A revised Second Amendment could read: "The right to bear arms for hunting, sport and recreation being a cherished and time-honored tradition, the exercise of this right by responsible persons for these purposes shall not be infringed" #NYTLetters href="https://t.co/2vkXwj0p1J">https://t.co/2vkXwj0p1J
— NYT Opinion (@nytopinion) March 28, 2018
On one hand, this could actually expand the types of guns private citizens could own, because this doesn’t actually provide a delineation. I want to hunt with an automatic M16. The verbiage gives me that ability. And, he, I might think that recreation is defending my home. Oh, and I would need the gun at home to make sure I keep it clean. But, of course:
Which would completely eliminate the original intent. Say it with me now, NYT: ‘the 2nd Amendment has never been about hunting.’ https://t.co/qczNv4UB5a
— NoOneOfConsequence (@StarDogCh4mpion) March 28, 2018
It was about self defense against all enemies foreign and domestic. It was about protecting yourself, your family, your friends, and your property against tyrannical and/or abusive government. Sure, you will most likely lose. That’s not the point. You are given the chance to defend yourself. And, perhaps your comrades come to your aid. Perhaps a free press, tasked with holding government accountable, would come to your aid.
And, who would decide “responsible”? That’s the part that kills this whole mess. Perhaps we could rewrite the 1st to no longer include freedom of the press unless they use quill pens and the same type of printing presses and delivery methods (foot and horses) available at the time the Bill of Rights was passed.
Oh, and I wonder if the NY Times has given up its own armed security.
Read more at The Pirate's Cove.
6 comments:
HahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaLOL.
Now do the 1st amendment.
This is the exact reason we have the 2a in the first place, for there will always be jackasses who believe a free state exists by mere accident.
NYT evidently doesn't consider or value the right to self-defense and the right to defend one's family and property with firearms.
The Declaration of Independence is the foundational authority for US Law. It states in part: "...But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. ..."
The focus of the Second was and remains recognizing the pre-existing right of The People to keep and bear arms in order to resist such Despotism and to exercise their duty to throw off such Government. All other uses of arms implied by the Second Amendment are secondary to this purpose.
With this in mind, it must go without saying that giving government the power to nullify this right for any persons who would use their arms to resist a tyrannous government is a roundabout way of destroying the proper relationship between the citizen and government.
--theBuckWheat
Now all we need is for five justices on the Supreme Court to ratify this rewrite as required by Article 22, Section я(37a) of the US Constitution, amiright New York Times?
Just kidding. You know you can try to rewrite (ie, abrogate) any amendment in the Constitution, it has been done. The problem here is you need the consent of two thirds of the states, many of whom loathe and despise everything the NY Times stands for.
But hey, maybe if you browbeat these people EVEN MORE, they'll stop thinking that you consider them subhuman and that you're trying to take away all their rights. Maybe they'll willingly submit to being a degraded caste of second class citizens. Worth a try
Step 1: No real sportsman needs a semi-auto with a 30 rd. mag.
Step 2: No real sportsman needs a bolt action with a scope.
Step 3: No real sportsman needs any more than a single shot rifle.
Step 4: Killing animals is evil, ban hunting and along with it, the need to own a gun.
Post a Comment