If you could rephrase the Second Amendment...

[wakproductions]

"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

So many of the uninformed attack the meaning of the 2A by focusing on the word "militia". I wonder what the framers could have done to make its meaning more clear. If you had a chance to write it, how would you say it?

 

[K_W]

"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

So many of the uninformed attack the meaning of the 2A by focusing on the word "militia". I wonder what the framers could have done to make its meaning more clear. If you had a chance to write it, how would you say it?

Ending is contrary to the constitution.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

...and the Militia is as you have said, so all you are doing is using more words to say the same thing and saying it twice.

The second amendment is fine as is. We just need to hold the .gov to it.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Ending is contrary to the constitution.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

...and the Militia is as you have said, so all you are doing is using more words to say the same thing and saying it twice.

The second amendment is fine as is. We just need to hold the .gov to it.

That, and beat it through their thick heads that regulate means to make something work right, not put restrictions on it.

 

[Bunnykid68]

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

 

[IndyDave1776]

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

That sounds like an accurate summary of the 2A!

 

[Excalibur]

Put a * next to people and then at the bottom of the page put: "By people we mean the PEOPLE, citizens, average joes, everyone who is not of government authority that can be subjected to abuse and corruption. Shall not be infringed means all arms of all types shall be made available to citizens in extreme cases. Extreme meaning self defense against all enemies foreign and domestic"

 

[mbills2223]

I had to pause before posting on this thread in order to keep it PG.

I think it's just fine, but it's the damn antis inability to read it that is the problem. However, assuming they had had the foresight that we would drift so far, I might reword it something like this.

"The right of the people to keep, possess, carry, maintain, and transfer any and all arms that exist hitherto or will exist in the future cannot be regulated in any manner by neither the US government, nor the governments of the several States, as a well armed citizenry is vital to the maintenance of freedom and the resistance of tyranny from enemies both foreign and domestic."

 

[dugsagun]

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.

For the future idiots of the world that means my guns are MY guns whatever those guns may be! If u dont like it , cover yerself in BBQ sauce and go make friendly with the Tsavo lions..

 

[cobber]

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

Nah, then people would be arguing about whether "**** off" was prefatory, and whether it had a literal or figurative meaning.

 

[netsecurity]

I believe the "well regulated miltia" implies sound mind, since no one would be allowed into a proper, combat-effective militia if they were under age, mentally ill, or repeat criminal offenders, so I'd say something like this would be optimal...

All adults without violent criminal records, and without mental impairment affecting sound judgement shall be permitted to carry any hand held armament that fires inert projectiles in any public space, except those buildings under direct screening and supervision of armed law enforcement. There may be no taxes levied on ammunition or arms, nor laws passed that may restrict or interfere in any way with the ability to defend one's life by acquiring firearms.

Now, I must say that I believe this would be much simpler if we just required ALL citizens to prove their worthiness of being an "adult", so that we could just say "all adults can be armed, all adults can vote, all adults can drive, etc.". For example, those who cannot or will not follow the basic laws respecting the rights if their fellow man should not be called adults. If we did this, then we would not need probation or prison for non violent criminals, we could just say, "okay, you are not an adult until you can prove you can stay out of trouble for X years". If you are not an adult you have the same exact rights as a child--no ability to buy booze, etc. I think people would really, really try hard if this were the way.

 

[j4jenk]

I think the wording is fine. I would however, move it up to the top of the list and add "so that the people may preserve their liberty and the additional rights enumerated in this document" to the end.

We've all heard that the 1a is no good without the 2a.

 

[jamil]

I think it's fine the way it is. But for the folks striken with Feinstein's syndrome, a debilitating hoplophobic mental disorder that causes one to see crimes where there are none, and to have unreasonable desires to create laws to "prevent" those imaginary crimes, I would add to the existing language:

This means no government may enact laws that inhibit citizens' individual and corporate right to own and carry arms.

 

[AtTheMurph]

I would delete the 2nd amendment entirely. Just as I would delete the first 9 amendments tot eh Constitution. The only one that should remain would be the 10th.

The Bill of Rights was included in the Constitution to appease the anti-Federalists who had very good arguments against it because it gave too much power to the Fed gov, the Fed gov could maintain an army in peacetime (although it was supposed to be difficult with the 2yr only funding limit), they believed the 'necessary and proper' clause gave Congress far too much power, and that the Exec branch was too powerful.

The Federalists didn't want a listing of "Rights" and believed doing so was dangerous. If the Constitution listed specific Rights that the government was to protect what was to stop it from violating those that were not listed? Since you can't list every "Right" retained by the People you should not list any. See the 10th amendment mentioned above, which was added to try to appease the Federalists.

So in answer to the question. If I had to rewrite it it would go like this:

The Federal government has no power to do anything other than those things specifically listed in this Constitution.

 

[Trigger Time]

" the right of the people, citizens, non military, couch potatoes, regular freakin people, to keep and bear arms of all kinds known now and not yet invented including possible extraterrestrial laser beams, tanks and anything that military or law enforcement can posses shall not be infringed screwed with, altered, feinsteined, obama'd, not the amount of ammunition one can have period.
Whoever try's to infringe this right will be shipped to Africa and be sacrificed to lions."

That's the way I'd like to see it written.

 

[NavyVet]

I believe the phrase "We the people" pretty well defines the parameters.

Our founding fathers were very intentional in the language they used and the order in which they stated things. It is almost as though they could see us today.

The Bill of Rights is entirely focused on the rights of individuals (people) as they relate to their government. Having the second amendment focusing on a militia (not applying to ALL people) would be entirely out of context with the rest of the document. This would also be out of character for the framers that so meticulously handled every other detail in the constitution.

It is suitable for supporting and defending as written!!!

Put a * next to people and then at the bottom of the page put: "By people we mean the PEOPLE, citizens, average joes, everyone who is not of government authority that can be subjected to abuse and corruption. Shall not be infringed means all arms of all types shall be made available to citizens in extreme cases. Extreme meaning self defense against all enemies foreign and domestic"

 

[femurphy77]

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

Beat me to it! (Not surprised you radical!)

My version was a little more direct though; Don't **** with our guns!

 

[nucone]

How about this;

The people shall have the right to bear arms and ammunition equal to any military or police force and, said right is above any legislative authority at the federal, state, or local level.

 

[Dauvis]

I would delete the 2nd amendment entirely. Just as I would delete the first 9 amendments tot eh Constitution. The only one that should remain would be the 10th.

Just out of curiosity, why would you eliminate the 9th? Are you saying that the only rights we should have are the ones that the states deem to be allowed?

I believe the phrase "We the people" pretty well defines the parameters.

Our founding fathers were very intentional in the language they used and the order in which they stated things. It is almost as though they could see us today

I agree. I have a hard time seeing how "the people" of the 2nd are not the same "the people" of the other nine.

 

[vedearduff]

The 2nd ammendment does two things.

1) It recognises that a militia is necessasary to the security of the State and that said militia must be regulated.

2) It provides for the regulation of the militia by securing the right of the People (that would be us) to keep and bear arms.

An opressive government had just been overthrown and the intent was to ensure that the people could do so again, should it become necessasary.

 

[LarryC]

I don't think it matters. The anti's would still try to twist and limit the ownership of firearms any way they could. For instance - Domestic abuse was added a few years ago. When I was young (long time ago), I knew many upright citizens that got into marital fights, usually these stopped in a year or two, and the marriages lasted until death.

Today if your wife slaps you and you slap her back and the police are called by a neighbor - you lose your firearm "RIGHTS" forever!

As to "Violent Crimes", I know my BIL (deceased now), was in a few bar fights after he came back from WW2 with a Silver Star, 2 Bronze Stars and a Purple Heart. He never lost his gun rights, but today he would have. In that era, fist fights at bars were treated for what they were. When the LEO's were called, they separated the offenders and sent (or in some cases took them) home. Even if they took them to the local jail, it was unusual for charges to be filed. Today you would loose your gun "Rights" forever. After time passed many of the GI's settled down and the fights were less.

Back then there was NO drunken driving laws, you could not be arrested for being intoxicated and driving. VERY rarely was anyone detained for "Public Intoxication". Today both are possible reasons for denying your "Rights".

The Commie Liberals are redefining what constitutes a legal "Right" to possess a firearm every time a new law is passed.