In this episode we discuss a proposed new version of the 2nd Amendment.
Presearch search engine sign up.
Find our Representative
Join me on Parler Social Media! https://par.pw/download/
email me at firstname.lastname@example.org
Follow me on Gettr
Follow me on Telegram
subscribe to my newsletter
Check out our new apparel
Follow me on MeWe
Follow me on Gab
Follow me on Clouthub
All people have the right to bodily autonomy, consistent with the right of other people, to the same, including the right to defend themselves against unlawful force and the right of self-determination and reproductive matters. The government shall take reasonable measures to protect the health and safety of the public as a whole. Well, welcome to the live sheep podcast. My name is Jeff doddle and I've been a licensed farm dealer for the last 14 years. And in this podcast, we talk about all things related to the second amendment, as well as what other topics would be going on in our today theater or a sports story or something going on in my personal life. So, welcome. Welcome, welcome. So what was it I just read to you? Well, what I just read was a proposed new, a second amendment that was proposed by a Mary Anne Frank. And she is a law professor at the university of Miami school of law. And she has, she wrote an article where she proposed a new first amendment and a new second amendment. I'm not going to talk so much about the first amendment, the purpose of doing the first amendment was she, she wanted to further identify the separation of church and state in her article. She says as legal tech scope, neither of the two amendments mean the person's second. Is a model of clarity or precision most important, both are deeply flawed. And so I look at that and I'm like, you know, he or she is criticizing a document that has stood the test of time for over 200 years in our founding fathers who put together the greatest country of the world and she's calling it deeply flawed. And her proposed second amendment. The purpose of it is that she, she felt that the second amendment idiosyncratic and Anna stick focus on malicious and arms degrades the concept of self defense, the right to safeguard one's life should not be conflated with or reduced to the right to use a weapon, especially with, and that is so much more likely to inflict injury and death to avoid it far better. Would it be. Be an amendment that guarantees a meaningful right to bodily autonomy and obligates government to implement reasonable measures, to protect public health and safety. So let's kind of break this down just a little bit. I've got several thoughts on this first. It states. All people have the right to, to bodily autonomy, consistent with the right other people to the same. So I read that to say, as long as our rights are equal, it's, it's, it's fine. Meaning the government can come in and, and remove all of our rights equally. And that would be fine. She says that it's including the right to defend themselves against unlawful force. Well, oh, makes the, the quote, unquote, the laws. The government. So again, you go back into history and you look at where are, or what was going on and what our founding fathers had experienced in their time. What their biggest concern was, was the king of England confiscating all of their weapons or any higher authority coming in and, and, and moving your right to defend yourself. That's how that was where the first shots of the revolutionary war were found. The British had come in and who were marching to go to a barn and lectins in Concorde to. Confiscate a, a cache of weapons that the colonists had had been accumulating. And just the collection of farmers in the townsfolk gathered and said, no, you are not taking it. And thus, the first shots were fired in the revolutionary war. So when she talks about defend themselves against unlawful force, then the government makes the laws. So they determine what's lawful in law unlawful. So they then can again, remove our right to, to have the, the, these weapons or the move, the right to defend ourselves. They can determine that this was a lawful force. And, and then this next line in the right of self-determination and reproductive matters, I'm not sure why we are inserting abortion into the second amendment. Right. I don't want to get into that, that the whole other rabbit trail that we can go down, but she's saying that we all have a right of self-determination in reproduct matters that we can determine what is right for our bodies essentially. And reproductive matters. And putting this in, in any amendment does not solve the actual core of the argument. And the core of the argument is one side greatly. Disagrees with the other, in terms of what is considered a human, a person. The left says that you are nothing until you were actually are outside of the, of the mother's body. And even after that point, you still aren't nothing. They, they have cases where like, even at post birth, they may abort the baby and the right and the conservatives. So, you know, you become a person with rights under the constitution. At conception. But anyway, then it says here the government shall take reasonable measures to protect the health and safety of the public as a whole. And maybe this might be my biggest issue with this is that the bill of rights came into place because some of the founders had concerns that we were not properly limiting the ability of. Of a government. And so they said, we, we, we need to put some things in there that they can't do. And in here in this. And so the bill of rights, the first 10 amendments are really what the government. They can't take away our freedom of speech, our right to assemble our right to bear arms shall not be in fringed here. We're talking about the government issuing again, what can and cannot be done and that they're going to be responsible for protecting our health and safety. And I do not know. The government solely responsible for protecting my health and safety. We have seen that through COVID that they do not do a good job of protecting health and safety of the public as a whole. They are have many other interests in art in play besides. Protecting what our health and safety concerns are. You know, this is where we're at this. I think, you know, there nothing will ever become of this, but I think it's interesting that, you know, again, the left, is it constantly wanting to rewrite the constitution and the right beliefs that the constitution is a document that stands the test of time. Our founding fathers had great wisdom and when they wrote it and things in there that are vague and ambiguous, R R that for purpose, they didn't want to specifically limit that the constitution based on the times. And so there is some interpretation, but they, they provided plenty of writings in terms of what they believe, what their assertions and beliefs were at that time. And so. I don't believe rewriting the second amendment, anything that needs to be done. I think it is a perfectly well-written amendment. And in the core of it is that our right to bear arms shall not be in French. And I believe the left until they can actually infringe upon our second amendment. Right. They will not rest. And so we have to continue to protect that second amendment. Fight for it. Now I had written while back last year, my, my revised preamble based on the on Joe Biden being in power and what, how they, how I foresee that they saw it and my preamble to the constitution. We, the government of the United States. In order to control the people redefined justice, ensure domestic obedience provide for our own security promote the general growth. The government insecure, the control do ordain and destroy this constitution of the United States of America. So again, it's tongue in cheek satire. I don't propose that I don't propose this new first and the second amendment, but you know, if it's given me an idea for an interesting project that I'm, I may or may not attempt, and that is to rewrite the. Constitution and at least the first 10 amendments, based on the way the left sees it sees our country and how they have already professed that they believe that things should be interpreted. But more. Come on that. We'll see. I thank you for listening again. Continue to fight for the second amendment because there are people out there that just like this Mary. She, she wants to limit your ability to bear arms. She wants to infringe on that ability. So Hey, have a great weekend wherever you're listening to this and take care and I will talk to you later.