Wednesday January 18, 2017
Jump to content
Tom... I'm no lawyer, nor am I a munitions / firearms expert, but I did sleep in a Holiday Inn once, and the next morning at breakfast I actually met a lawyer and a firearms expert, so I know they exist! :)
Now, it seems perfectly plausible to me that, should such an amendments convention be called, the committee charged with the clarification and resolution of all Second Amendment conflicts would either be composed of delegates who are themselves lawyers and firearms experts, or barring that, they would certainly be advised by them, and between the bunch of them they should be able to come up with some pretty concise language that clearly defines the difference between the vast number of weapons that are suitable for civilian possession and those relatively few categories that are reserved strictly for military purposes.
And as always, thanks for your relevant comments.
@Charles Eby - Of course, no politician has ever said that that they want to take all our guns away! What sane politician would ever say such an insane thing, and then think that he/she/it would ever get re-elected?
Any one who has lived on this earth long enough to vote at least once and who still thinks that a politician -- make that ANY politician -- comes right out and says what he means, then it's voters like that who are the problem with this country!
As a follow-on to the flawed Wikipedia statistics offered by the Editor above, I've been advised of the following by a friend who apparently has been barred, without notification, from posting to this forum:
"Please ask the Editor if he has researched the number of U.S. shootings and gun deaths after taking the Democrat-run, Black and Hispanic gang-controlled, crime ridden ghettoes of Chicago, Baltimore, Newark, Detroit, Ferguson, St Louis, East LA, Watts, Omaha and Kansas City out of the picture? Maybe he's not aware, but the statistics for the rest of America was around 1%, last time I looked. Also, Kennesaw, Georgia, actually requires that every citizen be armed. Guess what? Their gun crime rate is ZERO! Oh, and he might also check out Switzerland!"
Excellent points, all… but even better, since the point the Editor was trying make is that more gun control equals less shooting deaths, and since those cities, like France, have imposed 100% gun control, I'd like to see him post THOSE gun death statistics.
I'll be waiting right here.
To Ted Paulk - The surviving witnesses of that attack, and the family members of the victims, are probably being called "paranoid" right now, too, by others who, like you, weren't there and are equally insensitive to their trauma.
To Mike DeVirgilio - The point here is not that Obama wants to take away our guns, although Ray Charles could see that he does. The real point is that the proper response from a true leader who was concerned for the safety and security of an entire nation, rather than a fringe group of activist partisans, would have been to focus on what generated the hate in the shooter instead of what tool he used to express that hate.
Face it... Obama doesn't care about anything but the partisan political position of his party. The concerns of We, the People, regardless of our political affiliation, are nowhere on his list.
OK... so France doesn't have a Second Amendment... its citizens do not have the right to own firearms. Well, there's a downside to that. I couldn't find this fact in Wikipedia, so it may not be "true," but in addition to the statistic that the Editor cited, France also has a government that does not fear its citizens, and therefore feels free to ignore the will of the majority, resulting in a country with no borders and no immigration control, a country without a national currency, and a government that defers entirely to unelected bureaucrats of the European Union.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply, Don, and special thanks to the Roundup for printing this letter... I know it ran a bit longer than the stipulated word-count!
I'm not a lawyer, nor am I a "constitutional scholar" like our president, but I would submit that the very limited revisions that you proposed above would suffice, as far as "clarification" of 2A is concerned. Differences over those definitions seem to be at the bottom of every gun-control conflict in recent memory... what is a "militia", and what constitutes "well-regulated."
If an Article V convention were called and limited ONLY to issues that would reduce the size, scope and jurisdiction of the federal government, I have no doubt, and certainly no fear, that those delegates in attendance -- good, strong, constitutionally conservative representatives of We, The People -- would make short shrift of removing the ambiguity from the beautiful but unfortunately vague language of the Framers and affixing once and for all an "Originalist" stamp on one of our most treasured rights.
As for your relevant and noteworthy concerns about the precautions surrounding the Convention itself, or the lack thereof, I do have more than a passing familiarity with the process and would be more than happy to engage with you on any and all specific issues that you might have, particularly the integrity of the delegates.
It should come as no surprise to anyone by now that every Liberal politician’s knee-jerk reaction to any shooting is to call for more stringent gun control laws, whether it’s a mass terrorism attack or a Saturday night drive-by, as if jihadists and gangsters will obey a new law. The only way to stop this incessant attack on our right to bear arms is to clarify the language of the Second Amendment, such that it clearly articulates once and for all the unalienable right of every citizen in good standing to keep and bear arms, and enunciates as affirmatively as possible that this right shall not be infringed by any agency of government in any manner whatsoever.
It’s also a given that today’s dysfunctional Congress will never propose such an amendment, and even if it did, the new language would surely contain at least one loophole that gun-grabbing fanatics and their activist accomplices in a politicized judiciary would immediately latch onto.
The only way to ensure that the clarifying language would indeed be precise, definitive and unambiguous is to remove the process from a bitterly divided federal government and allow specially elected representatives of the people in the states to address the task. Exactly such a process is provided for in Article V of the Constitution, and exactly for such a reason – for the day when Congress either fails or refuses to properly address the needs of the people in the states.
There can be no question that such a time has come. With the federal government all but refusing to enforce even the most cursory of our immigration laws, there has been no time since the Revolution when the nation has been more in need of an armed and ready populace, capable of defending themselves and their property, those around them, and even the government itself, should that be necessary.
All across the country in the next legislative session, identical bills will be introduced in at least 30 state houses demanding that Congress call for a Convention of the States to Propose Amendments to the Constitution, pursuant to Article V of the Constitution, legislation that has already been passed by eight states as of this writing. We should all encourage our state senators and representatives to learn about Article V, and to understand the reasons why the Framers of the Constitution insisted that they include an amendment process for the states that would be independent of Congress.
Learn more at The Convention of States Project
Hey Tom... I've looked everywhere and I cannot find any option to be notified by eMail if and when posts are made to this blog, which is a pretty standard feature these days. Am I missing something, or are we really that far behind the times?
An article by Richard Rahn in yesterday’s Washington Times informs us that federal over-regulation is killing the economy… as if anyone who owns or works for a small business didn’t know that already. In typical fashion, most of the comments following the article take turns taking shots at and defending corporations which must operate under these regulatory burdens.
The point should not be whether corporations will act more or less responsibly with or without government regulation... the point should be the Constitution. The last time I read Article I, Section 8, it specified that "Congress shall have the power to... make all laws which shall be necessary and proper..."
Once again, that’s Congress… not a quarter-million nameless, faceless, unelected bureaucrats grinding out tens of thousands of rules and regulations every year, each with the force of law. Of all the things our elected officials involve themselves in these days, writing the law is one of only a very few enumerated powers that they now seem to want to avoid, abdicating that responsibility by illegally assigning their duties to unaccountable agencies of the Executive Branch, in flagrant violation of the intent of the Founders.
The remedy for this breach of obligation will not be found in Congress, nor in the myriad regulatory agencies, but in the states. Another mostly ignored passage of the Constitution, Article V, assigns to the states the power to propose an amendment to the constitution, any such proposal then needing the ratification of 3/4 of the states, and all done independently, without interference from Congress. One such proposal might be an amendment to limit the use of Executive Orders and Federal Regulations that make or enact rules, policies and procedures with the force of law, since the Constitution states clearly that Congress is supposed to be the exclusive agency to enact all laws.
This has never been done in our nation’s history, but neither have we reached this level of sheer disregard for the Supreme Law of the Land. If there ever was a time when national leadership at the state level was needed, that time has come… the time is now. Thousands of state legislators across the country are joining together to address this and several other issues critical to the survival of the Republic by drafting legislation in support of a Convention of States pursuant to Article V to Propose Amendments to the Constitution. Finally… a solution as big as the problem.
Last login: Wednesday, January 11, 2017