Bio not provided
Here is a thought I will probably be crucified for but I'm going to throw it out anyway. I would entertain the idea of amending the 2nd amendment. The way it is currently worded is without any scope or parameters period. The right to own and bear arms shall not be infringed. The way it is worded any type of limitation in my view would be an infringement. The policies put in place during the 1930s were an infringement as well as any act since then regarding background checks, magazine capacity, assault limitations etc... would be and could be considered an infringement.
Despite this it hasn't stopped the Federal Government from passing legislation that actually does infringe on the rights. In the 1930's a line was arbitrarily drawn in the sand in regard to fully automatic weapons. Unless I am mistaken there is nothing to prevent that line from being redrawn to limit semi-automatics, and after the next exploited massacre maybe they can limit shotguns, or hand guns.The point I am making is that by not having any type of defined parameters, has not prevented the government from infringing on the rights. Realistically without the defined parameters the term "arms" could mean anything from a water pistol to RPG's and grenades. I do not want to see any liberties trampled and legitimate firearms of any type should not be limited. I just wonder if having a defined scope may actually prevent, or help to prevent any further encroachments on our rights.
2 years ago on 2nd Amendment Preservation Act Introduced in Oklahoma – Tenth Amendment Center Blog
@Timequake45 @Eric Robison I agree with the sentiment, I also agree that when the Federal government acts beyond their scope that the Supremacy Clause is no long valid. The problem occurs in getting the Federal government to agree that they have violated the Constitution. How far will the states be willing to go to enforce their laws, if the Feds decide to attempt to nullify them?
2 years ago on Missouri Bill Proposes Jail Time for Feds Violating the 2nd Amendment
I was hoping for some sort of response. I would like nothing more than be be able to validate the efforts of these states. Unfortunately to me it appears that by so doing would remove one more brick in the wall of the Constitution.
2 years ago on Oklahoma Senate Bill Aims to Nullify Obamacare – Tenth Amendment Center Blog
I would like the views of those at the Tenth Amendment center in regards to nullification. I have posted an article in relation to the concept of Nullification. I'm not trying to free advertise (at least not in this instance) I am concerned though because the Constitution specifically prohibits these laws. Article 6 Clause 2. Seems to me that nullification if allowed would take the powers given to the Supreme Court and would give them to the States.Please do not get me wrong, I think Obamacare, and oppose any legislation imposing infringements to the right to bear arms are also in violation. I just wonder if we support the constitution, should we not support it all the way?http://speakpolitical.com/sp/?p=317
I understand the concern with blatantly having congress make the necessary appropriations to putting armed officers in the schools. However I also see GOA making just as ridiculous or worse comments about armed elementary teachers and blaming the gun free zone for the shooting. Few teachers are going to willingly take up arms. This is a problem I fear without a solution. Whenever someone has the mind to cause mayhem and destruction without regard for their own life, they are going to be able to do it. Taking arms will not prevent it. Armed guards may help, so at least the NRA's idea does make some sense.
2 years, 1 month ago on NRA says to hell with the Constitution