If you could rephrase the Second Amendment...

[MadMan66]

I'd add "shall not be infringed." Oh wait, never mind. I guess it's already perfect the way it is.

 

[Bennettjh]

I would add one line. "If the RKBA is infringed upon, you get deported right now Jack! Legal citizens need guns. NO INFRINGEMENT."

 

[cosermann]

**** off, leave the peoples guns alone.

What about swords? What about pole arms? What about directed energy weapons? Specifying a particular type of armament (i.e. guns or firearms) would be a step in the wrong direction.

Since the right to bear arms is rooted in the inalienable individual right to life (and by extension the right to the means to defend that life), and the whole "militia" idea is unnecessarily confusing to many and I'd eliminate "militia" first. National defense is simply the aggregate right of the people to defend themselves in a country, of, by, and for the people.

So, I might end up with something like this:

"The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." - Penn. (the 2nd state), Declaration of Rights, Sec. 21

"Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state." Conn. (the 5th state), Art. 1, Sec. 15.

"A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use." Delaware (the first state) Art. 1, Sec 20. (amended 1987)

"All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state." New Hampshire (the 9th state), Art. 1, 2a.

"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State..." Vermont (the 14th state), Chp. 1, Art. 16.

"The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State." - Indiana Constitution, Article 1 Section 32.

The language of just about every one of these state constitutions is better than the federal constitution (and there are others)!

 

[Aaron1776]

The right of the people to own, keep, and carry arms on their person, up to and including the standard infantry weapons of the time they live in, shall not be infringed upon in any fashion by federal, state, or municiple governments or government actors.

The right of the people to use these arms in the defense of their lives, rights, property, or that of a third party, even up to lethal force, against that of a criminal, foreign invader, or against their own tyrannical government taking violent action against them shall also not be infringed upon by any federal, state, or municiple governments or government actors.

In no way shall the constitution of the united states be interpreted to deprive the common citizen of their rights to own, keep, and carry weapons.

Edit: It's all about keeping it formulaic. Dont want them banning energy weapons in 100 years because "the founders never invisioned it". Also it needs to come with another amendment directing all judges to make rulings based upon the written law and not precident. The same amendment would also expand senatorial overview of the judiciary to allow for more judges to be challenged on the bench, and restrict all SCOTUS judgements to rulings on the federal government and disaggreements between the states.
Jefferson had it right. The SCOTUS had too much power

 

[IndyDave1776]

As I think about it, I liked the version suggested which would have specified an individual right to 'every terrible instrument of the soldier'.

 

[Trigger Time]

As I think about it, I liked the version suggested which would have specified an individual right to 'every terrible instrument of the soldier'.

In my view the original secure and state that right. The govt is of the people so they should not have anything that we can't, especially not civilian peace officers.

It is very sad that unless our natural rights given at birth are written down word for word there is a person from the govt who is always ready to keep chipping away at them.

 

[SmokinSigs357]

The right of the people to hunt with 3 rounds or less in their firearms...shall not be infringed.

This way, the politicians would be correct for what they've been saying for the past 3 months....

 

[m4lover]

if you question this amendment get the............................... out of office.... get creative and fill in the blank for yourself

 

[Spike Jones 5 2002]

Citizens of the U.S.ofA.

I would rewrite the constitution.
We the "Citizens"
instead of "people"

 

[seabassz]

Take out the conditional altogether:

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

[fro65]

The current powers that be seem to have problems with the word "shall". They seem to confuse it with the word "might". Remember Bill Clintons statement of "that depends on what the meaning of is, is". These people are idiots and their voters blindly follow.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

I wouldn't change a single word of it.
Just because someone is illiterate, that should not - and does not - affect my life.
Illiteracy: it's a problem.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I would consider adding a requirement for those infringing by way of legislation, enforcement of said legislation, or independent malfeasance to be executed. Ditto for the other nine.

 

[HenryWallace]

The amendment was written perfectly any one who doesn't want to understand it wont or has a secondary agenda for us!
Anyone who knows anything about true history would never question it.
Anyone with sense in their head already understands it and already has a gun or forty!

 

[JettaKnight]

Why wasn't this thread started in the right forum?

The Legislation of the 2nd Amendment

This thread, more than any other, belongs there.

 

[ultra...good]

I would consider adding a requirement for those infringing by way of legislation, enforcement of said legislation, or independent malfeasance to be executed. Ditto for the other nine.

Yep, what he said.

The oath to uphold the constitution is so blatantly ignored.

 

[ultra...good]

The current powers that be seem to have problems with the word "shall". They seem to confuse it with the word "might". Remember Bill Clintons statement of "that depends on what the meaning of is, is". These people are idiots and their voters blindly follow.

I still do not understand the following of Bill Clinton. I take the stance that what happens between a man and a woman is between them and it is none of my business. If a man or woman wants to cheat on their husband, wife, boyfriend, girlfriend, whatever, that is their business. I have befriended a few people in my life because of infidelity though. If they will lie to the most important person in their life, they will do the same to me and everyone else and it likely will not even bother them. All that being said, how can anyone follow Bill Clinton's lead? I just do not understand it.

He came to the university I attend and everyone was thrilled about it. Is there no value in being able to trust a person? I guess that depends on how you define the word "is".

 

[kludge]

The amendment was written perfectly any one who doesn't want to understand it wont or has a secondary agenda for us!
Anyone who knows anything about true history would never question it.
Anyone with sense in their head already understands it and already has a gun or forty!

Well said.

If there is any change though, this is the only thing I would accept...

"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. Any representative of any state, territory, or possession, or any political subdivision at any level of government within the United States, or within any State, territory or possession of the United States who votes for, upholds, or implements any law, legislation, rule, resolution, or agreement which infringes or tends to infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear any arm or arms without a constitutional amendment, is guilty of treason. Any judge or political appointee of the United States, or of any State, territory, or possession, or any political subdivision at any level of government within the United States, or or within any State, territory, or possession of the United States who upholds or implements any law, legislation, rule, resolution, or agreement which infringes or tends to infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear any arm or arms without a constitutional amendment, is guilty of treason."

I feel it is necessary to explain what "oath of office" means.

 

[Bushido Devil Dog]

Take out the conditional altogether:

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

This..and I'd add way more to it so even Mongo could understand the original intent:


"1. The right of individual persons to own and carry all manner of weapons and ammunition and other related items suitable for defending against, stopping, injuring, or killing criminals, tyrants and/or their minions shall not be infringed/limited/regulated/controlled or otherwise interfered with.
2. The original and perpetual intent of this Amendment is to state unambiguously and for all time that no free individual who is in full possession of his/her/other(? ) mental faculties and capable of exercising their freedom of self-determination (which by definition excludes those that have been disenfranchised of some or all of their rights through an open, fair, and independently reviewable due process of law), shall ever be disarmed or otherwise rendered unable to use instruments of lethal force against criminal attack or against the agents and employees of any government entity that acts to infringe upon any of man's natural rights that they inherently possess as sentient beings.
3. Any legislator, political appointee, judge, law enforcement official, court officer, or any other government employee or official who willfully and intentionally attempts to infringe or infringes upon the above enumerated right of individuals to privately possess and carry weapons, thus violating their oath of office in which they swore to uphold this Constitution of the United States, shall be guilty of treason. Any person having been found guilty of the aforementioned act of treason shall be subject to punishment ranging from a minimum of twenty years imprisonment, up to the maximum penalty of death."