How Would You Write A New 2nd Amendment For the 21st Century

[runco]

Rules:  First be serious, but how would you write a new amendment that would further compliment the 2nd amendment, and it must pass today's polarized nation? 

 

Just to remind everyone:

 

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.

 

BTW just the opening paragraph of the constituion too: 

 

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Edited January 26, 2013 by Runco

[runco]

Here is my idea #1:

 

We the people hereby further define the 2nd amendment as follows: We the people shall have the ability at all times to acquire, own, use in self-defense, carry, pass to our Aires all types of semi auto and single shot firearms, ammo, magazines without limitations as we the people deem necessary for freedom, recreation, home defense, property defense and self-defense at any time and any place without any legislation by the government. However, we the people understand that qualifying to own a firearm is necessary to guard against criminal activity, mental challenges and human safety, therefore we the people do authorize the government through an independent 3rd party to implement reasonable minimal qualifications to own a firearm, and renewal of a qualifications to be no less than every 10 years. Any and all qualifying shall be at no cost to the qualifying firearm owner and shall be administered through the internet or similar quick resource.

[RED333]

We dont change a thing.

[daddyo]

While they were men, and therefore just as flawed as any other human being, I believe the founders had great wisdom, the likes of which has vanished from the face of the earth. They knew what they were doing when they wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, because they were getting a full dose of government tyranny. In fact, they probably couldn't write fast enough to keep up with the thoughts that were racing through their heads as to what the limitations of government should be.

 

No, I wouldn't change a thing.

[tntnixon]

The only change I would make is one that would actually enumerate the powers of the judiciary as it does for the legislative and executive branches and require that any Constitutional and legislative interpretations be done so with the original intent as the guiding principal.

[Will Carry]

Just drop the militia part, that's the part the some people seem to have a problem with.

 

We hold the right of the people to bare arms to protect themselves as self evident. ? Maybe? or

 

The right of the people to keep and bare arms or Phasers set on Obliterate, shall not be infringed.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Here is my idea #1:

 

We the people hereby further define the 2nd amendment as follows: We the people shall have the ability at all times to acquire, own, use in self-defense, carry, pass to our Aires all types of semi auto and single shot firearms, ammo, magazines without limitations as we the people deem necessary for freedom, recreation, home defense, property defense and self-defense at any time and any place without any legislation by the government. However, we the people understand that qualifying to own a firearm is necessary to guard against criminal activity, mental challenges and human safety, therefore we the people do authorize the government through an independent 3rd party to implement reasonable minimal qualifications to own a firearm, and renewal of a qualifications to be no less than every 10 years. Any and all qualifying shall be at no cost to the qualifying firearm owner and shall be administered through the internet or similar quick resource.

Why do you leave out, or include, any class of weapons? The original didn't classify any weapons. There is no need to give up

something that is no more or no less a defense weapon. Defense is the key word, and defense against all things, including tyranny,

is what is intended, not an armed robber.

 

Justice, when used like it is supposed to be, takes care of the criminal activity, not pidgeon-holing yourself into a restriction.

Edited January 26, 2013 by 6.8 AR

[Guest Halfling]

I think it is fine the way it is or maybe just a very slight tweak for additional clarity for the people who don't know what our founders really meant...

 

A well trained civilian population 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.

[runco]

Why do you leave out, or include, any class of weapons? The original didn't classify any weapons. There is no need to give up

something that is no more or no less a defense weapon. Defense is the key word, and defense against all things, including tyranny,

is what is intended, not an armed robber.

 

Justice, when used like it is supposed to be, takes care of the criminal activity, not pidgeon-holing yourself into a restriction.

The reason to classify guns, is to pass a 21st century version, I think you need to clarify the class (otherwise it would not pass in today's climate). Personally, I don't think any amendment that re-affirms the 2nd would pass, I just wanted to see people's hypothetical version of a complimentary 2nd amendment so there would be no doubt or misinterpretations going forward.  Me personally I am just sick of this attack on my rights and I just want it to go away not just today, forever!  To make it go away for ever, I just want a iron clad amendment that protects my guns, carry anywhere in the U.S., defend my family & property anywhere anytime, defend my rationale to own a AR15 with unlimited magazines, and that I can pass these down to my sons/daughters w/o any worry again.  However, with ownership comes responsbilites and minimal standards that has a gun society we must admit and accept.

Edited January 26, 2013 by Runco

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I understand your sentiment, but restricting anything from the original intent of the 2nd implies the Constitution is that "living, breathing

document" the progressives and liberals believe it to be. It is not. Bringing it up to date is that implication, also.

[oldmustangjunkie]

I wouldn't change a thing.

[Mike.357]

what part of infringe don't you understand.   I can't give an inch on this.

[DaveTN]

The second amendment already has been changed. It was changed by the Civil War and it was changed by Heller and McDonald. Keep and Bear are no longer synonymous. You have right to keep arms, but the state will decide when and where you can bear them.

 

 

[Guest The Dude]

I dont feel it needs to be re-written. Its pretty self explanatory as it is.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The second amendment already has been changed. It was changed by the Civil War and it was changed by Heller and McDonald. Keep and Bear are no longer synonymous. You have right to keep arms, but the state will decide when and where you can bear them.

An opinion doesn't change the document. It only changes the interpretation of what is considered for that trial, and is subject to future

interpretations. Because, in your mind, Lincoln did something as a precedent, it alters the Constitution, others hold a different opinion,

and will continue to assert it until Hell freezes over. I know I will be one of them.

[Guest nra37922]

Lets see

 

The undeniable right and responsibility of any citizen to have, maintain and carry any weapon currently in use or ever used by any entity of the government cannot be restricted or denied.

[DaveTN]

An opinion doesn't change the document. It only changes the interpretation of what is considered for that trial, and is subject to future

interpretations. Because, in your mind, Lincoln did something as a precedent, it alters the Constitution, others hold a different opinion,

and will continue to assert it until Hell freezes over. I know I will be one of them.

Lincoln did nothing in my opinion as it pertains to this. The Confederacy did something though. Even though they lost the war they won. It was about States’ Rights. Unless the Federal government is going to take on the responsibility of law enforcement for the state; they have no authority to say everyone can strap on a gun and go wherever they please. That’s why the SCOTUS has ruled the way they have.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Those things are still up to the same scrutiny they once had, by the courts, for future decisions to squabble over.  But I think the federal government does have the right to confirm what the 2nd Amendment says, since it was part of the bargaining chip to entice states to join the union. Otherwise, we agree, DaveTN. It's not, however, something they can take away from the states by use of the Commerce Clause, or the Supremacy Clause. It's not one of the enumerated powers, either, so any law infringing the 2nd must be nullified. I didn't say it would happen. I said it must happen, and that depends on the will of the people. No one gave the federal government the right to restrict the 2nd, except a government and legislators who didn't comply with the Constitutionality of any of those laws enacted. Goes back to the reason why many are saying they will not comply with an unjust law, doesn't it?

Edited January 27, 2013 by 6.8 AR

[DaveTN]

Those things are still up to the same scrutiny they once had, by the courts, for future decisions to squabble over.  But I think the federal government

does have the right to confirm what the 2nd Amendment says, since it was part of the bargaining chip to entice states to join the union. Otherwise, we

agree, DaveTN. It's not, however, something they can take away from the states by use of the Commerce Clause, or the Supremacy Clause. It's not

one of the enumerated powers, either, so any law infringing the 2nd must be nullified. I didn't say it would happen. I said it must happen, and that

depends on the will of the people. No one gave the federal government the right to restrict the 2nd, except a government and legislators who didn't

comply with the Constitutionality of any of those laws enacted. Goes back to the reason why many are saying they will not comply with an unjust law,

doesn't it?

A line has been drawn in the sand on gun control and States’ Rights.  You are on the Federal side of it; others are on the States Rights side of it. On your side you have your interpretation of the United States Constitution; on others side they have States Rights and the rulings of the interpreters on the Constitution.

 

I would be on the side of States Rights, except I don’t believe my gun rights come from either. I have the inalienable right to carry a gun to protect my life. But of course no court in the land agrees with that.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

No, actually we are both on the same side of it, just have a screwy way of arguing it. I'm on the "people" side of it, since it is an inalienable right,

and cannot be bastardized by bogus laws. It isn't a state's rights or a federal argument, except that it was to keep the federal government from

having the ability to restrict it.

Edited January 26, 2013 by 6.8 AR

[Monkeyman2500]

It would not matter how it was written, the libs and commies know what it means, they just hate and fear it. They all know exactly what it means.

[Will H]

Yes, there is no reason to rewrite it.  It works fine the way it is and should not be messed with or rewritten in anyway.

 

That said if I were the POTUS I would write the following executive order (only word-smithed by a pro which I am most certainly not)

 

The United States military is the most powerful fighting force the world has ever known and will fight to the last soldier, sailor, airman, and marine to defend the United States of America from any enemy wishing to conquer her.  That said there is no guarantee that the United States military could not possibly lose a conventional war to keep a nation, or group of nations, from invading the United States.

 

The Militia of the United States is hereby defined as every man and woman in the United States who would live their lives as a free people and no other way.  It will forever be the function of these citizens to hold the last line of defense against the aggression of nations and deny them the ability to hold the United States by bleeding them of their personnel, materials, and moral to fight.

 

The United States military stands always ready to sacrifice and defend against foreign invasion, and so also the citizens of the United States must also stand ready to defend our great nation.  Only thru the mutual cooperation of the US military and our citizen will we guarantee that no nation will ever seek to invade and conquer the United States of America.

 

 

I can dream right? 

Edited January 27, 2013 by Will H

[Guest 6.8 AR]

It was written for the 21st century, and all centuries before and after.

[Guest semiautots]

I would simply say:

 

"The people may own personally any type of arm that the government owns".

[Wheelgunner]

I took a stab at it, and this is where I got stumped:

 

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.  This Amendment is so worded that its plain meaning is immediately apparent.  Therefore it shall not be subject to judicial interpretation that in any way curtails the rights herein guaranteed or inquires into legislative intent.

 

See, my main problem with the Second Amendment is not really in the wording of the Amendment itself.  The wording is fine, actually.  My problem is that we have had several U.S. Supreme Court decisions that found it necessary to "interpret" the language of the Amendment.  Any time a judicial power gets into the business of "interpreting" what is fundamentally fairly clear language, you have to worry about what that judge's interpretation will look like.  Frankly, we need a Second Amendment that is immune from such meddling.  

 

That's the rub, though.  If we revised the 2A to look more like my version above, the Supreme Court could say, "that Amendment is now unconstitutional because it is the result of the legislative branch usurping the sovereign power of the judiciary."  Now we're back to square one.

Edited January 27, 2013 by Wheelgunner