NY Times Offers “Revised” 2nd Amendment

Hot take

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

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.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

6 Responses to “NY Times Offers “Revised” 2nd Amendment”

  1. Bill589 says:

    Judge Napolitano – ‘The second amendment is about shooting tyrants.’

  2. Hoss says:

    Democrats suffer from institutionalized subjugation, so they’re perfectly willing at any time to revert to being subjects under a ruler. Freedom is more than they can deal with; and an armed citizenry are citizens, and not subjects. Sallust said “Only a few (men) prefer liberty, the majority seek nothing more than fair masters.” Pretty much sums up the modern leftists.

  3. If I had to rewrite it, I would use these words:

    Self preservation being the most important of human rights, Congress shall make no laws restricting the practice of it nor access to the means nor shall the states or any jurisdiction therein.

    But that would change the flavor of the 2nd amendment we have today. The existing amendment exists to preserve the state, through private ownership of firearms. I would expand its purpose to include the preservation of God given or natural rights.

  4. MSG Grumpy says:

    Someone else said this, but I believe this gives the essence of what the Second Amendment truly is and why the Founding Fathers enshrined a God given right and included the phrase “Shall NOT be infringed”.
    The essence of the Second Amendment is:
    “The people have the right to defend themselves from bad people and bad governments”

    Notice that it does NOT include anything about bad deer, bears or even squirrels (orange rats).
    No where in the Second Amendment is the idea of hunting addressed.
    Hunting is not even hinted at in any part of the Constitution, but the people’s rights of self defense are addressed in plain language for all to see. Yet how often does hunting become the issue with those who hate the right of self defense. Yet those who hate liberty and love the idea of the Government for the governing of the people, Government for government, and most especially Government by the government.

    Scratch a liberal or a demoncrat and underneath you will find someone who wishes to trade liberty and a limited government for an all powerful government headed by either the elitist who should rule over the masses or a Monarchy filled with the political Royalty (Hillary Clinton, Obama, Bushes, Kennedy’s…etc).

    Here is a quote from a very good article on the Second Amendment by Diogenes Middle Finger:
    ” Okay, let’s make it so simple that even a liberal can understand: “A well schooled electorate being necessary to the education of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed”.

    Notice that by simply changing the object of the right described, even demoncrats must realize since learning is the right, the book simply the instrument used to further that right for the good of not only society but most of all for the person and it is seen clearly that this sentence describes an INDIVIDUAL right, NOT an “electorate” right. The same holds true on the original wording, the militia is what is aided by the exercise of this individual right, but it is the individual’s right of self defense that is protected and is the predicate of this Amendment.

    MSG Grumpy

  5. formwiz says:

    Nothing about self-protection, which was what the real impetus was.

    We’re supposed to trust Scott Israel and his crack deputies.

  6. HistoryBuff says:

    New first amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech unless they talk about limiting rights in this document, or of the press unless it is The New York Times; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble unless they are antifa, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances as long as they are not left wing snowflakes.
    No? I am not surprised.

Bad Behavior has blocked 5552 access attempts in the last 7 days.