Fox News Poll - Amend the Second Amendment?

[Morris]

Done 95.66%

 

[khickey3492]

I also voted no, but I too think it is a misguided idea to make an amendment to "clarify" the 2nd Amendment. The 2A is perfectly clear if you understand the mindset of the founding fathers. After a long, costly revolution, against a government that for less than a hundred years had been a constitutional monarchy (monarchy prior to 1688), they understood too well how quickly benevolent government can turn into anything but.

The willingness of the royal government to attempt to subsidize their misguided wars and "global adventuring" on the backs of their fellow citizens in the colonies, demonstrates that any government can be reduced to tyrrany in a very short time.

Ours is no exception, and the Founders knew this.

 

[femurphy77]

95.66%

 

[daddymikey1975]

95.73%

I also suppose we could include the 'not sure' votes because I believe it's not something to fiddle with.. between the 2 options (other than yes) I chose emphatic NO.

 

[threedhuntr]

95.79 NO when I chimed in.

 

[cmstuard]

Done...95.84

 

[CSK22]

Voted no... 95.85%

 

[9mmfan]

NO NO NO and NO. 96%!

 

[Bennettjh]

Done.

 

[jgreiner]

95.88%. No

 

[Booshie]

I voted, still at 96% No.

 

[calcot7]

Our .gov views our Constitution like newbees view the INGO FAQs.
They ignore them, then act surprised when they find out they exist, then look for ways around the answers they get from them.

Oh, I think it's a little more viscious than that.

 

[Cottong2001]

Voted. 96

 

[firecadet613]

No, 95.91%

 

[The Stig]

No. 96.02%

 

[Bill of Rights]

I agree, but you open up a Constitutional Convention for amending the 2nd it opens up all of the Constitution. We might just lose a lot more than the 2nd Amendment.

"Shall not be infringed" does not need clarification or solidifying!

We don't need a Constitutional Convention. The 18th Amendment enacted Prohibition. The 21st, ratified 14 years later, repealed it.

If they think they can garner the supermajorities necessary, let them try to repeal the 2A. I do not believe such majorities exist, and even if they did, according to (IIRC) the Cruikshank decision, the right would still exist, as it does not depend on the piece of paper under glass in Washington to do so.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[thoroughbred]

No! 96.02!

 

[HenryWallace]

I agree, but you open up a Constitutional Convention for amending the 2nd it opens up all of the Constitution. We might just lose a lot more than the 2nd Amendment.

"Shall not be infringed" does not need clarification or solidifying!

Under the guise of making it read louder or clearer it could have opened up the entire constitution to a very possible rewrite, and we all know where that could have went.

The terminology used by the founding fathers still reads as exactly what it was intended to.

 

[Turf Doctor]

NO, 96.06%

 

[jd42k]

Did my part.
95.93% say NO!