Proposed 28th Amendment of the Constitution

For purposes of discussion, how about the following?

Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution

 The 2nd Amendment is hereby annulled.  The Congress shall have the sole power, by appropriate legislation, to restrict, outlaw, or encumber the manufacture, marketing, sale, and ownership of firearms, other provisions of this Constitution notwithstanding. 




About brucejberger

Bruce J. Berger has published his short fiction in a variety of print and on-line literary journals, including Prole, Jersey Devil Press Anthology, The Awakenings Review, Raphael's Village, Eastown Fiction, Black Magnolias Literary Journal, and others. He also publishes shorts stories for Amazon's Kindle. He is pursuing his MFA in Creative Writing at American University beginning in August 2015.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Proposed 28th Amendment of the Constitution

  1. brucejberger says:

    Let’s get the courts out of the equation.

  2. brucejberger says:

    As I said earlier, we’re told that, because of the Second Amendment, there must be no restrictions whatsoever on gun manufacture, sale, or ownership. The gun enthusiasts believe, in my opinion, that God has granted a right to own whatever type of gun one wants to own, and the Second Amendment is only a reflection of what God Himself has granted. I beg to differ.

  3. Gary Rubin says:

    A fine thought, but as likely to pass as the Equal Rights Amendment.

    • brucejberger says:

      Every step in the right direction is, at the outset, minimized as unlikely, too difficult, too problematic. Likely or not, I think we need to have a debate about whether there should be a Constitutional right to bear arms that might impede our lawmakers’ ability to deal with an extremely serious and deadly problem in our society.

  4. DCL says:

    Your understanding and knowledge of the second amendment, its purpose, and why it was included is severely lacking, based on post and subsequent comments. You should talk to my 94 year old neighbor who grew up in Germany and watched as naive people with good intentions, like you, allowed one of the greatest atrocities of any generation to happen. As she tells it, “no one ever dreamed something like that could happen in our country. We didn’t see it coming” They let their gun rights be taken because they didn’t see any harm in it. All was well. Until evil is removed from the hearts of human-kind, your discussion is a non-discussion.

    • brucejberger says:

      Dear DCL — Thanks for commenting on my post. So your defense of the 2d Amendment is to allow citizens to bear arms in case they decide to use them against our government. Citizens like you — apparently lacking in naivete — will decide when the government has stepped out of line and take it upon yourself to shoot, bomb, and kill the representatives of that government. That’s what Timothy McVeigh thought he was doing when he bombed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995. He was, in his mind, exercising his right to bear arms against what he considered an oppressive government. That’s not the kind of society that I think is best for a democracy.

      • ted says:

        That’s actually exactly how this government was formed. I bunch of folks got tired of not being represented and forced to put soldiers inside their homes. They could not write bad things about the king. So they took up arms even though there where still loyalist to the crown that did not want change and fought against the usurpers. Again in the civil war difference being who won but great change in this countries governance was changed due to both acts. The civil war brought an end to slavery that probably would have taken decades longer and the laws began to change. The revolution gave birth to the country. When Germany took guns from its people they began to first divide the population to cause in fighting then unified against a minority group incapable of self defense at start and slaughtered millions.

      • brucejberger says:

        I disagree with your defense of the Second Amendment, but since you present your views respectfully, I’m happy to allow the
        post. Best regards.

  5. Achaessa James says:

    I’d sooner see an amendment that says if a member of Congress, acting alone or as part of a political action committee or body, intentionally obstructs needed lawmaking while concurrently accepting money, or favors and/or advice from lobbyists interested in the implementation or negation of such lawmaking, or is in any way involved in supporting other members of Congress involved in such a pay-for-influence scheme, then such member of Congress shall be publicly sanctioned with a forfeiture of Congressional pay and benefits, shall be summarily removed from office, and shall be subject to criminal prosecution for the endangerment of the people of this country.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s