Changing the second amendment.

[miguel's sister]

Some people see the Bill of Rights and the Constitution as a flawed document. I think it has served us VERY well. The Second Amendment is perfect as is. As others have mentioned any attempts to change it will most certainly open the door to its opponents.

 

[actaeon277]

Some people see the Bill of Rights and the Constitution as a flawed document. I think it has served us VERY well. The Second Amendment is perfect as is. As others have mentioned any attempts to change it will most certainly open the door to its opponents.

They only think it's flawed when it pertains to others.
They scream like *%$( when it applies to themselves.

 

[civicisaye]

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson
This should be included as it is relevant, and was the basis for the second amendment to be included in the Bill of Rights. Those cowards in office don't want us to have the means to resist them. They want our transition into slavehood to be as easy for them as possible. But we must resist them at all costs!
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." Thomas Jefferson

 

[octalman]

The 2nd Amendment is perfectly clear as written. The only problem is the lack of education and wisdom required to understand that simple bit of the English language. A well regulated militia means citizens ready, willing, and able to band together to defend against oppression of any kind from any source. By definition, militia is NOT a government organization.

 

[IndyDave1776]

The Second Amendment does not have a problem. The problems are 1., those who willfully disregard the Constitution, particularly in that the federal government does not have authority to do anything other than those powers and obligations enumerated in the Constitution (in other words, 9/10 of what the federal government does is inherently unconstitutional), and 2., redefining words away from their original meanings. Case in point, in the usage of 1787, the militia consisted of every adult male. By extension, modern usage with the adjustment of rights over time properly includes all adult citizens regardless of gender. More specifically, 'militia' does NOT properly refer to an organized, state or federal government-sponsored organization. This is analogous to redefining the right to vote as a non-binding poll for those in Washington to take into consideration rather than what it properly is.

Reading and following the Constitution as written with the words understood according to the definition properly applied is sufficient.

 

[sloughfoot]

Starving the Monkeys™, Constitutional Quizzery

I only ask that you read the whole thing. Re-read the part where the consititution appoints the President to be the commander of the militia.

 

[tgmorris99]

The 2A isn't going to be changing any time soon or any other amendments added/repealed either as trying to change/add requires a constitutional convention. Neither side wants that as they are deathly afraid of what the idiots will try to pass. You can't have a CC and just vote on the one piece of it that you want changed - it opens up the entire document for modification.

 

[Brian S.]

First of all, I wouldn't trust these unprincipled bozos to reword anything so important.

Second, no document...no matter how clearly worded and concise...can survive a citizenry and a government with so poor or no philosophical understanding of rights or the role of government.

The freedom to choose how, where, and why you exercise a right in inherent in the concept of rights themselves. To suggest that one has a "right" to keep and bear arms and then state that the may only possess certain approved arms, carry or use them in government approved situations or for publicly acceptable reasons is a direct contradiction of the what it means to have rights. The constitution is no match for people who either cannot or will not understand this.

 

[jgreiner]

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

If we are gong to change ANYTHING about the 2nd Amendment, I would change our LACK of enforcing the rights it GRANTS us.......especially in states like the scum hole to our west.

 

[Hillbillyblood]

Now lets see, are we happy with the way our government is run today? We want the political powers to change the 2nd amendment .. Uh NO! Little by little our freedom is being sacrificed, lets focus on keeping what we have.

 

[tv1217]

The only change it needs is to underline, circle, and highlight "shall not be infringed"