Changing the second amendment.

[Westside]

ok we see people all the time talking about changing or repealing different amendments. Lets look at the second. I think it should be changed to something very similar to Article 1 section 32 of the Indiana Constitution.

for those who don't know here is a link to article 1 of the Indiana constitution. Indiana Code ./const/art1.html-./const/art1.html-./const/art1.html

 

[thebishopp]

Why?

Indiana's version specifies for defense of self and state. The 2nd Amendment says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed and doesn't put stipulations on it.

 

[Mosinowner]

My version

The right of the people or permeant residents of this country to keep and bear and arms as they see fit for all legal purposes such as but not limited to defense of self, property, and freedom shall not be infringed. By any government, law, organization, or power.

 

[smokingman]

My version

The right of the people or permeant residents of this country to keep and bear and arms as they see fit for all legal purposes such as but not limited to defense of self, property, and freedom shall not be infringed. By any government, law, organization, or power.

Way to much wiggle room for a politician. They would change what "Legal purpose" meant.IE "You can legally only own a firearm to shoot on Saturday afternoon at the licensed skeet club and must purchase all ammo there and may not keep any at home." That is how England lost there right to own firearms.It was not out right taken away at first,but the LEGAL reasons for owning one became so limited no one qualified.

 

[rockhopper46038]

If a change were to be made, it should only be a removal of the bolded words.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

This is the worst idea I have ever heard, and I hope with all of my heart that I never hear of this trash ever again. Amen.

 

[Hammerhead]

It's not about changing the 2A to make it better, that invites people to make things worse.

It's a matter of it being recognized for exactly what it says. NO INFRINGEMENT. Period.

 

[ryknoll3]

It's not about changing the 2A to make it better, that invites people to make things worse.

It's a matter of it being recognized for exactly what it says. NO INFRINGEMENT. Period.

Exactly! It's pretty unequivocal as written. It's all in the interpretation. For example, it's clearly written that the people have the right to arm themselves in order to form militias, but in the very Supreme Court opinion that recognizes this right, they say that the government has a right to regulate militia weapons (machine guns).

Fact is, no matter what it says, people who want to interpret it in a way that suits them will continue to do so.

Another example... the First Amendment. It clearly says that Congress shall not make a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, and this has been bastardized to the point where it happens all the time.

 

[beararms1776]

ok we see people all the time talking about changing or repealing different amendments. Lets look at the second. I think it should be changed to something very similar to Article 1 section 32 of the Indiana Constitution.

for those who don't know here is a link to article 1 of the Indiana constitution. Indiana Code ./const/art1.html-./const/art1.html-./const/art1.html

Although the 2nd is fine, I particularly like Section 13 and 32 of the State Constitution.

 

[jbombelli]

I don't want it changed. I want it honored as written.

 

[djl02]

ok we see people all the time talking about changing or repealing different amendments. Lets look at the second. I think it should be changed to something very similar to Article 1 section 32 of the Indiana Constitution.

for those who don't know here is a link to article 1 of the Indiana constitution. Indiana Code ./const/art1.html-./const/art1.html-./const/art1.html

Bad idea. So they could add there own twist to it? Bad idea......

 

[actaeon277]

If you open it to change, the anti-gunners also get a crack at it. We do not live in a vacuum.

 

[rich8483]

If a change were to be made, it should only be a removal of the bolded words.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

i somewhat agree, i dont want the meaning of it changed at all. but the antis make the argument that the comma is not an effective and or preamble but rather everything previous to the comma is a limiting clause of who the "people" are

It's not about changing the 2A to make it better, that invites people to make things worse.

It's a matter of it being recognized for exactly what it says. NO INFRINGEMENT. Period.

im pretty sure that those of us on this board that would want to "change" it would want to do so only take away possible misinterpretation and end the arguments with the antis. not to change the meaning

I don't want it changed. I want it honored as written.

this of course is the problem. those of US that want it changed, want it done so that it can be honored as writted.

not that the forefathers messed up the writing of it at all, but our current culture is messing up the reading.

but like mentioned by actaeon277 , if whttps://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/members/actaeon277.htmle open it up to rewriting, the antis will have their say as well no matter how much we wouldnt want them to and it will most likely do nothing but get worse.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

You do know that Congress has tried to do this, right?

Major Owen, one of the dumbest men in Congress (and that is saying something), introduced an amendment to abolish the Second Amendment in '97. The antis realized that it was an admission against interests in that the very resolution admitted that the Second Amendment recognized an individual right to arms and he had zero co-sponsors.

It was one of the final coffin nails for the antis.

Bill Summary & Status Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)::

 

[schafe]

I don't want it changed. I want it honored as written.

Ought to at least try it for a while, before throwing it out, eh? Who knows, It might work out.
Am I seeing purple?

 

[G_Stines]

There should be no amendments added that ever pertain to the first ten. Period. The whole point of the Bill of Rights was the foundation of the country for the limitations of government and our rights GUARENTEED within. You let them play with 2A, and then they come for 1A and you can only say certain words on an approved list. Our foundation isn't faulty, just the entire structure that stands on it.

 

[MACHINEGUN]

Yeah.. forget that, no thank you.. I prefer it the way it's written!

 

[HeadlessRoland]

i somewhat agree, i dont want the meaning of it changed at all. but the antis make the argument that the comma is not an effective and or preamble but rather everything previous to the comma is a limiting clause of who the "people" are

im pretty sure that those of us on this board that would want to "change" it would want to do so only take away possible misinterpretation and end the arguments with the antis. not to change the meaning

this of course is the problem. those of US that want it changed, want it done so that it can be honored as writted.

not that the forefathers messed up the writing of it at all, but our current culture is messing up the reading.

but like mentioned by actaeon277 , if we open it up to rewriting, the antis will have their say as well no matter how much we wouldnt want them to and it will most likely do nothing but get worse.

Again, the problem is not wording. The wording is very clear. Absolute, even. The troubles come in the many masses wishing that it says other than what the noble document does say. The problem is not of the document, the problem is of 'the People.' And we are surrounded by people who are not only weak-minded, but tyrannical. They fear guns and trust no one with them. That is unfortunate, and were it merely left at that, it would be solely their problem. But they wheedle, they sneak like thieves in the night, they twist the arms of others and elect similar people to office to try to take them from us by whatever means necessary - such is their fear, such is their determination, their sheer misunderstanding, the depth of which is just as absolutely unfathomable to those who truly understand self-defense. Despite the daily misuse of weapons by miscreants the world over, even the most polite, civil, and judicious use of weaponry for solely self-defense would not appease them, were they ever to even make the claim. Those who fear firearms - who fear you to own and possess and carry and have them - they will never be satisfied until you are on your knees, hands behind your back, head on the guillotine. This is inevitably so, for without the ability to fend against Government, this is inevitably the result of all peoples, whether supposedly free or definite serf, this is the result toward which Government is constantly laboring: to be aware of all information, to maintain its power, and to quash dissent and challenges to its authority, ad infinitum. Power is not merely a means: power is an end of itself, and the ability to retain power in your own two hands is something Govenrment and moral busybody alike will never permit without continual attempts at disarmament, until the Day of Judgment. This is an eternal struggle to keep oneself safe against the world, nothing less. Our Founders understood this well; they knew it. They lived it. Livestock destroyed, burdensome taxes levied to support a distant and ever-more-tyrannical government. So what would be the result of the very last enunciation of this most dear and most basic right were we to alter the pronunciation of its enunciation? How might it be ruined, torn and shredded to pieces, sewn up with lies and limitations, stuffed full of infringments, and offered back to us to swallow wholesale? I will say it one more time, because this seriously bears repeating: this is the dumbest idea I have ever heard, and I pray that no one ever suggests such a terrible, horrible, malicious, malevolent, and poor idea ever again.

We're barely clinging onto our ability to defend ourselves as is; please, as a final admonition, stop trying to grant our enemy more power over Us!

 

[Sylvain]

Change it to something that says:
"The people dont need a freaking paper from the state to have the right to carry a gun wherever they want and can carry anywhere inside the Union, oh and by the way it's fine for civilians to own full-automatic weapons, silencers or short barrels rifles without any added taxes or registration of the gun."

 

[HeadlessRoland]

BUT WHAT OF A 10,000% ORIGINAL, NON-ADDED TAX?