How would YOU reword the Second Amendment? (suspect, Clinton, independent)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The people that argue from the historical technology angle for limiting the second amendment also want to limit our first amendment to word of mouth, 18th century printing presses, and quill pens.
Everyone, including felons, should be able to 3D print an arm capable of killing the population of the Earth when that technology is available
Ask any English major, and they would tell you that the sentence has faulty syntax. If they had written:...
LAWL
Maybe those English majors should take a couple of history courses.
Current American English grammar did not come into existence until well after Webster published his Blue Black Speller in 1783. The grammar not become common until an few generations of American school kids were taught to read with it. This would have been well after the framers would have written the Constitution in 1789.
Last edited by WaldoKitty; 08-06-2018 at 12:34 PM..
Unfortunately, I doubt it will change anyone's opinion who has already made up their mind, but this article actually does break down and explain the 2nd Amendment grammatically.
tl;dr The right is an individual one and exists independently of the need for or existence of a militia.
Many, if not most Americans feel that the current text of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution is worded just fine, Thank You Very Much.
But not all agree.
If YOU feel that the text is lacking in any way, how would you reword it to fit more in the context of the 21st century and beyond, if given the chance?
For reference, here's what it said when it was ratified in 1791:
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.
This reminds me of the Confederate, ah, the war on . . . Government, or something.
Personally, I would just eliminate the explanatory clause and make it "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That explanatory clause has been the excuse of the left over the years for almost all of their efforts at gun control.
Yep! That's one big part of it and put that ANY future weapons of ANY kind shall not be banned in ANY form nor bullet/shell size or the number you can have.
The Second Amendment is fine the way it is, but I like Milton Miteybad's version just as much:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milton Miteybad's Version of the Second Amendment
"With regard to firearms of any type or description, if agents of the federal government can stick one in your face, then you, as a taxpaying citizen, have the unquestioned, inalienable, Gog-given right to own, keep and bear the same."
Vis a vis his government, the armed man is a citizen, whereas the unarmed man is merely a subjugated serf.
I have another, related question about the 2nd amendment: We may agree that the 2nd specifically guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. However it does not mention the right to manufacture and sell arms. So does this mean that the government could prohibit the sale of certain arms at gun shows, or could prevent domestic manufacturers from producing assault rifles, for example?
I mean, the government regulates all sorts of commerce. They can stop a company from selling a drug that has not been FDA-approved, or a car that does not meet federal fuel efficiency standards. A textual interpretation of the Constitution would be that the government may stop the manufacture and sale of weapons. However, once you own a gun, they may not take it away (right to keep arms), and also requiring permits to carry weapons are unconstitutional (right to bear arms).
I have another, related question about the 2nd amendment: We may agree that the 2nd specifically guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. However it does not mention the right to manufacture and sell arms. So does this mean that the government could prohibit the sale of certain arms at gun shows, or could prevent domestic manufacturers from producing assault rifles, for example?
I mean, the government regulates all sorts of commerce. They can stop a company from selling a drug that has not been FDA-approved, or a car that does not meet federal fuel efficiency standards. A textual interpretation of the Constitution would be that the government may stop the manufacture and sale of weapons. However, once you own a gun, they may not take it away (right to keep arms), and also requiring permits to carry weapons are unconstitutional (right to bear arms).
What do you think?
Does the Constitution specifically empower the federal government to regulate arms in such a manner?
If not...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tenth Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Of course, the government conveniently stretches and bends (and breaks) the Constitution to get its way.
The Congress, The Senate, Judicial, nor Executive branch, state, nor county, shall hinder the unalienable right to keep and bear arms. Any attempt at such shall be treated as an act of treason. No taxes shall be collected upon for that turns a right into a privilege. Furthermore, the citizenry shall have access to whatever the government and it's agencies have access to, to ensure checks and balances exist without a form of tyranny.
Any crime committed with a firearm of any type shall result in execution. Any forcible felony of rape, murder, burlarly, if a firearm is commissioned the individual once found guilty shall be hung following trial behind the courthouse.
Gun free zones shall not flourish. Any entity that remains a gun free zone assumes responsibility and culpability for the life liberty and Pursuits of Happiness of its patrons/attendees.
Any case of abuse of the right to keep and bear arms shall be met with extreme prejudice. Any threats of violence with a firearm will result in the confiscation of the right to keep and bear arms, right to vote, and be subject to involuntary evaluation for further review. Any agency that fails to uphold this decree shall face termination of employment and benefits and be charged as co-conspirators should an act of terror be employed in the jurisdiction of where the event had occurred or agency it was reported to.
^That means if you report someone for making credible threats of violence, be it published or verbal, and the agency you reported it to did not follow through with an arrest and follow thorough with an investigation, the rot is removed from the top down. Agencies will have an incentive to enforcing the laws. Rather than brush things off like that parkland scumbag or pulse shooter.
I would make everything accessible.
I would make harsh penalties for criminal use.
I would address criminal motive, incentive, intent.
That's where the focus needs to be.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
