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.
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.
Personally, I would throw the old one away and replace it with:
A citizen of the United States of America who has not been justly convicted of a violent criminal offense in a Court of Law or has not been medically verified to be mentally deficient and has been given the opportunity to appeal such a declaration in a Court of Law has the right to possess individual weapons of equal capability to the standing armies of the globe.
Ask any English major, and they would tell you that the sentence has faulty syntax. If they had written:
"Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." that would have been grammatically correct.
I doubt that we're going to amend the Constitution just to correct the grammar. Even if we changed it to the above version, there would still be dispute over the purpose of the "well-regulated" term. Does militia mean a bunch of average citizens grabbing their guns to go fight the enemy, or does "well-regulated" imply that this applies only to a more official, organized force?
To be unambiguous, we could just have, as others have suggested, "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." However, if we were to rewrite the 2nd amendment, I would take that opportunity to make it clear that certain arms, such as nuclear weapons and biological weapons, may be outlawed, and that certain people, such as mentally ill or convicted violent criminals, may be prohibited from bearing arms.
That would make it too easy for govt to become tyrannical though, if they had the advantage over the people when it comes to weapons and firepower...what is in place to prevent tyranny? Govt would not fear what the public may do.
Personally, I would throw the old one away and replace it with:
A citizen of the United States of America who has not been justly convicted of a violent criminal offense in a Court of Law or has not been medically verified to be mentally deficient and has been given the opportunity to appeal such a declaration in a Court of Law has the right to possess individual weapons of equal capability to the standing armies of the globe.
Well, the US system was never intended to hold convictions over people for their entire lives, eventually, after their debt to society was paid off, all their rights would have to be restored again, thats one of the founding principles of the US justice system, the ability to pay the debt off to society and start with a clean slate!
Well, the US system was never intended to hold convictions over people for their entire lives, eventually, after their debt to society was paid off, all their rights would have to be restored again, thats one of the founding principles of the US justice system, the ability to pay the debt off to society and start with a clean slate!
It may be unpopular with some but I believe there are some mistakes you can make that should permanently effect the rest of your life. I am in full agreement with permanently banning gun ownership from murderers, robbers, rapists, ect.
The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights reserved.
It all boils down to two facts that gun control proponents
have not been able to address:
(1) There is a direct relationship between restrictive gun control laws and increased crime. Almost all gun control laws have been statistically proven to be linked to increases in crime.
(2) Criminals by definition do not obey the law. Using a firearm to harm another is already illegal.
Proponents might want to spend more time thinking about the facts, and less time writing about feelings that won't fix the problem.
Well, the US system was never intended to hold convictions over people for their entire lives, eventually, after their debt to society was paid off, all their rights would have to be restored again, thats one of the founding principles of the US justice system, the ability to pay the debt off to society and start with a clean slate!
Can't rep you again, but I totally agree.
Currently, every crime, no matter how minor, carries a life sentence.
Don't touch it. When other countries, grammar, syntax, historical contest and such are introduced, then we are headed to weasel wording that can be tweaked, twisted and manipulated, apurpose. Not for the common good, either.
Why not, you guys have already whited it out (the explanatory clause) anyway.
Because the explanatory clause is not really relevant to the whole point of the Second Amendment. Ask yourself: Why is it that the Constitution explicitly contains an amendment that prohibits the government from abridging the right to own firearms, but it does not contain any similar amendments to explicitly prohibit the government from abridging the right to own houses, carriages, horses, cattle, land or any other item that people can own? First of all, the right to own property of all kinds was so fundamental to our founders that they probably could not have conceived of anyone trying to eliminate it (Marx hadn't been born yet), so they likely thought such a thing unnecessary.
Second of all, the right to own guns and other arms had a specific purpose -- namely the purpose of allowing the formation of militias. What would the founders have understood by the term militia? ALL able bodied men at that time were considered to be responsible for defending the land in the event of invasion. The "militia" essentially referred to the population at large assembled for the purpose of defense. The term "well-regulated" also meant something to the founders that is different from what it now means. To them it meant "adequately prepared or effective". Thus, the original language of the amendment was meant to indicate that the founders believed that the right to own firearms was a fundamentally more important right than the right to own any other property. The explanatory clause was added to explain why there was an amendment about guns, and no similar amendments regarding other items. Guns were important because there might be a need for the populace to take up arms and defend itself.
The founders were experienced with governments that attempted to usurp powers that were not rightfully theirs. They reasoned that an armed populace would make such usurpations more difficult. That's why we have a Second Amendment.
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.
