• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

How might the Second Amendment be reworded?

CFLarsen said:
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?
Click to expand...

Strawman and you know it.
 
shanek said:
It doesn't, in any significant way.
Click to expand...

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.
 
shanek said:
Strawman and you know it.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Rob Lister said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
CFLarsen said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Delete it completely.

Allow individual states to make their own decisions as they see fit.
 
Nikk said:
Delete it completely.

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

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.
 
Nikk said:
Delete it completely.

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

Umm, that's the whole idea. The reason it's there is to stop the Federal government from getting any bright ideas.
 
shanek said:
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"?
Click to expand...

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."
 
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.
 
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.
 
CFLarsen said:
Nice to see that people do agree with me that it could be nice to clarify it.... :D
Click to expand...

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.
 
Beerina said:
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."
Click to expand...

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."
 
shanek said:
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."
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?

;)
 
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."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom