Declaration of Independence

 

[ProgSpear]

Dumbass never stumbled across Heller…. So much for her credentials as a “law professor”.

 

[GOYABEAN]

Another

 

[Phazer]

SMH!

I'm rewriting the Declaration of Independence

I disagree.

I think that it's time to simply read the founding document and apply it literally:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.​

 

[TEOTWAWKI inc.]

I disagree.

I think that it's time to simply read the founding document and apply it literally:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.​

You can't really disagree with that. I AM rewriting it. It is a fact.

 

[meketrefe]

We, The Sheep of the United States, yada yada yada

 

[livingston]

The 2nd has 27 words and the left cannot understand it.... as it was written.. Now this woman comes along and writes a book.

"As legal texts go, neither of the two amendments is a model of clarity or precision "... 27 words ... one cannot get any clearer..

 

[96coal449]

I think this is pretty cool.
I actually applaud this.















That they openly in public, put themselves on a list of names, of traitors to the republic.

 

[That_FNG]

I can do a better job of rewriting the 2nd, here let me have a go:

“Every human being shall be required to own at least one full auto firearm, one short barrel rifle, one short barrel shotgun, one suppressor, one AOW, one pistol and one destructive device at a minimum, and also be allowed to purchase the same weapons as which the government purchases for the military but at a discounted price.”

there we go.

 

[GOPerfect]

If done correctly and properly, all of the Amendments can be altered. Go ahead, do it correctly and I will supoort the changes.

 

[Jmac00]

so basically, she is saying that the government will protect me?

Im sorry, Im laughing to hard to continue.... fucking idiots

 

[GOPerfect]

 

[Phazer]

 

[Cooolone]

It's astounding that the ONLY amendment written in the Bill of Rights that contain explicit instruction is continually difficult for some to understand or comprehend!!! It's called cognitive dissonance!!! Denial... Or convenient interpretation!

"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

That is all... Nuff said! What's so hard to understand!

 

[Acer-m14]

the new 2A .. everyone must own 10 guns or more of any type or configuration with no personal information needed.
gun sales can be posted or sold anywhere and can not be censored .. the end .

remember these ads

 

[BerettaGuy]

How about this:

Because it is reasonable to expect that the Government needs to keep standing armed forces to do violence against enemies of our Free State. And because the Government is licensed to do armed violence in certain cases to enforce the law and protect the sovereign rights of the people, the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed so said "license" to do violence can be revoked if necessary.

OH Yeah and right after that.

There shall be no quartering of personnel of the armed forces of the Government by citizens.
This is why the founders made the Second and Third Amendments, the Second and Third Amendments.
They lived it and they never want it repeated. EVER!

 

[spat]

What the bill of rights needs is teeth.

How about an ammendment that says any government official voting for or assisting in the enforcement of the violation of constitutional rights is presenting an immediate danger of grevious bodily harm to every American citizen.

It should include a clause that such a danger justifies the use of deadly force to end the danger.

The effect of such an ammendment would shift the method of removing infringing laws from civil to criminal court. i.e. Any citizen can eliminate the threat and use the fact that they were infringing rights as a defense.

In order to convict the citizen, the government would have to prove that the law or action was *not* an infringement of a constitutionally protected right.

 

[96coal449]

What the bill of rights needs is teeth

It does. The first 3 words of the document.