How would YOU reword the Second Amendment? (lawyers, treason, crime)

[Ferd]

I would include something about stupid progs need to pound sand or something

[No_Recess]

Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest

It was when you popped out of...well nevermind

It's amazing how many things I agreed to in that delivery room.

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by Leo58

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.

I don't mean to be crass... i was a double major History and English....




the more important point to be made is what did they mean when they said Militia... you touched on that.
at the time that meant every freaking fellow from 16 to 60 that could hold a gun.


you were expected to stand up and defend your community. period.


in fact, that concept isn't unique to the Americas although it certainly did have a certain imperative due to the Indian Wars that had occurred leading up to the writing of the amendment.


the concept itself dates back to Viking invasions of various European areas.


Bottom line, the founders viewed it to be necessary for the survival of the nation that the people would be capable of rising up in defense of the nation. period. that is what they meant, and they meant it when the enshrined it in the Bill of Rights.

[Axxlrod]

Originally Posted by Corvette Ministries

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.

I would simplify and expand it to say:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, especially by liberals and left-leaning judges that think they know better than you.

[Ex New Yorker]

Originally Posted by Roboteer

No, it lists the conditions under which the government will deliberately and unconstitutionally violate your right to keep and bear arms.

And not all of them.

I know that and agree with you. However some of these people would have you believe that there are no gun laws at all. Disregarding the fact that there are thousands of laws that address both the criminal and negligent mis-use of firearms along with thousands of others who's only purpose is to harass and criminalize the legitimate use of firearms. Many are for political retribution. What better way to punish your political enemies than to criminalize their otherwise lawful activities and possessions? New York's "Safe Act" is a prime example. "Il Duce" Cuomo boasted after its passage and I'll paraphrase: "That people who do not think like him are not welcome in New York". Let's face it this petty little tyrant and all of his cronies in the New York State legislature hate our guts.

Laws such as New York's "Safe Act" not only violate the 2nd Amendment but also violate "Ex Post Facto" statutes by criminalizing people for the property they already lawfully owned after the law was passed. How the hell they can get away with this is beyond me?

Ex post facto is most typically used to refer to a criminal statute that punishes actions retroactively, thereby criminalizing conduct that was legal when originally performed. Two clauses in the United States Constitution prohibit ex post facto laws:

Art 1, § 9
This prohibits Congress from passing any laws which apply ex post facto.
Art. 1 § 10.
This prohibits the states from passing any laws which apply ex post facto.

At a minimum, ex post facto prohibits legislatures from passing laws which retroactively criminalize behavior. ---https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ex_post_facto


Ex post facto laws retroactively change the rules of evidence in a criminal case, retroactively alter the definition of a crime, retroactively increase the punishment for a criminal act, or punish conduct that was legal when committed. They are prohibited by Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, of the U.S. Constitution. An ex post facto law is considered a hallmark of tyranny because it deprives people of a sense of what behavior will or will not be punished and allows for random punishment at the whim of those in power.

The prohibition of ex post facto laws was an imperative in colonial America. The Framers of the Constitution understood the importance of such a prohibition, considering the historical tendency of government leaders to abuse power. As Alexander Hamilton observed, "[i]t is easy for men … to be zealous advocates for the rights of the citizens when they are invaded by others, and as soon as they have it in their power, to become the invaders themselves." The desire to thwart abuses of power also inspired the Framers of the Constitution to prohibit bills of attainder, which are laws that inflict punishment on named individuals or on easily ascertainable members of a group without the benefit of a trial. Both ex post facto laws and bills of attainder deprive those subject to them of due process of law—that is, of notice and an opportunity to be heard before being deprived of life, liberty, or property.---https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Ex+Post+Facto+Laws

[wutitiz]

I would not reword it. That would be giving into those willfully ignorant people who try to claim that the wording restricts the right to bear arms to those belonging to a militia. It doesn't


//www.city-data.com/forum/52719842-post54.html


This was a common construction of the time, which people then were sophisticated enough in grammar to understand. The NW ordinance of 1787 said

Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.

If we interpret this the same way some want to interpret the 2nd Amendment, it would mean that education would be restricted to the religious, moral, and knowledgeable. That's dumb.


Instead of rewording, we should start teaching grammar again in the K-12 schools.

[ChrisC]

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. And if said rights are infringed upon, the infringee has the right to use such borne arms with lethal force against the infringer.

There. All better.

[Steve McDonald]

Originally Posted by Corvette Ministries

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.

Since the role of a militia has been replaced by the highly-organized, well-trained and disciplined National Guard, I would change the 2nd Amendment like this:

The privilege of owning and bearing arms shall be highly-regulated, for the purpose of providing safety for the people. Those who would pose a risk to others or themselves by bearing arms, shall be identified and prevented from doing so. A high standard for safe firearm use by civilians shall be maintained and violators of those standards shall lose their privileges to own or bear them. Legitimate police and military organizations shall regulate their own use of firearms, unless they are proven in the courts to have done so negligently. No one shall sell, trade or give a firearm to anyone, unless the recipient meets high standards for firearm ownership and use and registers this transfer with the appropriate public agency. No one shall sell firearms for profit, unless they have a publicly-issued license and have no felony convictions.

With this, the well-behaved people could continue to own and use guns, but those who wielded them aggressively or unsafely, would lose the privilege. Just as driving a vehicle is a privilege and is highly-regulated by our society and in fact, by all societies on earth, so guns would also be controlled. It's the civilized thing to do. I have left many of the details of regulation unspecified, which would be up to each state to establish. Hopefully, this would serve to reduce the trafficking of guns across state lines, with different requirements by each state.

[Ex New Yorker]

Originally Posted by Ferd

I don't mean to be crass... i was a double major History and English....




the more important point to be made is what did they mean when they said Militia... you touched on that.
at the time that meant every freaking fellow from 16 to 60 that could hold a gun.


you were expected to stand up and defend your community. period.


in fact, that concept isn't unique to the Americas although it certainly did have a certain imperative due to the Indian Wars that had occurred leading up to the writing of the amendment.


the concept itself dates back to Viking invasions of various European areas.


Bottom line, the founders viewed it to be necessary for the survival of the nation that the people would be capable of rising up in defense of the nation. period. that is what they meant, and they meant it when the enshrined it in the Bill of Rights.

Bottom line, the founders viewed it to be necessary for the survival of the Republic that the people would be capable of rising up against all enemies both foreign and domestic including their own government. PERIOD. It was designed as a bulwark against tyranny. That is the intended purpose of the 2nd Amendment. As a double major in history and English you should know that. That is if you had even bothered to read the writings of the founders or the Federalist Papers. If so you would clearly understand that.

George Washington:
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they
should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of 
independence for any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."

“The time is now near at hand which must determine whether Americans are to be freemen or slaves; whether they are to have any property they can call their own; whether their houses and farms are to be pillaged and destroyed, and themselves consigned to a state of wretchedness from which no human efforts will deliver them. The fate of unborn millions will now depend, under God, on the courage and conduct of this army. Our cruel and unrelenting enemy leaves us only the choice of brave resistance, or the most abject submission. We have, therefore, to resolve to conquer or die.”


James Madison:
"Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, and enslaved press, and a disarmed populace."

Samuel Adams:
"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can."
"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..." 
(Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)

John Adams:
"Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense."

Thomas Jefferson:
"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."

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms in his own lands."
--Thomas Jefferson, in an early draft of the Virginia constitution:

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." 
--Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:45

"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 tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" 
(Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939)

Thomas Jefferson's advice to his 15-year-old nephew:
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."

Tench Coxe:
"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" 
(Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)

Thomas Paine, writing to religious pacifists in 1775:

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; the weak would become a prey to the strong."

Noah Webster, 1787:

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."

Richard Henry Lee, 1788:
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." 
(Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975)..)

Patrick Henry:
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined" 
(Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)

"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." 
(Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,...taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386)

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" 
(Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)

George Mason:
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

[Jeerleader]

Since the right to arms is not granted, given, created or otherwise established by the 2nd Amendment, the right of the people is not in any manner dependent upon the words of the Amendment. This means if you are proposing reworking the 2nd Amendment to clarify its meaning, you are only declaring your complete ignorance of foundational constitutional principles.

The Supreme Court has been boringly consistent re-affirming this principle for over 140 years:

Cruikshank, 1876: "The right there specified [in the case documents before the Court] is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; . . . "


Presser, 1886: " . . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms 'is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . . "


Heller, 2008: "it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment , like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .”"

When SCOTUS states that the right to arms of the people is not in any manner dependent on the Constitution, they mean, NOT IN ANY MANNER DEPENDENT.

That means the words "well regulated" have no conditioning action on the right . . . Neither can one argue that a citizen's lawful exercise of the right is dependent upon his enrollment status in the militia -- because the very existence of the organized militia is entirely dependent upon the Constitution (Art I, Section 8, cl's. 15 & 16).