To Clarify and Modernize the Second Amendment Intent

Guns per capita
by Miketwardos via wikimedia commons

Maybe it is time to propose a new Amendment to clarify and modernize the “right to bare arms” in the Second Amendment. I propose the following:

Proposal of a 28th Amendment to the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States: In respect of the Second Amendment and to clarify and modernize its intent; Congress nor any state in its union; that does not have legal evidence of an unlawful violent crime, tendency or intent; shall deny a citizen of voting age; after responsible verification and due process; the right to own or use a weapon of less than mass destruction for the purpose of protecting ones person, family, community and property.

The Civil Code definition of “weapons of mass destruction” can be found in 50 USC § 2302 – Definitions “(1) The term “weapon of mass destruction” means any weapon or device that is intended, or has the capability, to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people through the release, dissemination, or impact of— (A) toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors; (B) a disease organism; or (C) radiation or radioactivity.”

To make the amendment effective, this definition may need to be redefined to include “any weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans in a short amount of time.” With specific definitions of “large number of humans” and “short amount of time” set by congress.

Pastors Protest Hobby Lobby Birth Control Fight In Oklahoma


-Bible is Pro-choice, fundamentalist should be too!
“Exodus 21:22-25 describes a case where a pregnant woman jumps into a fight between her husband and another man and suffers injuries that cause her to miscarry. Injuries to the woman prompt the normal penalties for harming another human being: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life. Killing the woman is murder, a capital crime.”
“The miscarriage is treated differently, however — as property loss, not murder. The assailant must pay a fine to the husband. The law of a life for a life does not apply. The fetus is important, but it’s not human life in the same way the pregnant woman is.”
“The moral view that underlies Roe v. Wade — that a line is crossed when a fetus becomes “viable” — seems most plausible, morally defensible, and consistent with the spirit of the biblical view.”
>more examples at http://huff.to/RRg1QT
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Social Security Disability Enrollment Rising Due To Demographic Trends, Not Obama ‘Slavery’ Plot: CBO


It is not easy to get DI.

I had to apply because my boss told me that she would have to fire me because I couldn’t do the work anymore. I have a genetic hyper-autoimmune disease. Its a weird hidden disability that puts your body in constant inflammation from head to toes.

Its been almost 18 months since I applied and still wanting for the appeal judgement. It is not easy to get DI. All my savings and investments have been cashed out, I am living on the graces of family and friends.

These people are barking up the wrong tree. Maybe if West would have gotten injured during his war service, he would understand. What does he think of the veterans that he serve with who lose a limb. Any love for them.

Its not slavery, its a safety net. I paid into it for over 20 years. My grandfather had to quiet the army because of the same thing. If I have a disability, I deserve my benefits. My health is not a political ball. People need to go vote and take these whacks out of office.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Health Care Reform Rebates For Health Insurance Costs Rolling In


This may make people want to vote for the sensible Democrats over the irrational Republicans. It was the republicans’ idea anyway in the 90’s. This will open a lot of the eyes who believed this law would hurt them. My health is not a commodity; it “LIFE” as in “LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Liberty does not live in a vacuum, it needs to breath and be happy!
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Nancy Pelosi Says Obama Should Use Constitution To Avert Debt Crisis


I always wondered how Congress can break laws. Congress passed the spending. So as much as it me be wrong or right to force future government to pay for it; thats the way physics work. No time travel yet.

Could they get an opinion from the Supreme Court first? I know sometimes the DOJ will give an opinion on a pending, proposed or questionable law. Can they ask the courts to get their opinion?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost