Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Right. But in some cases, all they need to be here for is one day, and in the well-publicized case last year, a woman in the very end stage of labor (how she did this is an amazing physical feat) climbed a 9 foot fence and dropped down on the other side and delivered her baby within minutes. Had she not had that motivation to scale the barrier while in the pushing stage of labor, she wouldn't have done it.
Similar to my neighborhood. We have a deer problem - they eat the landscapes. You can choose to fence the deer out, but it's much easier just not to plant stuff the deer want to eat. Same thing here. Don't entice illegal immigration by guaranteeing their children citizenship, which is the main purpose they're coming here for anyway. Don't make the carrot so very attractive that they're willing to risk life and limb to get it.
Secondly, (and this would work too) have serious criminal charges for those who hire them. Again, dry up the motivation for them to enter here illegally.
For those who aren't willing to do those two things, stop complaining about the influx of illegal immigrants. Don't complain that the deer have cleaned out your garden if you keep insisting on planting roses.
It still does mean that. 2A was written to protect our right to have a militia in good working order.
It was not meant to have individuals armed to the teeth against their fellow individual citizens in the street.
Our right to defend ourselves doesn't come from the government. It's inherent and inalienable. We can ALL be armed to to teeth as long as we respect the fact that one person's rights end where another person's rights begin. It's the American way. Those who can't abide by that need to be removed from society. It's that simple.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 5 days ago)
35,620 posts, read 17,953,728 times
Reputation: 50641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artisan10
Our right to defend ourselves doesn't come from the government. It's inherent and inalienable. We can ALL be armed to to teeth as long as we respect the fact that one person's rights end where another person's rights begin. It's the American way. Those who can't abide by that need to be removed from society. It's that simple.
Well, what if you felt you needed a cannon and landmines in your suburban lawn to defend yourself? Still think that's reasonable? No need for public policy regulating what kind of "arms" an individual feels they require to feel safe?
Let us take a look at why some change is needed in both amendments.
Starting with the first, we do not have freedom of speech, even thought the 1st gives that right.
"Hate speech", we have all heard that term.
If we are to believe, and go by what is stated in the 1st, then hate speech should be allowed.
To ban it is against freedom of speech which is guaranteed in the 1st.
Why is it only some words are considered against free speech.
I can't call a black person a ******, that would be hate speech, yet I can call a gay person ******, *****, homo, and that is accepted.
It has been this way for years and years.
The 1st does not need to be changed as it relates to free speech, it just needs to be adhered to by all.
If we truly have free speech, then nothing is off the table.
We either have free speech, or we don't, there is no in-between.
As for the 2nd amendment, I believe it needs to re-written to make clear it intention.
Above any other amendment, the 2nd has had more arguments as to it's content, than any other amendment.
It has made it's way through the court system for clarification , more than once.
A more simple , easy to understand writing would be, "In the pursuit of a free and secure nation, the right of the citizens to own firearms shall not be infringed."
One other thing I feel needs to be changed is the heading of the preamble.
It states, "We the people".
It should not say that because that encompasses every person in this country, be they illegal, or otherwise.
It should be changed to, "We the citizens".
PS. After submitting this post, obviously some of my "free speech" was edited out in this post. You see, we are not truly free when it comes to speech, or the written word.
" If the constitution was perfect, those bureaucracies, along with federal government programs would not have been created"
And it was NOT CONSERVATIVES who created them.
" For starters, the Supreme Court didn't see"
What was the make up of those courts? What I mean is which president nominated those that voted in favor and who controlled the Senate that passed those nominations.
Blanket statements do NOTHING.
One must look into the DETAILS.
Keep in mind, by the end of FDR's term EVERY SINGLE Supreme Court Judge was nominated by HIM and voted in by a DEM controlled Senates.
So you hit upon a major reason why it was decided to limit presidents to two terms.
As for the 2nd amendment, I believe it needs to re-written to make clear it intention.
Above any other amendment, the 2nd has had more arguments as to it's content, than any other amendment.
It has made it's way through the court system for clarification , more than once.
A more simple , easy to understand writing would be, "In the pursuit of a free and secure nation, the right of the citizens to own firearms shall not be infringed."
"In the pursuit of a free and secure nation, the right of the citizens to own firearms shall not be infringed."
So It doesn't make clear what circumstances should infringement start, though it can go without saying it starts when you are arrested and thrown in jail. You automatically lose your right to possess a gun. But when should an evil minded or mentally disturbed person who threatens to shoot people he's mad at lose his rights to a gun? Not until he shoots a person for no just cause?
You think we need to "amend the Constitution" to CLARIFY the meaning of the words SHALL, NO, ABRIDGING, PROHIBITING, FREEDOM
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
How should we "amend these 45 words for "clarification"?
Religious Freedom doesn't mean that Religion runs Society - it just means that People have an ABSOLUTE RIGHT and FREEDOM to worship (or not) as they please. Those who worship and those who don't choose to worship have exactly the same Rights and Freedoms - including voting for their chosen representatives and to "petition the Government".
How do you think we should CLAiRIFY these words? Necessary, Security, Free, RIGHT, SHALL NOT, infringed. It's a total of 27 Words
Amendment II
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.
Notice it doesn't mention Cannons at all, it doesn't mention any type of "arms" or any restrictions on the Right to Bear (that means own/carry). It does mean that we have this Amendment because it is NECESSARY to a FREE STATE. Infringed means to VIOLATE as in "Shall not be violated"
Anyone at all who wants that removed is not interested in a FREE STATE ..... PERIOD
I think we have a couple of choices here -
1). Go with what we have and what has given us Freedoms that no other Nation has. It's stood the Test of Time due to it's simplicity and common sense.
2). Tear it all up and Re-Group.
The Constitution itself contains the mechanism to alter it, via amendments. Probably the best thing the Founders did, recognizing that the document they wrote in 1787 was not perfect and might not be appropriate in future years. It's not necessary to "tear it all up"; it can be modified.
I really don't have a problem with the BofR as currently written, concerning freedom of religion and speech. I do think the 2nd A should be modified to say that the right to bear arms shall be limited to sporting arms and to those weapons reasonably required in self-defense. That way nuclear bombs, cannons, hand grenades, automatic rifles and guns with large magazines could be regulated or banned.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
