No Bull, No Fluff, No Smudges
Your news source for
Flagler, Florida and Beyond

Amend the Second Amendment

| December 26, 2012

It’s not, as in this case, always a toy gun. (Chris De Bruyn)

By Angel Castillo Jr.

Let’s face it. If we want to transform American society for generations to come, tinkering with our existing patchwork quilt of federal, state, and municipal laws dealing with firearms is a pathetic waste of time.

Another federal ban on “assault weapons” will not be effective. More “conversations” and “dialogues” and commissions of experts are not going to remedy our society’s deeply rooted gun sickness.

The only transformational vehicle available for the American people “to come together and take meaningful action,” as President Obama suggested after the Newtown massacre, is to change the Constitution.

Only law enforcement agents and members of the armed forces should be allowed to have and use firearms of any kind.

It does not matter what the Second Amendment says, since its adoption in 1791, about a “well regulated militia”.

The United States Supreme Court settled that debate in 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, by a vote of 5-4. The Court concluded that the Second Amendment, as it reads today, protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia.

What does matter is that the Framers of the Constitution acknowledged that succeeding generations might prefer to order American society in new and different ways. That is why they included an amendment procedure in Article V.

florida voices columnists flaglerlive

Between 1795 and 1992 the American people have amended their Constitution 17 times. Often the amendments involved issues that deeply divided Americans, such as is the case today with government regulation of firearms.

One of the two amendment methods the Framers included in the Constitution, the holding of a constitutional convention, has never been used.

The other method – depicted in the current movie “Lincoln” – requires a joint resolution to pass in both the House and the Senate by a two-thirds majority in each. The President cannot veto it. Once the resolution has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. Ratification by three-fourth of the states – 38 out of 50 today – is required for adoption.

The next amendment – the 28th – should read as follows:

Section 1. The second amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.


Section 2. Only law enforcement agents and members of the armed forces may have and use firearms anywhere in the United States.

Section 3. Firearms manufactured in or outside the United States may be sold or distributed in the United States only to law enforcement agencies or the armed forces.

Section 4. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 5. This amendment shall become effective when it is approved by the state legislatures of three-fourths of the states of the United States.

Until the American people get the courage and the resolution to attack the gun crisis at the root, I leave you with this multi-purpose, multi-state message, to be used as often as needed in the future:

“All of our thoughts and prayers go to the families and friends of those who were killed in this senseless act of violence.”

Angel Castillo, Jr., a former reporter and editor for the New York Times and The Miami Herald, practices employment law in Miami. Reach him by email here.

Print Friendly

63 Responses for “Amend the Second Amendment”

  1. Donna says:

    Have you fallen and bumped your head? This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. It does not matter if there is a”Law Enforcement” only law, that will solve NOTHING! It will also only add to the crime and people who have guns illegally, thus provoking more instances of people getting killed with your “gun control” laws. Perhaps, we should ban those vehicles with either 2, 4, or 6 wheels parked in our driveways, those deadly weapons kill more people on a daily basis, than guns do over years and years. What about baseball bats? They should be banned as well, they kill more people, but why isn’t that reported? Posting a picture like this only tells me that you and your bosses are off your cotton picking rockers, talk about insane! Oh MY! That is a sick photo!

  2. Flagler County Residet says:

    Are you for confiscating all guns and other arms from private citizens? Do you think that doing this will get the illegal weapons off the streets? Did prohibition stop people from getting alcohol, or did it just open up a new means of illegal activity for gangs?
    I am not in favor of your proposal; however, I would be in favor of stopping the sales of automatic weapons like assault rifles, body armor piercing bullets and like. Never should laws be made to take away registered legally obtained weapons though.
    You are, in my opinion, living in a fantasy world if you believe that repealing the Second Amendment will make us safer. Look at England where they have gun bans, their violent crime rate is approximately 5 times ours. Guns are also a means to protect AGAINST being victimized

    BTW, the picture looks like it isn’t here in the US, the background appears Asian. Can you tell us the location where the picture was taken?

  3. "My Daily Rant" says:

    I dont know what country you come from but here in the United States Our constitution is the basis of our Laws.I know you Liberals believe your new God obama can make that Hopey changey thing with anything he wants but not the Constitution, If we ever did make a change the only thing really needing to be changed is Children born in this country by Immergrants should not be given automatic citizenship..

  4. Joe Schmo says:

    I would like to repeal Angel Castillo, Jr. What a totally asinine article. We already have laws stating to not kill . Bad people kill anyway. Repeal the second amendment and only bad people will have guns, exrtemely unacceptable and not happening.

    • david ford says:

      well while we are at it let’s stop the “War on Drugs” We’re never going to “win” so let’s just go ahead and legalize them..ALL drugs…while we’re at it let’s give everyone 12 or older automatic assualt riffles with armor piercing bullets in 300 round magazines. We won’t have to worry about an outside invasion..the way our soiciety is headed we will destroy ourselves. Our founding fathers had the foresight to set up our government and constitution so that our federal laws can evovle as our society evolves. It is time to start thinking differently…TO EVOLVE..any other choice to remain stagnant in our thinking can only be motivated by narrow minded (soon to be extinct) right winged WACCOS!

  5. Stevie says:

    This is more BS from the left. It does nothing to keep criminals from getting guns and ammo. It does everything to deny my right to protect my self and my family. Not a well thought out plan.

  6. electedface says:

    Mass shootings = proof that gun regulation is necessary.

  7. Shell says:

    That’s the first and only time I’ve seen anyone from the anti-gun side offer to use the most basic method of seeing the outcome they want, as opposed to trying to jusrt do it despite what the Constitution says because, “It’s the right thing to do.”

    It ain’t gonna happen, though, for several reasons. First and foremost, the 2nd Amendment’s main meaning is for the citizenry to be able to defend against threats to the nation from outside and, more importantly, inside. That is, from the government itself, hence the words, “…being necessary to the maintenance of a free state…”.

    The militia, as defined in the United States Code:

    10 USC § 311 – Militia: composition and classes

    a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
    (b) The classes of the militia are—
    (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

    Section 313 of title 32 sets the upper age limit at 64 if a person is a former active-duty member of one of the three main armed forces or the Marine Corps.

    • Nancy N. says:

      Some historical context is required to really understand the definition of militia. At the time that the 2nd Amendment was written, the “well-armed militia” made up of everyday people basically was the U.S. Army. When conflict broke out, they would assemble to fight, bringing along their own weapons from home, and then disperse back to their farms when it was over. In many ways, the general population then was similar to today’s national guard or reservists and every adult able-bodied male was basically automatically enrolled, except that today – the government issues those people their weapons. It’s not BYOW.

      When you consider the historical context that the amendment was written in, the amendment’s intent is now outdated. They needed a well-armed militia to prevent against tyranny because that militia was their army to protect against invasion of conquering forces.

      Did the framers have some concerns about also being armed to be able to fight against their own government? Yes, most likely. But given the disparity in armament technology available to governments and private people these days, that intent is outdated as well. As we’ve seen in every major rebellion on other continents in the last couple of decades, it has taken imposing no-fly zones and outside countries selling military technology to rebels for them to have a chance.

    • NortonSmitty says:

      Would you please tell me what the “United States Code” is and just where I might find a copy to read?

      • Shell says:

        In this instance as in many another, Google is your friend, Smitty. I’ll start you off with this from Wikipedia:

        “The Code of Laws of the United States of America[1] (variously abbreviated to Code of Laws of the United States, United States Code, U.S. Code, or U.S.C.) is a compilation and codification of the general and permanent federal laws of the United States.”

        The federal government has it online at several places, among them this House Of Representatives website: http://uscode.house.gov/

  8. Shane says:

    So you want to the groups who lead the nation in suicide(military) and domestic abuse(law enforcement) to only have guns, that is a great thing to want. What we really need is better mental health background checks, more thorough background checks overall, and finally to totally revamp how gun shows are run. Guns shows should and must be required to run background checks on all persons attempting to buy a gun.

    • Magnolia says:

      Shane, you hit the nail on the head. We have very stringent gun laws that are not being enforced, just like our immigration laws.

      Government has now decided it gets to pick and choose which laws it will enforce. We don’t need more gun laws. We need to enforce the ones we already have.

      • Ben Dover says:

        I agree , take the guy here in town that pointed an AK 47 at his wife and pulled the trigger , number one ,he was a felon who wasn` t allowed to own weapons, yet he HAD an AK47 and 20 other guns in the house, how the hell does that happen????? two , hes a RETARD who aims a gun at his wife while shes bathing a baby , then pulls the trigger , this guy should have been deemed too stupid to own a fire arm, they need to use the laws that are in place, and go further, not only should back round checks be strictly enforced , mental stability should be as well , IQ test , anger management , Ive worked on guns, fired guns , but I do not own a gun , I know I fly off the handle too easy , I will not own a gun for that reason , unfortunately not everyone with a bad temper thinks like me , so not only do existing laws need to be strictly enforced , mental stability and aptitude test should be given as well, and cooling off periods should be longer, should take more then three days to cool off before your able to shoot you next door neighbor say over a barking dog

  9. Anonymous says:

    That is the stupidest idea in the world! So when all the criminals keeps their weapons because they obviously care so much about our laws and law abiding citizens will not be able to defend themselves. Nothing against our local law enforcement but they can not be everywhere at all times… I’ll keep my guns.

  10. Miles says:

    There is no statistical or logical reason to restrict gun ownership of law-abiding US citizens, UNLESS your intent it to rule them by force instead of by ballot.

  11. Initialjo says:

    I think the laws are fine the way they are.

  12. keith says:

    this will only cause a civil war

  13. Karma says:

    Mexico has a zero tolerance gun law, look how well that’s working for them. If all the guns were taken away, should private schools in DC with VIP kids lose their 11 armed guards? Should the secret service give up all their guns, they are not law enforcement or military.
    Last time I checked most drugs were still illegal, yet every knows how easy they are to get. A ban on guns would be no different!

  14. Anon says:

    Because clearly law enforcement and military members are the most stable members of society.

  15. downinthelab says:

    This article hardly bears commenting on. Although I visit the site frequently for local news coverage, I find commentary like this to be unpalatable. While I do appreciate the fine work that is done by the staff while gathering all the necessary information to put together the finely written news articles, a piece like this may be better placed in a “Opinions” side bar or something.

    Might as well repeal the First Ammendment to prevent anything being published which is not verified as “Truth.”

  16. Andy Nonymous says:

    The argument for gun ownership as a right and means to defend oneself against a tyrannical Government was sensible in time when the American military was no better equipped than the average citizen. The same cannot be said today, unless you can persuade an entire military force to turn against its own Government; we as citizens do no stand a chance against a superior fighting force that could likely obliterate an entire town in the blink of an eye, rendering your weapons effectively useless.

    • Leo Kelsey says:

      If you think our military will fire on their own fellow citizens, you are sorely misinformed. As to the superior firepower of our military, it would never be used against us, for if it were, it would be a part of the next civil war. Any officer of the Federal Government who is ordered to confiscate constitutionally legal firearms should bring plenty of body bags, they are going to need them.

  17. blondee says:

    Interesting article. HORRIBLE photo!

  18. Frank says:

    Agree with others, silly article designed to get attention. Instead let’s address the real problem: mental illness –

    http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/opinion/perspectives/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-my-son-threatens-to-kill-me-ive-tried-everything-everything-is-not-enough-667485/

    • DLF says:

      We are not allow to address the mental illness issue , it would infringe on someone’s rights . But that same person can infringe on our rights,without any problem!

  19. BW says:

    I agree that a mature discussion needs to be had in regards to violence in our country. I do not agree though with a general repeal of the 2nd Amendment but we need to have better oversight of weapons in our country along with banning the sale of certain military-style weapons. The argument that one should have the freedom to buy assault rifles is absurd because one should then be able to buy a rocket launcher if one so chooses but we all know that’s absurd.

    The 2nd Amendment was there for a reason and the American people should always have a right to defend themselves against a malicious takeover of our government (which is possible). I do not agree with the radical mindset today that is what President Obama is about. That was a fear tactic by a faction of Republicans that went horribly wrong and has severely damaged the Republican image.

    The second piece is that we need to truly look at what is contributing to the growing mass violence within our country. It’s the lazy person who simply says it’s “mentally ill”. There’s more contributing to the diminished respect for human life. Plus we should also stiffen penalties and reduce the leniency towards offenders of weapons laws and acts of violence.

    Right now, the so-called conservative movement would be far better off steering clear of this debate because they only stand to show themselves as hypocrits. IF they get behind an NRA proposal of armed guards at schools then they support increased spending, increased taxes, and larger government inevitably.

    • Nancy N. says:

      “we should also stiffen penalties and reduce the leniency towards offenders of weapons laws and acts of violence.”

      We currently have on the books the stiffest laws that we have ever had regarding crime and violence, and crime rates are actually going up. How’s that working for you?

    • Abby says:

      I am not a radical right. And I truly believe that our schools should have armed teachers! How do you suppose the case in Ct would have turned out had the principle and the guidance counselor shown up with a gun when they confronted that man? You think 26 people would have died? No, I believe you would see a lot less lunatics walking into a place with an intent to massacre if they knew 1/2 the people there were armed.

      Do you suppose we would walk about a little more polite and courteious with one another if we knew every other human we interacted with might be armed?

      I dont know the answers but i do clearly see more gun control and more restrictions is not going to keep bad people and guns apart.

    • Magnolia says:

      BW, do you know who the real hypocrits are? Hollywood. We have the most violent movies and video games in the world and we raise our babies on them and then wonder how this happened?

      DUH!

      My family can’t even go to the movies anymore because we are sick and tired of the blood, gore and foul language.

      You cannot look at gun violence without including the “entertainment” industry. This is the real root of the problem, the reason why we are raising children who have no appropriate role models anymore. And it is being done in the name of huge profits to an elite few.

      These shootings are not going to stop because you cannot stop unbalanced people, even if you ban every weapon on the planet.

      You have to change the behavior of society, the way in which we are raising our children. This isn’t about guns, it is very much about violence.

  20. rickg says:

    Why is it that we can whittle away at the first and fourth amendments but the Holy 2nd cannot be touched?

  21. Sgt. York says:

    “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country.”
    –Adolf Hitler, on April 11, 1942,

    • NortonSmitty says:

      This quote is Hitlers response to a proposal to form and re-arm Russian police in order to free up German troops in the portion of the country they had conquered. This would allow the Germans that were performing these duties to be moved to the front where they were desperately needed.

      He was understandably against arming any enemy force that were behind his front. This obviously makes sense even today. Ask our poor soldiers who are training the Afghan police.

      But it has absolutely nothing to do with our 2nd amendment. Unless you consider us all a subject race.

    • Shell says:

      Well done, Sarge.

  22. FBGrl says:

    There’s nothing I can add to the comments tha hasn’t already been said. If you or anyone honestly thinks repealing the 2nd Amendment will do anything at all top curb gun violence, you’ve been brainwashed. Not worth arguing with sheep.

    Funny that someone mentioned Mexico. Maybe the author would like our great country to resemble that culture? His name begs the question.

    • Jennifer S says:

      just curious… you see so many similarities between our country & mexico that by attempting to do what the article suggests, the line is so slim between the two countries, we would simply, instantly inherit and/or become mexico-lite? it is a silly notion & one based in conjecture… or pure fantasy

  23. confidential says:

    The 2nd Amendment is totally misinterpreted nowadays.
    Was never intended for the assault weapons that are killing machines of multitudes of victims today. An AK47 is not a self defense weapon is an attack machine. If we continuo misinterpreting the 2nd, then we will be buying an M2 Bradley IFV tank with the same excuse or remote control missiles. Where we will draw the line? How many more children and adult victims we have to immolate before legislation against this assault weapons and high capacity clip magazines are banned? Lets put it to a national referendum if necessary, to get these weapons out of the hands of the nutty. How come in our Democratic Republic the clamor of the majority is walked all over by the greed and demands of the powerful fewer ones?
    NRA advise is ludricrous calling for teachers with guns, then firefighters also with guns? Look how two of them were murdered in NY while in a call of duty? NONSENSE!

    • TEED OFF says:

      You watch too NBC and MSNBC .The NRA did not say arm teachers the Liberal media put their own twist to it.The NRA said put armed police in schools.
      Ifs funny how cars can do can do twice the speed limit and cause more deaths than guns.I don,t see any one saying lets put a stop too this.
      Cigarettes kill over half million a year but you can still buy cigarettes.
      The problem in this country is the liberal media.They love stuff like this .Every gun used in a crime is a assault weapon according to them.Most crimes and deaths are caused by hand guns not assault weapons. Banning them is going to do what?Make the liberals think they are safe.
      Mental heath and how back ground checks are done is what will help curve this problem.
      All the mass shootings have been caused by people with mental issues that were in the open for everyone to see.The problem was family didn’t do anything.

      • Jennifer S says:

        just curious… this term “liberal media” is it the liberal media who label themselves as such? or the conservative media, upon which you seemed to be unbiassedly based, brandishing it as it sees fit?

        there are so many illogical, over-simplified, uneducated ideas spewed by those claiming the evils & perils of the liberal media agenda, they do not even recognize the implications of their circular non-nonsensical terminology.

        • TEED OFF says:

          I guess i should of left off liberal and just said media.

          Another point I keep seeing is that ar-15′s are used in crimes every day.I must being missing something in the news.I can only count 3 in last 6 months or so.Again the media turning every gun used into a assault weapon.

          Please don’t get me wrong I think all the mass shootings are tragic .Background checks and mental heath are were things need to start.Banning guns will have little too no effect.Taking everyone’s guns is mission impossible.

    • johnny taxpayer says:

      “How come in our Democratic Republic the clamor of the majority is walked all over by the greed and demands of the powerful fewer ones?”

      Perhaps you might answer this question by first researching and understanding that our form of Government is NOT Majority Rule!

    • Anonymous says:

      The 2nd admt. was not made for ones personal self/home defense. It did give the average person the right to own the same gun the greatest army in the world at the time also used.

  24. Mr. Angel Castillo Jr. You are asking for a CIVIL WAR we have our sovereigty.

  25. Joe says:

    I think we should amend the 1rst amendment, specifically the part where it mentions freedom of the press! No more lies, no more reporting inaccurate info just to be first, and most of all, No more goofy articles like this!!!!!!

  26. Karma says:

    @ Confidential
    Look at the killer of the the two fireman. He killed his 97 year old Grandmother with a hammer in 1981. He was a convicted felon with guns. There are laws prohibiting him from having guns. The man was a whack job just as was the kid in CT.
    Timothy Mcvay killed 168 people and wounded over 800 with a homemade bomb. None of the products used were illegal and are common in everyday use. Should we ban racing fuel and fertilizer?
    The worst elementary school killing happened in Michigan back in 1927. A whack job planted dynamite in the school killing 38 kids and 6 adults. Reason, he lost an election to be the town clerk. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster
    Many people have been killed in ways other than guns, notice the one common denominator in all these insane acts of violence? Hint….a crazy human !!!!!!!

  27. DLF says:

    Refresh my memory what was used in the Oakloma City killings?

    • NortonSmitty says:

      Ammonium Nitrate fertilizer mixed with diesel fuel in a Ryder truck if you believe the official story. Placed demolition charges inside the building if you believe the experts.

      Take your pick, ain’t nothing we can do about it either way. Google it if you want.

  28. Jon Doe says:

    Clearly this plan was not well thought out. Sure mentally ill should be restricted. But to eliminate the second amendment is just foolish.
    Why was the kid allowed to have access to guns? Nobody is really talking about how a lid that was sick got a old of guns.
    People need awareness not more restrictions.
    Youre asking for something that is un-American.
    I respect your “freedom of speech” but dont agree on proposed solution.

  29. confidential says:

    @Gerald Jacobs. We all have rights in our country. Is not that your “sovereigty..?” to use assault military battlefield only intended weapons, in our neighborhoods should denied our rights to peaceful coexistance. IX Confirms that people also have rights other than those mentioned in our constitution….

  30. Lonewolf says:

    The second amendment calls for a “well REGULATED militia”…seems plain enough to me

  31. Sensible says:

    Of all the gun control advocacy I’ve heard recently, the viewpoint expressed is the most rational. Thank you.

    Now, this is not to say I agree with your view on gun ownership. I will support and defend the 2nd Amendment with my life, because I understand its purpose (to keep the tyranny of government at bay). But you are correct that it is the law of the land, and people should either respect it, or work to repeal it through the proscribed mechanism in the Constitution. What they should not do, is to ignore the 2nd Amendment or try to work around it with unconstitutional gun control laws.

    So either learn to live with the 2nd Amendment and the right it protects, or muster the votes to repeal it. Then try to confiscate private arms, start the Second Civil War, and reap the whirlwind. Good luck with that.

  32. Are you serious says:

    This is probably the single most ignorant thing ever written on this website. Once again, Guns don’t kill people, people with guns kill people. I am a proud gun owner and have never shot anyone. There are millions of responsible citizens with firearms who go about their lives never using firearms irresponsibly. Why do you want to punish law abiding citizens?? Ignorance like this infuriates me. LAWS ONLY APPLY TO PEOPLE WHO OBEY THE LAW…..more laws will do nothing to avert these tradegies…..however, if there was an armed person near these tragedies….lives could be saved. Don’t punish law abiding citizens….for the acts of criminals and mentally ill individuals because you are upset about what has occurred. Get out there and do something to help the mentally ill…

  33. Outsider says:

    If any of you read the writings of the founding fathers, particularly with regard to the second amendment, you could do nothing but conclude the public is not armed well enough. Some of them advocated for revolution every 20 years to remove entrenched politicians. Sound like a good idea now?

  34. joe shmoe says:

    yes change the second ammendment and then invite someone like al assad or kim jun ill to be our dictator!

  35. Deep South says:

    I own guns, and only use my guns for sport and yes protection. I was raised around guns, and taught by parents how to handle a gun. My parents were taught by their parents, and so on, so on. I have taught my children, and grandchildren how to handle a gun. I own fishing rods. I use my fishing rods for sport. I have taught my children, and now my grandchildren how to handle a fishing rod. Parents teach your children how to handle guns and fishing rods, and life and it’s meaning will be more respectful for one another.

  36. Andre peartree says:

    PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE SECOND AMENDMENT for the 21st century.

    A well regulated police force, necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to live in peace and security and free of threats, shall not be infringed through the unregulated distribution of excessively powerful arms.

    Please share

  37. Andre peartree says:

    Thank you angel for your text. Your wording is better than mine. There still can be room for regulated private ownership of firearms to practice Hunting etc. However this clearly should be a privilege and not a right that is guaranteed. Arms for the purpose of securing the peace should be limited to police and illegal for all others. I would love to see the NRA guys being forced to give up their personal stashes of firepower, we will see how “law-abiding” they will behave. To those of you on this post promoting this business of free gun ownership, I say, do not make yourself the mouthpiece of a murderous corporate industry who wants to sell us and tax us with the requirement to buy their ammo out of fear. Take a look in the mirror, do you need to exert your right to stash chemical weapons and nukes

    • Leo Kelsey says:

      Andre, you need to cut back on what you are smoking!

      The purpose of having citizens armed with paramilitary weapons is to allow them to engage in paramilitary actions. The Second Amendment is not about Bambi and burglars — whatever a well-regulated militia is, it is not a hunting party or a sport-clays club. It is remarkable to me that any educated person believes that the second item on the Bill of Rights is a constitutional guarantee of enjoying a recreational activity.

  38. confidential says:

    Next is what they use guns for, as well:
    Police find light beacon destroyed The Sheriff’s Office continues to hunt the gunman or gunmen who destroyed a $10,000 light beacon at one of the new 800 MHz radio towers off the 5800 block of County Road 208. A tower company employee climbed the 250-foot tower and discovered two rifle shots in the lenses. The crime is a federal felony. Anyone with any information is asked to call the Sheriff’s Office at (904) 824-8304.

  39. Stevie says:

    “A well regulated police force, necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to live in peace and security and free of threats, shall not be infringed through the unregulated distribution of excessively powerful arms.”

    A police force is a professional army. A militia is an irregular army of citizens ready to function as a defense against tyranny. Your first premise is ridiculous and insulting.

    There is no right of the people to live in peace anywhere in the Constitution. You have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Peace is the attainment of happiness and not a right. The pursuit of it is a right.

    You need to bone up on your history or find another country.

    Finally read this link from one of our veterans. Perhaps you will realize the difference between FREE Americans and peasants from the former Soviet Union.

    http://www.guns.com/2013/01/03/marine-writes-letter-to-sen-dianne-feinstein-i-will-not-be-disarmed-video/

    • Anonymous says:

      That is the right way to do it. Nobody ever said the right way is the easiest. I have no fondness for guns but I do for the constitution. I think the day will come when the 28th Amendment as described by Mr.Angel Castillo, Jr will easily pass and be easily enforced because the general public would have lost its hunger for guns. I’m old enough to have seen the rise in gun ownership and the political movement to protect the right to own guns. I’m also old enough to see that this is just a fad, abet a dangerous one, which is already passing.
      Unfortunately, it will take a few more Sandyhooks and Columnbines before we get the political muster as well as popular consciences us to make the bit leap.

      • Mike says:

        More people are killed by cops every year than all of the school shootings combined. Will you confiscate their guns too?

        By the way, murder is already illegal, and yet people still do it.

Leave a Reply

Read FlaglerLive's Comment Policy | Subscribe to the Comment Feed rss flaglerlive comment feed rss

More stories on FlaglerLive
Loading

ADVERTISEMENTS

palm coast pet clinic veterinarians
palm coast pools repairs construction
suppert flaglerlive flagler live palm coast flagler county news pierre tristam florida
news service of florida
Advertisement

Recent Comments

Log in
| FlaglerLive, P.O. Box 354263, Palm Coast, FL 32135-4263 | 386/586-0257