How might the Second Amendment be reworded?

[Ed]

The threads on the meaning of the SA are going nowhere and augering in to abuse and irrelvant discussion.

As I (always the voice of reason) pointed out, any unified position that people in the US don't have a right to own firearms is not in the cards during the lifetimes of all who are reading this.

The questionis, how would one reword the SA, if that were possible (it isn't but what the hey!)?

Personally, a clearer definition of the right without regard to militias would work for me. It might even prompt me to accept limitations.

[shanek]

Actually, it is possible; just amend the Constitution.

How about, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, you idiots"?

[Ed]

Originally posted by shanek
Actually, it is possible; just amend the Constitution.

How about, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, you idiots"?

"Possible" can refer to a mechanism or a liklihood. I was referring to the latter. You might add a self defense thing while you are at it.

[CFLarsen]

Nice to see that people do agree with me that it could be nice to clarify it.... :D

[geni]

Originally posted by shanek
Actually, it is possible; just amend the Constitution.

How about, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, you idiots"?

Prepare for 200 page threads disscussing the word idiot.

[Ed]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Nice to see that people do agree with me that it could be nice to clarify it.... :D

I think that it is clear. I think that anything that we write today may be open to interpretation in 250 years too.

The clearest law that I can think of is

THOU SHALT NOT KILL

Yet, people still interpret it. Odd, that.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ed
The clearest law that I can think of is

THOU SHALT NOT KILL

Yet, people still interpret it. Odd, that.

Yes, because, don't ya know, it really means, "Thou shalt not kill, unless, of course, the person you're going to kill believes in a different Invisible Man in the Sky than you do." :D

(with thanks to George Carlin on that one)

[Ed]

Originally posted by shanek
Yes, because, don't ya know, it really means, "Thou shalt not kill, unless, of course, the person you're going to kill believes in a different Invisible Man in the Sky than you do." :D

(with thanks to George Carlin on that one)

Well, by your logic all we need do is add ", IDIOT and all will be well.:D

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ed
Well, by your logic all we need do is add ", IDIOT and all will be well.:D

"Thou shalt not kill, you idiot."

Works for me. :D

[rustypouch]

Why is it that when it comes to gun control and the second amendment, many pro-gun folks like to avoid the "well-regulated" part?

[Ed]

Originally posted by rustypouch
Why is it that when it comes to gun control and the second amendment, many pro-gun folks like to avoid the "well-regulated" part?

Go back to Claus's first second amendment thread.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by rustypouch
Why is it that when it comes to gun control and the second amendment, many pro-gun folks like to avoid the "well-regulated" part?

And many more don't avoid it. Oops, ditto what Ed said.

As to the change...I like it the way it is.

Here's a question for all: How does the second amendment differ from all others?

I speaking specifically as to the phrasing of it, which (it seems to me) was done more carefully than the others and with much more consideration.

[rustypouch]

Originally posted by Ed
Go back to Claus's first second amendment thread.

Sorry, I did not read that thread.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by rustypouch
Sorry, I did not read that thread.

Two demerits, one suspended six months.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Two demerits, one suspended six months.

And a leg wound, don't forget the leg wound:D

Seriously, generally I like nothing better than repeating myself, perfecting my well crafted sentences and so on .... except on gun threads...it just gets tedious.

Sorry if I sounded a bit huffy. I leave that to Steve Grenard.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Ed
Go back to Claus's first second amendment thread.

And much confusion was revealed... ;)

[rustypouch]

People think I'm slow because I'm Canadian, eh?

[shanek]

Originally posted by rustypouch
Why is it that when it comes to gun control and the second amendment, many pro-gun folks like to avoid the "well-regulated" part?

The language "well-regulated militia" comes straight from the Articles of Confederation, which describes such a militia as one that is "sufficiently armed and accoutered." Why is it that the anti-gun folks avoid THAT part?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Here's a question for all: How does the second amendment differ from all others?

It doesn't, in any significant way. Like the rest of the amendments of the Bill of Rights, they are, as described by its preamble, "further declaratory and restrictive clauses" and none of them give any sort of implied powers or grant any kind of new power whatsoever to the government.

So, again, we're left with the fact that Article I Section 8 doesn't give any power to the Federal government at all to restrict the ownership of firearms by any private individual.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
The language "well-regulated militia" comes straight from the Articles of Confederation, which describes such a militia as one that is "sufficiently armed and accoutered." Why is it that the anti-gun folks avoid THAT part?

Speaking for myself only, I don't. What I don't understand is, how can this be provided for by the very same government that the gun advocates hate so much?

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Speaking for myself only, I don't. What I don't understand is, how can this be provided for by the very same government that the gun advocates hate so much?

Strawman and you know it.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by shanek
It doesn't, in any significant way.

Well, your idea of significant differs from mine. It does differ, in what I consider to be a significant way. Embodied within that amendment, unlike ALL others, is the basis for including it...the reasoning for it. No other amendment has that. Nary a one.

Why did they do that?

I don't pretend to know but I have some ideas.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
Strawman and you know it.

Absolutely not a strawman. You advocate the right to bear arms in case the gubmint will come after you, yet you do nothing when the going gets tough, and your constitutional rights are suppressed.

You are all words and no actions. Fluff. Hot air. Hypocrisy.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Well, your idea of significant differs from mine. It does differ, in what I consider to be a significant way. Embodied within that amendment, unlike ALL others, is the basis for including it...the reasoning for it. No other amendment has that. Nary a one.

Why did they do that?

Well, I don't see that as significant in that it doesn't alter the power of the amendment; either way, the amendment still prohibits the government from infringing on our right to keep and bear arms.

Keep in mind that it was the result of much debate and much editing. For example, New Hampshire in their draft stated, "Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion." New York and Virginia had considerably longer versions.

Once it got through the committee, it ended up reading, "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." Obviously it was pared down more in its final form, but the militia language remained.

Why? As Mass. delegate Elbridge Gerry said at the time, "What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now it must be evident, that under this provision, together with their other powers, congress could take such measures ith respect to a militia, as make a standing army necessary. Whenever government mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishement of an effective militia to the eastward. The assembly of Massachusetts, seeing the rapid progress that administration were making, to divest them of their inherent privileges, endeavored to counteract them by the organization of the militia, but they were always defeated by the influence of the crown." —Congressional Register, 17 August 1789

In other words, we have the right to bear arms, and one of the purposes of those rights was to form a militia. Remember that they were very concerned about not implying any new powers to the government with these articles. Without that clause, it was felt that those hungry for power and wishing to issue a standing army would restrict the formation of the militia, because it wasn't expressly mentioned, even though that's one of the purposes, and probably, they felt, the most important one, for bearing arms.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Absolutely not a strawman. You advocate the right to bear arms in case the gubmint will come after you, yet you do nothing when the going gets tough, and your constitutional rights are suppressed.

You are all words and no actions. Fluff. Hot air. Hypocrisy.

Uh...isn't it possible that one can fight changes in the government without running around shooting people? That there may be some kind of, I don't know, gray area between "everything's hunky dorey" and "DIE, FASCIST TYRANTS?"

That said, I think the rationale that private ownership of guns will protect against government tyranny is anachronistic at best. No individual or private group of individuals can possibly match America's modern army or police force in terms of training or firepower -- the advent of armored vehicles is something the founding fathers did not anticipate. If there's a civil war, it'll be state vs. state, just like last time. The 9mm pistol you keep in the drawer and the hunting rifle in the closet won't be playing a role.

Jeremy

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Absolutely not a strawman.

Then show me where I said I hate the government. If you can't, you are a LIAR.

[Nikk]

Delete it completely.

Allow individual states to make their own decisions as they see fit.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Nikk
Delete it completely.

Allow individual states to make their own decisions as they see fit.

Many would argue (correctly I think) that the reason it is there is so individual states CAN make their own decisions without federal intervention. What you have touched upon comprises at least half of the issue, if not two-thirds.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Nikk
Delete it completely.

Allow individual states to make their own decisions as they see fit.

Umm, that's the whole idea. The reason it's there is to stop the Federal government from getting any bright ideas.

[Frank Newgent]

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.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/
Howz this (http://www.darkface.pp.se/~thompa/english.php)?
"A self-regulated sex life being necessary to the happiness of a citizen, the right of the people to keep and enjoy pornography shall not be abridged"

From "The Homing Pigeons" by Robert A. Wilson

[Beerina]

Originally posted by shanek
Actually, it is possible; just amend the Constitution.

How about, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, you idiots"?

Close enough. How about "The right of the people to keep and bear arms is so they can resist governments that grow oppressive, as they historically always do. The right has nothing to do with shooting deer or bears or even invaders to your house, which are all incidental."

[Jorghnassen]

How about : "Guns for everyone!"? That is clear and unambiguous. Or, how about, "Guns for some, bulletproof vests for others"? It should make most people happy... I love ripping off The Simpsons.

[Luke T.]

Here's how I see the intent behind the second amendment.

1. Bearing arms is a right, not a privilege.

2. Seeing as how it's a good idea to have armed citizens should a need for them arise, we see no reason to mess with 1.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Nice to see that people do agree with me that it could be nice to clarify it.... :D

Some people need Shakespeare explained to them. Doesn't mean Shakespeare was a lousy writer or that a New International Version of Hamlet is called for.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Beerina
Close enough. How about "The right of the people to keep and bear arms is so they can resist governments that grow oppressive, as they historically always do. The right has nothing to do with shooting deer or bears or even invaders to your house, which are all incidental."

I like the way Tim Slagle said it better: "The right to bear arms is not the right to hunt deer. Our founding fathers were not concerned with having the right to hunt taken away from them. The right to bear arms is the right to arm one's population in the event an unjust government needs to be overthrown. Right now, the right to bear arms is the only form of term limitations we have in the Constitution. That's why we need Uzis."

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by shanek
I like the way Tim Slagle said it better: "The right to bear arms is not the right to hunt deer. Our founding fathers were not concerned with having the right to hunt taken away from them. The right to bear arms is the right to arm one's population in the event an unjust government needs to be overthrown. Right now, the right to bear arms is the only form of term limitations we have in the Constitution. That's why we need Uzis."

I don't think most people buy a gun in case they have to help overthrow the government. :)

There is more to the second amendment than keeping the government in check. The idea was also for citizens to assist in maintaining domestic tranquility, working with the government (self-defense) or against it. Self-defense could apply to anything from a home invasion, to a posse, and on up to overthrowing the government or a usurper.

[crimresearch]

Well for those who won't be happy until there is a completely unambiguous 2nd amendment that can never be misunderstood (intentionally or otherwise), perhaps these versions will meet with their approval:

'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of marksmanship, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of weaponry, or of the firearms owners; or the right of the people bearing arms to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.'

OR

'The right of the people to be secure in their weapons against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.'


Or how about:

'No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of self defense.'

Does that about cover everything in a clear manner...or should any amendments written in that fashion be ignored as well?

;)

[Kodiak]

Amendment II --

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.

The second amendment is composed of two parts: the Justification clause, and the Rights clause.

Justification clause: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,"

Rights clause: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"The justification clause does not modify, restrict, or deny the rights clause."

"Justification clauses appear in many state constitutions, and cover liberties including right to trial, freedom of the press, free speech, and more. Denying gun rights based on the justification clause means we would have to deny free speech rights on the same basis." -- Eugene Volokh, Prof. Law, UCLA See http:/www.law.ucla.edu/faculty/volokh/beararms/testimon.htm

James Madison, considered to be the author of the Bill of Rights, wrote that the Bill of Rights was "calculated to secure the personal rights of the people". -- Stephen P. Halbrook, "Where Kids and Gun Do Mix", Wall Street Journal, June 2000.

"The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respecting the rights of property: nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people: or of peaceable assemblies by them, for any purposes whatsoever, and in any number, whenever they may see occasion. -- Tucker's Blackstone, Volume 1 Appendix Note D., 1803 - Tucker's comments provide a number of rare insights into the consensus for interpretation of the Constitution that prevailed shortly after its ratification, after the debates had settled down and the Constitution was put into practice

Why not go with what Madison himself so simply and clearly stated?

"In order to secure the personal rights of the people, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

[CFLarsen]

Oops, post deleted. Wrong thread.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Oops, post deleted. Wrong thread.


WWWHHHAATTT?!? RUNNIN' AWAY?!?! ;)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Kodiak
WWWHHHAATTT?!? RUNNIN' AWAY?!?! ;)

(emits flatulence in your general direction) :p