TaBoo's Second Amendment to the Constitution

Published on February 4, 2005 By TaBoo Tenente In Politics

What kind of arms do you bear? When you are not bearing your arms, where do you store them? In general, how often, would you say, do you bear your arms for the purpose intended by the Second Amendment to the Constituion of the United States of America?

There is a right, as provided by the Second Amendment, to bear arms. Debates continue in and out of courtrooms as to how such a right should be protected, limited, and monitored. While discussions tend to polarize our citizens along political lines, the reasons for the polarization have a habit of taking tea when rational debate attempts to get some work done.

"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." There it is. That is the Amendment. Often timid around this debate, I lurk in corners, eavesdropping from the shadows of pretending no opinion. I will then hear a bearer of arms declare that this clearly protects the right of an American citizen to own and self-equip. Then, invariably, a non-bearer will declare that the only right clearly protected by the Second Amendment is the right of the militia, be it official or civilian, to arm itself.

Thank you for the clarity, holy protectors of our inalienable rights.

Why should our founders have established such a vaguely constructed Amendment, and then rank it second only to the Freedom of Speech and Expression? Obviously a common spirit and understanding existed here, some purpose intended to guide our young nation away from the antiquated structures of European government.

We all know that purpose: the power must reside with the people, rather than the system. That was the idea. When the system no longer protects the inalienable rights of its citizens, then the citizens must end the system. Thus, the founders declared that a citizen must have the right to declare the failure of the government to provide for everyone (First Amendment); then they must have the capacity to defend a healthy government or tear down a broken government.

Hear, ye liberals and ye conservatives. We are still united in purpose and intent. No ACLU comrade yet will burn a star-spangled banner, and Mr. Heston continues to smile brightly over his brood of shining, arms-bearing masses.

The problem begins, however, when changes take place in our society. Technology has evolved beyond our founders' imaginings. Our military forces are relatively well-equipped and the resources for training soldiers are adequate. No citizen-based militia will defend the eastern sea-board for many, many years.

But, perhaps, we will need to protect ourselves from a failing government. If our duty is to ensure a healthy system, and then the system fails, we will be hard-pressed to overthrow a patriot-missile firing, stealth-bomber flying government without our bayonets.

Will we ever need to take up arms against our own government? History says that we will, though I doubt we will come to any such pass in the near future. What seems to be the more pressing issue, is the fact that many Americans would like to protect their homes, families, and own persons against the illegal activities of misfits in our own society.

Perhaps a handgun makes sense. What if more than one misfit attempts to destroy what you love? What if, instead of flashing a pistol in your direction, someone threatens you with a semi-automatic weapon? Perhaps you should saw off your shotgun, and stock an AK-47, just to be on the correct side of caution.

I personally believe that such weapons cause more damage than they prevent. I cannot imagine owning such a weapon if I had children, or if I had any doubts about the security of my home in preventing someone else from accessing my gun. But I know that technology will push on, and criminals will arm themselves with advanced weapons, and I do not want to curtail a right that, at its roots, at least, I agree with.

So. To the point. I will re-write the Amendment, and I imagine that any lingering debate will subsequently cease; and prosperity and joy will once again reign o'er the apparently purple mountains of a great, if slightly pompous, nation.

TaBoo's Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America: "As it is our duty, as citizens of a people's government, to ensure that the system will provide and protect each and every one of its children, citizens shall have the right to protect themselves by purchasing, registering, learning to responsibly use, and ensuring the security from unauthorized arms-bearers certain acceptable firearms.

"The list of acceptable firearms will change as technology changes. Regardless, a citizen must register and demonstrate competency on a regular basis for each firearm before it may be borne; and a legal storage facility for said firearm must exist in the citizen's place of residence.

"Moreover, a citizen who inappropriately sells, purchases, stores, or utilizes a firearm will lose this right indefinitely and be held accountable within the fullest power of the Law."

Copyright ©2004, ©2005, ©2006 Joshua Suchman. All rights reserved.
Taboo's Ezine Navigator: Article Index
Taboo Tenente: A Thinker's MFA Journey - Home
The Phallic Suggestion
Stone Soup Blog Forum

Comments

sandy2

on Feb 04, 2005

I haven't seen you before your list of ammendments, but I am impressed.

NJforever

on Feb 04, 2005

Very insightful, Taboo. I didn't really know you until the 1st amendment one either, but I looked at some of your other stuff since. You're a great writer, I look forward to more of your writings.

P.S. Your amendment is certainly less vague than the real one.

dabe

on Feb 04, 2005

I'm one of those "militia" types, that being that I think the Constitution states that a regulated militia should have the right to bear arms. I somehow doubt, even though the wording is indeed vague, that the founders would have ever intended, never mind predicted that citizens would insist on the right to bear assault weapons just because they are "arms". I can't imagine that anyone in there right mind would think that other than an armed militia, people should have the right to carry assault weapons on the streets. That is just absurd.

Having said that, I sure do support your more precisely defined Second Amendment.

drmiler

on Feb 04, 2005

TaBoo's Second Amendment to the Constitution

By: TaBoo Tenente
Posted: Friday, February 04, 2005 on TaBoo Tenente's Ezine
Message Board: Politics
What kind of arms do you bear? When you are not bearing your arms, where do you store them? In general, how often, would you say, do you bear your arms for the purpose intended by the Second Amendment to the Constituion of the United States of America?

There is a right, as provided by the Second Amendment, to bear arms. Debates continue in and out of courtrooms as to how such a right should be protected, limited, and monitored. While discussions tend to polarize our citizens along political lines, the reasons for the polarization have a habit of taking tea when rational debate attempts to get some work done.

"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." There it is. That is the Amendment. Often timid around this debate, I lurk in corners, eavesdropping from the shadows of pretending no opinion. I will then hear a bearer of arms declare that this clearly protects the right of an American citizen to own and self-equip. Then, invariably, a non-bearer will declare that the only right clearly protected by the Second Amendment is the right of the militia, be it official or civilian, to arm itself.

Thank you for the clarity, holy protectors of our inalienable rights.

Why should our founders have established such a vaguely constructed Amendment, and then rank it second only to the Freedom of Speech and Expression? Obviously a common spirit and understanding existed here, some purpose intended to guide our young nation away from the antiquated structures of European government.

We all know that purpose: the power must reside with the people, rather than the system. That was the idea. When the system no longer protects the inalienable rights of its citizens, then the citizens must end the system. Thus, the founders declared that a citizen must have the right to declare the failure of the government to provide for everyone (First Amendment); then they must have the capacity to defend a healthy government or tear down a broken government.

Hear, ye liberals and ye conservatives. We are still united in purpose and intent. No ACLU comrade yet will burn a star-spangled banner, and Mr. Heston continues to smile brightly over his brood of shining, arms-bearing masses.

The problem begins, however, when changes take place in our society. Technology has evolved beyond our founders' imaginings. Our military forces are relatively well-equipped and the resources for training soldiers are adequate. No citizen-based militia will defend the eastern sea-board for many, many years.

But, perhaps, we will need to protect ourselves from a failing government. If our duty is to ensure a healthy system, and then the system fails, we will be hard-pressed to overthrow a patriot-missile firing, stealth-bomber flying government without our bayonets.

Will we ever need to take up arms against our own government? History says that we will, though I doubt we will come to any such pass in the near future. What seems to be the more pressing issue, is the fact that many Americans would like to protect their homes, families, and own persons against the illegal activities of misfits in our own society.

Perhaps a handgun makes sense. What if more than one misfit attempts to destroy what you love? What if, instead of flashing a pistol in your direction, someone threatens you with a semi-automatic weapon? Perhaps you should saw off your shotgun, and stock an AK-47, just to be on the correct side of caution.

I personally believe that such weapons cause more damage than they prevent. I cannot imagine owning such a weapon if I had children, or if I had any doubts about the security of my home in preventing someone else from accessing my gun. But I know that technology will push on, and criminals will arm themselves with advanced weapons, and I do not want to curtail a right that, at its roots, at least, I agree with.

So. To the point. I will re-write the Amendment, and I imagine that any lingering debate will subsequently cease; and prosperity and joy will once again reign o'er the apparently purple mountains of a great, if slightly pompous, nation.

TaBoo's Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America: "As it is our duty, as citizens of a people's government, to ensure that the system will provide and protect each and every one of its children, citizens shall have the right to protect themselves by purchasing, registering, learning to responsibly use, and ensuring the security from unauthorized arms-bearers certain acceptable firearms.

"The list of acceptable firearms will change as technology changes. Regardless, a citizen must register and demonstrate competency on a regular basis for each firearm before it may be borne; and a legal storage facility for said firearm must exist in the citizen's place of residence.

"Moreover, a citizen who inappropriately sells, purchases, stores, or utilizes a firearm will lose this right indefinitely and be held accountable within the fullest power of the Law."

Link: http://tabootenente.joeuser.com

I'll go along with this with a two point exception. Registration and storage. Registration serves absolutely no purpose except to let big brother a little further into our private lives. Same with storage. I would also add a point. "If a firearm is stolen due to improper storage the owner is held legally responsible".

sandy2

on Feb 04, 2005

Doctor Miller.

Registration serves to determine the legal owner of a firearm (as well as to make sure that the purchaser is in fact allowed to purchse the weapon).

drmiler

on Feb 04, 2005

Reply #5 By: sandy2 - 2/4/2005 10:01:12 PM
Doctor Miller.

Registration serves to determine the legal owner of a firearm (as well as to make sure that the purchaser is in fact allowed to purchse the weapon).

I beg to differ. Registration has NO bearing on right to purchase. That's a background check not registration. As far as legal ownershiop? Another crock. Do you realize that when a dealer takes possesion of a firearm from a company he becomes the "legal"owner? So using your logic dealers would have to "register" every firearm they purchase *before* it goes on the shelf. Sorry I ain't buying it. BTW your post just gave creedence to my reply

Registration serves absolutely no purpose except to let big brother a little further into our private lives

Registration serves to determine the legal owner of a firearm

sandy2

on Feb 04, 2005

So then in a trial, how do you propose the court should determine the legal owner of a firearm?

drmiler

on Feb 04, 2005

Reply #7 By: sandy2 - 2/4/2005 10:40:22 PM
So then in a trial, how do you propose the court should determine the legal owner of a firearm?

Why should they have to? Use it wrongly and who cares who the firearm belongs to, you'll go to jail? Use it correctly and there will be no trial in the first place. The biggest problems gun owners face right now are education and responsibility

drmiler

on Feb 04, 2005

ply #3 By: dabe - 2/4/2005 8:14:52 PM
I'm one of those "militia" types, that being that I think the Constitution states that a regulated militia should have the right to bear arms. I somehow doubt, even though the wording is indeed vague, that the founders would have ever intended, never mind predicted that citizens would insist on the right to bear assault weapons just because they are "arms".

Just an FYI, your usage like most other people of the term "assualt weapon" is incorrect. A *true* assualt weapon is fully automatic firearm. Not a military firearm look alike.

sandy2

on Feb 04, 2005

Then how will you enforce the "

If a firearm is stolen due to improper storage the owner is held legally responsible

TaBoo Tenente

on Feb 04, 2005

dabe: i have a feeling that the founders would not support a ban on firearms. i am also sure they would be stupified by what some people use to protect a home these days. on the one hand, i tend to agree that certain firearms are simply a danger, and only have protective value as flashy overkill. of course, i probably would never own so much as a low cal. pistol myself (though i could think of a few circumstances where i wouldnt' mind having one around). basically, my feeling is that if you really can demonstrate that you are capable of owning any gun in a continually safe manner, then i dont want to spend too much time distinguishing between what's kosher and what's pork.

thanks sandy and nj. i appreciate the comments. i have been applying for some mfa-fiction programs lately, and i haven't had too much extra writing juice to be a productive joeuser.com participant. hopefully you'll see me around more often, now.

dr. miller and sandy: i have to admit i dont understand why registration is such a big deal. is it a hassle? i suppose i understand the concept of trying to prevent the gov from keeping additional tabs on us, but im not sure that this isnt one of those situations where it might be good.

it is also possible, since i have never registered for a gun, that i may not fully be aware of the process. i suppose i imagined that registration included some sort of link between the gun and the owner that could be tracked should the gun find itself, er, misplaced. i also would like to imagine that guns have some catalogued number before they go on the market, but that might just be my ignorance.

while i dont want the feds breaking down my door every night trying to mooch some supper from me, it seems that someone should have a way of figuring out where the guns are. think of all the tags they have on the computer you're using right now. if i ever brain someone with this thing, im going to be screwed in a court of law. it seems that calling gun registration a case of big brotherhood might be a slight exaggeration. but even so, couldn't such a process be organized jointly between an official and a lay panel?

well, maybe someone will enlighten me. explain what the problem with registration is, or why some updated version of registration might not be a bad idea.

TBT

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!