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]

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....

 

[geni]

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]

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

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]

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."

(with thanks to George Carlin on that one)

 

[Ed]

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."

(with thanks to George Carlin on that one)

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

 

[shanek]

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

"Thou shalt not kill, you idiot."

Works for me.

 

[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]

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]

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]

Go back to Claus's first second amendment thread.

Sorry, I did not read that thread.

 

[Rob Lister]

Sorry, I did not read that thread.

Two demerits, one suspended six months.

 

[Ed]

Two demerits, one suspended six months.

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?