• 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 would you amend the second amendment?

Undesired Walrus

Penultimate Amazing
Undesired Walrus
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
11,691
For those who would want to, of course.

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.

Or will anyone make the interesting argument that it actually compatible with gun control laws?
 
Last edited:
Now I think of it, while they are amending that they can amend all the He shall's when referring to the President. Glass ceiling and all.
 
LSSBB said:
Actually, a good definition of "well regulated militia" is in order.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And providing the word "militia" is defined, insert phrase "in the militia" after "people" if that's what they meant, or leave the entire first clause off if that's not what they meant.
 
LSSBB said:
Actually, a good definition of "well regulated militia" is in order.
Click to expand...

The fact that the amendment mentions a "well regulated militia" means, for me, that the second amendment already excludes those stockpiling arms for their own agenda. I don't think it requires any change in language.
 
LSSBB said:
Actually, a good definition of "well regulated militia" is in order.
Click to expand...

Indeed, but Tricky needs to note as well "the right TO KEEP AND bear arms", not just bear arms.

But "regulated" means "tuned up" or "trained" in the words of the time.
 
Lowpro said:
This. The question becomes "who decides what arms are though"
Click to expand...

This is true, since at least for a while, and maybe now, "assault weapons" were defined in a fashion that made a slingshot an assault weapon in the state of NJ.
 
At the time, a state-of-the-art military weapon was a flintlock smoothbore musket with a bayonet. The founders did not envision modern weapons technology.

I know that there is a percentage of the "pro-gun" community that thinks citizens should have access to the same level of weapons technology as the military, seeing themselves as a "bulwark against tyranny".

Definitions might get rather involved.
 
It's fine the way it is.

Good fodder for argument.

Keeps politicians busy.

What I'd like to see is the militia called up, as it was back in the day, to deal with the invasion along the Rio Grande. :p "All able bodied men between age of X and Y and so on ... "

It would be interesting to see who answered the call.
 
I don't think the idea is that citizens can own tanks, bazookas, or nuclear devices, so most people agree that there are certain weapons that only the government gets to play with. If you had to amend it, it'd only be to clarify that fact. But that ship sailed, I think. No one can agree what country the president was born in, so I have my doubts that the far right fringe could agree on the meaning of the "right to bear arms". You can't forbid everything, nor should you. But there ought to be limits. If that much was clear, we could argue on proper limits and stop screaming about the 2nd amendment.
 
Lowpro said:
This. The question becomes "who decides what arms are though"
Click to expand...
Virtually everybody agrees that private citizens shouldn't be allowed to own nuclear weapons. A large majority agrees that a private citizen ought to be allowed to have a gun for self-defense. The middle of the field is is enormous and undefined
 
Bikewer said:
At the time, a state-of-the-art military weapon was a flintlock smoothbore musket with a bayonet. The founders did not envision modern weapons technology.
Click to expand...

I don't think the founding fathers envisioned motion pictures, the internet or TV, but they are all part of freedom of the press and free speech.

Smooth bore muskets were not state of the art back then either. Rifles had been around for a while in 1789 when the Bill of Rights was passed by the House. There was also artillery, rockets and bombs; all of which were more dangerous than a musket.

Ranb
 
I think we need a definition or clarification of "shall not be infringed".

The feds tax some firearms far more than they are worth. They impose registration requirements that are impossible to fulfill and have sentencing requirements that are completely out of proportion for the crime such as 10 years/$10k for possession of an unregistered muffler.

Ranb
 
Ranb said:
I think we need a definition or clarification of "shall not be infringed".

The feds tax some firearms far more than they are worth. They impose registration requirements that are impossible to fulfill and have sentencing requirements that are completely out of proportion for the crime such as 10 years/$10k for possession of an unregistered muffler.

Ranb
Click to expand...

Yeah, the prisons are full of muffler criminals.
 
Your irony does not work here. With 167 federal prosecutions involving silencers in the United States from 1995 to 2005; 135 merely for illegal possession and only 8 requiring enhanced sentencing, there isn't a silencer problem requiring such draconian punishments.

Ranb
 
The second amendment needs to be amended? It looks fine to me, why change something that's already ok?
 
Ranb said:
Your irony does not work here. With 167 federal prosecutions involving silencers in the United States from 1995 to 2005; 135 merely for illegal possession and only 8 requiring enhanced sentencing, there isn't a silencer problem requiring such draconian punishments.

Ranb
Click to expand...
How many terrorism prosecutions have there been between 1995 and 2005? Terrorism should be reduced to a misdemeanor.

Daredelvis
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom