Should the 2d Amendment be amended to remove the confusing first phrase?

MSgt George Cater — Wed, 01 Feb 2017 09:22:50 -0500

What say you? Make it clear and unambiguous. One possible text:

"The right of the people to defend themselves, their property and their Nation being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

Response by SPC Johnney Abbott made Feb 1 at 2017 9:24 AM

SPC Johnney Abbott — Wed, 01 Feb 2017 09:24:17 -0500

How's it confusing?

Response by COL Mikel J. Burroughs made Feb 1 at 2017 9:24 AM

COL Mikel J. Burroughs — Wed, 01 Feb 2017 09:24:57 -0500

MSgt George Cater I think the way its written now is okay, but I'm good with any changes as well. This is a right that should never be removed in my opinion!

Response by SrA Edward Vong made Feb 1 at 2017 9:29 AM

SrA Edward Vong — Wed, 01 Feb 2017 09:29:11 -0500

The militia part can be somewhat confusing. It can theoretically be used to say that only those in the National Guard/Reserve are allowed to own firearms (which I obviously don't agree with).

Response by SSgt Jim Gilmore made Feb 1 at 2017 9:35 AM

SSgt Jim Gilmore — Wed, 01 Feb 2017 09:35:20 -0500

The problem you face is that you will need a Constitutional Amendment to make that happen. LEAVE IT ALONE!

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 1 at 2017 9:40 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 01 Feb 2017 09:40:35 -0500

The Constitution, being lthe living document that it is (like an SOP) is fine the way it is, but can always use some improvements and updates.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Feb 1 at 2017 10:09 AM

CPT Jack Durish — Wed, 01 Feb 2017 10:09:08 -0500

I fear that any attempt to open a discussion on the language of the Second Amendment will also open the gates allowing the hyterical rabble led by the Progressive Left who would use it as an opportunity to attack the fundamental/natural/God-given right to self-defense

Response by SFC George Smith made Feb 1 at 2017 10:27 AM

SFC George Smith — Wed, 01 Feb 2017 10:27:30 -0500

this one Comment is Spot on and If you cant understand it you are the Problem...
and the reason we don't speak Japanese German or Russian is because of the 2nd Amendment...

Response by LTC Stephen C. made Feb 1 at 2017 10:27 AM

LTC Stephen C. — Wed, 01 Feb 2017 10:27:31 -0500

I think that it's OK as is, MSgt George Cater, and the constitutional amendment that it would require to change it might yield a worse result than for which was sought.

Response by TSgt Michael Von Wert made Feb 1 at 2017 10:36 AM

TSgt Michael Von Wert — Wed, 01 Feb 2017 10:36:36 -0500

The first part of the Second Amendment really isn't confusing if you just read it, as written.

Where it becomes confusing is when ambulance chasers try to "interpret" what they "think" is written there.

Perhaps the most effective way of removing the confusion would be to remove the ambulance chasers and replace them with patriots !

Response by PO2 Robert Aitchison made Feb 1 at 2017 10:39 AM

PO2 Robert Aitchison — Wed, 01 Feb 2017 10:39:25 -0500

More and more guns and huge stockpiles of ammo in the hands of ever decreasing number of people. As a gun owner and strong supporter of the second amendment I find these statistics more troubling than reassuring.

I'd much rather see fewer guns in the hands of more people. The situation we have now is great for short term profits of gun and ammo manufacturers but not so good for the long term health of the republic.

Response by Cpl Chris Cargile made Feb 1 at 2017 10:58 AM

Cpl Chris Cargile — Wed, 01 Feb 2017 10:58:34 -0500

I say leave it alone, the Founders worded it that way for a reason. 1st Amendment "or the right of the people peaceably to assemble...". 2nd Amendment "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". 4th Amendment "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects...". 5th Amendment "No person shall be held to answer...". 9th Amendment "... shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.". Those are just the ones that refer specifically to "the people" and not "the accused" or "the Owner" in 6A and 3A respectively. The Founders were a lot more careful with and respectful of language than we are now and worded the Bill of Rights the way they did to preserve the rights and primacy of the Individual over the State.

Response by SGT Dave Tracy made Feb 1 at 2017 11:02 AM

SGT Dave Tracy — Wed, 01 Feb 2017 11:02:03 -0500

Not sure I would make a change to the verbiage, but at least you maintained the phrase "the right of the people" in your proposed rewording. I'll never understand the mentality that finds the phrase so crystal clear and unwavering in the 1st Amendment, but suddenly becomes wildly ambiguous in the 2nd.

Response by SSG Michael Tellekamp made Feb 1 at 2017 11:29 AM

SSG Michael Tellekamp — Wed, 01 Feb 2017 11:29:28 -0500

I would leave it alone. There could be unintended consequences with any well intentioned changes. Depending on who is in charge you might get more change than you expected. So, too much risk for too little gain.

Response by CW3 Harvey K. made Feb 1 at 2017 11:59 AM

CW3 Harvey K. — Wed, 01 Feb 2017 11:59:28 -0500

Any revision would suggest that the 2nd Amendment is not clearly a statement of the right of the people as INDIVIDUALS to "keep and bear arms" as it is presently written.
That intended "clarification" may be viewed as weakening the present meaning of the Amendment. Certainly, Justice Stevens leaves himself open to such criticism of his views as to what he thinks the 2nd Amendment means by his "suggested change".
Justice Stevens thinks five words will "fix" the 2nd Amendment.
“When serving in the Militia” --- Justice Stevens grasps at a straw, wishing that adding these five words will “clarify” the intent of the Founders, while in fact he intends frustrating their intent with an illogical suggested “fix”, hoping desperately to salvage the “Militia only” or “collective right interpretation” of the 2nd Amendment.

Grammatically –---- the 2nd Amendment clearly states and guarantees a pre-existing individual “right of the people”, certainly not a “right of the [ORGANIZED] Militia” which was composed of a limited minority of “the people” (originally only free, White, able-bodied, male citizens 18-45 years old were conscripted into the Militia by the Militia Act of 1792).

Logically –---- why should the Bill of Rights, concerned with the protection of individual rights of citizens, make any senseless guarantee that “the Militia” has the right to be armed, or that the fraction of the total “people” in the organized Militia may rightfully be armed only “when serving”?

The idea of the “Militia” having its right to be armed recognized in the Bill of Rights is as ludicrous as a Constitutional amendment stating and guaranteeing that “the ARMY has the right to bear arms”. I have searched the Constitution for such an authorization, and found no mention that any army Congress is authorized to raise may be manned by armed troops.
That arms-bearing by any military force, be it militia or “regular troops”, is implicit ---- it needs no explicit statement. It is in the very nature of ANY kind of army ---- militia or regulars, be those troops volunteer, conscripted, or mercenary --- to be armed.

They are ALL “ARMED forces”.

They ALL carry guns.

That is what they do.

There is no need to include an amendment in the Bill of Rights to recognize "the Militia has the right to be armed".

Response by COL John McClellan made Feb 1 at 2017 12:03 PM

COL John McClellan — Wed, 01 Feb 2017 12:03:37 -0500

Absolutely not!

Response by Lt Col Jim Coe made Feb 1 at 2017 12:21 PM

Lt Col Jim Coe — Wed, 01 Feb 2017 12:21:44 -0500

Problem is opening the 2nd Amendment for revision. Once you set out to do that, you risk having the amendment revised so it says only military and law enforcement can have "arms" or getting it deleted entirely. Leave it alone!

Response by MSG Brad Sand made Feb 1 at 2017 12:23 PM

MSG Brad Sand — Wed, 01 Feb 2017 12:23:02 -0500

Let's be honest, it is not unclear.
The amendment, the Bill of OUR right states clearly '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.'
A state needs to have armed men to maintain the security of the state. Pretty clear and sensible to me. So that leads us to the second part, IF we are going to have armed men for protection, 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.' Yes, the founders could have tried to imagine how corrupt and power hungry politician might become and only stated 'The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' but they knew that people lettered in the law would never be so dishonest as to ignore the comma and pretend the amendment...the bill of rights...was added to allow the states or Federal government to maintain the National Guard?

Response by SFC Dave Beran made Feb 1 at 2017 12:51 PM

SFC Dave Beran — Wed, 01 Feb 2017 12:51:30 -0500

First, I have always been against the use of "living document". This has been used by the left to channel their progressive agenda.
Second. The original Bill of Rights was written at the beginning of our nation. The term "Militia" referred to the common man, who in the beginning of the Revolutionary War, brought their weapons and joined together to fight tyranny. That is why it is the right of all citizens to own weapons/arms. To fight tyranny, and for self protection of himself and his home(family, neighborhood,state and country). End of discussion.

Response by LTC John Shaw made Feb 1 at 2017 1:27 PM

LTC John Shaw — Wed, 01 Feb 2017 13:27:12 -0500

The 2nd Amendment does not need to be changed, our society must respect the founders intent.
The folks arguing for gun control need to respect each citizen's right found in the original intent of the creation of the 2nd Amendment and the SCOTUS needs to enforce the intent by finding these attempts unconstitutional.

Response by SGT Tony Clifford made Feb 1 at 2017 2:02 PM

SGT Tony Clifford — Wed, 01 Feb 2017 14:02:36 -0500

The wording is perfect. Paraphrased to better fit today's lexicon it says, because we need to have a military for national defense, we must allow the populace to have arms to defend against that same military.

Now the constitution had to state the need for a military for obvious reasons, but the founders had just fought a war against what used to be the army of their country. They recognized that their government could become just as oppressive as the one they just fought against, so they included a right that allows the citizen the means to resist oppression.

Response by SSgt Christopher Brose made Feb 1 at 2017 2:23 PM

SSgt Christopher Brose — Wed, 01 Feb 2017 14:23:26 -0500

That meme reminds me of a conversation I once had. It was the lead-up to the Bush/Gore election, and I was in a bike shop with the shop owner and another customer. The subject of the election came up, and I mentioned that this time, I'm a single-issue voter. "What's your issue?" "Guns." "Why?" Because I believe in the Constitution, and I believe that if a President (or any other official) is going to ignore and violate the Constitution, that's where they're going to start.

Then the other customer spoke up. It turns out he's a doctor from New York. He asked me if, with just a normal rifle, could a person shoot a man-sized target from one or two football fields away? I said yes. He asked me, "Doesn't that scare you?" I told him absolutely not. "Do you have any idea how many guns there are in this country? There are well over 100 million guns. If this was going to be a problem, IT WOULD ALREADY BE A PROBLEM! The people who buy these guns aren't the problem in this country." He disagreed, thinking that anyone owning a gun is a ticking time bomb, and someone with a rifle is just waiting for the opportunity to shoot someone from one or two football fields away.

The conversation went on for a while. In the end he left, still scared, and unhappy and a little pissed that I not only didn't accept the basis for his fear, I shot it down so forcefully.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 1 at 2017 2:28 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 01 Feb 2017 14:28:06 -0500

PFC Tom Cater - If the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to protect the citizens from the federal government - then we really need a substantial upgrade!!! How about we up the god given right to firepower - to include heavy caliber high capacity machine guns, urban assault rifles, heavily armed military aircraft, gravity bombs, smart bombs, rockets, claymore mines, artillery, mortars, bazookas, grenades, rockets, armed and armored vehicles, tanks, and small atomic demolition munitions? Nothing less than a full complement of weapons is going to help in defending us against militarized government. And, oh by the way, how about a government aid program to either lend / lease / donate weapons to our states and our citizens - similar to the international military aid programs now in place to help us? Warmest Regards, Sandy :)

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 1 at 2017 2:52 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 01 Feb 2017 14:52:04 -0500

I love that pic you used with the question.

Response by PVT Mark Brown made Feb 1 at 2017 3:38 PM

PVT Mark Brown — Wed, 01 Feb 2017 15:38:37 -0500

Sadly, there are a great many folks, politicians and citizens alike, that completely DO NOT understand that 2nd Amendment statement quoted above. It seems quite clear to me. In 1968 I took an oath and to the best of my knowledge that oath had no expiration clause. When I was debriefed upon my EST it was made perfectly clear to me that knowledge I had gained as a result of having a Top Secret ENTNAC clearance I was bound for live to keep and and all TS information silent and consider all TS classified documents and information to remain so for my entire life. I have and will continue to do so. Same principal as the Constitution of These Great United States. I could wonder off on a completely related/unrelated tangent but that is for another post another day.

Response by CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 1 at 2017 5:21 PM

CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 01 Feb 2017 17:21:35 -0500

Leave well enough only. If it ain't broke why fix it.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 1 at 2017 5:35 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 01 Feb 2017 17:35:27 -0500

If so I'd rather any prefatory statement be left out altogether and get straight to the point i.e. "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." This way there is no need to wring hands on what the Founding Fathers meant. To take it to a Trumpian level "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall NEVER EVER EVER EVER be infringed."

Response by SFC Jim Ruether made Feb 1 at 2017 6:13 PM

SFC Jim Ruether — Wed, 01 Feb 2017 18:13:48 -0500

There isn't a person alive today that can match wits or knowledge with Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Adams. How can any one today feel so educated they can challenge the thought and due diligence that went into the creation of our Constitution by these men.

Response by Brad Kerley made Feb 1 at 2017 6:47 PM

Brad Kerley — Wed, 01 Feb 2017 18:47:04 -0500

Leave it be and return to honring the Constitution and teaching it properly in schools. Then it wouldn't need explaining because everyone would clearly understand that being a citizen of the US is a duty and responsibility shared by all.

Response by GySgt Melissa Gravila made Feb 1 at 2017 9:18 PM

GySgt Melissa Gravila — Wed, 01 Feb 2017 21:18:06 -0500

Here we go again folks- stop trying to interpret it- read it. Don't change it- if it ain't broke, don't fix it!

Response by CPT Aaron Kletzing made Feb 1 at 2017 9:51 PM

CPT Aaron Kletzing — Wed, 01 Feb 2017 21:51:12 -0500

legal gun owners are not the problem

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 1 at 2017 10:39 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 01 Feb 2017 22:39:27 -0500

I think I like the way that's phrased. With a majority controlled Congress it's possible but my concern is that if a Constitutional Convention were to be called it could get muddied up and altered in a way we wouldn't want.

Response by SGT Matthew S. made Feb 1 at 2017 10:52 PM

SGT Matthew S. — Wed, 01 Feb 2017 22:52:50 -0500

As others have said, I think a lot of it comes down to the fact that we don't talk & write the same as 200 years ago, so some things can get a bit muddled in the process. I don't like the idea of re-writing it, though, as I could see parts (the 2nd quite easily) getting edited and changing the legal basis behind it

Response by TSgt Kenneth Ellis made Feb 2 at 2017 2:12 AM

TSgt Kenneth Ellis — Thu, 02 Feb 2017 02:12:01 -0500

It's only confusing to Democrats and liberals.

Response by SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA made Feb 2 at 2017 10:19 AM

SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA — Thu, 02 Feb 2017 10:19:11 -0500

No. The first 13 words are just as important as the rest. For a detailed treatment of why this is so, I urge you to read Dr. Edwin Vieira's book, Thirteen Words.
The institution of the Constitutional Militia is vital to the preservation of our Freedom. Admittedly, the Militia was already a well-established part of our Republic before the Bill of Rights was added, but it would do no good to remove it from the guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms. Instead, we must revitalize the institution of the Constitutional Militia in each State, immediately.
The Militia has been neglected for well over a century, but it is still legally a part of the framework of our Republic.
No, neither the National Guard, nor State Defense Forces, nor Bubba playing army on the weekend, are the Militia.

Response by TSgt Michael Von Wert made Feb 2 at 2017 10:26 AM

TSgt Michael Von Wert — Thu, 02 Feb 2017 10:26:18 -0500

Probably the biggest point of confusion about the U.S. Constitution, is that it does not give us rights!

What the U.S. Constitution does is list rights granted to us by God, that the Founding Fathers listed as something so basic to our lives, that they could NOT be taken away by government. <b>The U.S. Constitution was written to limit government's powers.</b>

It's not the Founding Fathers telling us we can bare arms, it's the Founding Fathers telling us that God has given us the right to defend our lives, families and property, and that the government cannot take away, or infringe, on that basic human right, which God gave us.

Response by SSgt Robert Marx made Feb 2 at 2017 12:58 PM

SSgt Robert Marx — Thu, 02 Feb 2017 12:58:42 -0500

Once you open it up to being revised the changes would get out of meaningful hand.

Response by CPL Rob N. made Feb 2 at 2017 1:01 PM

CPL Rob N. — Thu, 02 Feb 2017 13:01:12 -0500

In order for some to fully understand why certain words and phrases were used in the creation of the Constitution, one would need to place themselves in the same time period the Constitution was created. Some words and phrases had different meanings than they do today, obviously. This link is to an article I found that analyzes the terminology (specifically, the 2nd Amendment) used and how it could possibly have been intended to read and how it would translate to today's definitions of the words and phrases.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

The Second Amendment: The Framers' Intentions

The 'Well Regulated' Militia of the SecondAmendment: An Examination of the Framers' Intentions - from the 'Lectric LawLibrary's stacks

Response by CW3 Joseph Antosiak made Feb 2 at 2017 1:33 PM

CW3 Joseph Antosiak — Thu, 02 Feb 2017 13:33:15 -0500

No, and in fact there should be no need. US courts up to and including SCOTUS have routinely delivered opinions on 18th-century laws that all say essentially the same thing: this is how laws were written back then, and a prefatory phrase does not change the meaning of the basic sentence. In short, if the framers wanted the 2d amendment to apply only to the militia, they would have said "The right of members of a well-regulated Militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Response by MAJ James Goldberg made Feb 2 at 2017 2:14 PM

MAJ James Goldberg — Thu, 02 Feb 2017 14:14:37 -0500

Have Congress vote on an amendment to the Constitution:
1) The Second Amendment is hereby rescinded.
2) The Right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
-----------
If 2/3's of the House and Senate approve, send it out to the states. If 3/4's approve, you have clarity on gun ownership rights. If there is a failure to get 3/4's you ALSO then have clarity on gun ownership rights.

Response by SPC Don Wynn made Feb 2 at 2017 3:22 PM

SPC Don Wynn — Thu, 02 Feb 2017 15:22:42 -0500

I'm going to put this out there, and yes it will not be popular. Also, before anyone wants to flame my ass over it, yes, I'm a liberal, Progressive, tree hugging, wanna-be-hippie, Socialist, snowflake. Feel better? Good, so we can dispense with that segment of our program (yes, I'm also a sarcastic SOB).
I actually like it to be even shorter "The right of the people to defend themselves, their property and their Nation, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." However, that said, what is 'infringed'? Since most of us understand; or should, that no right is unrestricted, why is the 2nd so often argued that it should be? We accept that civilian use and ownership of automatic weapons is very restricted, yet that would be considered an 'infringement', correct? After all if I want and feel a need to have a SAW as personal protection, why not? Yeah, we know why not! So, this is the unpopular part, get ready; why is the argument that infringed is the same as unrestricted? And why can't we discuss it? After all, the reason we are a nation and have our Constitution; which we all have sworn an oath to defend, is because some very smart, righteous, men talked about and envisioned a nation with government that responded to it's people. People with very different backgrounds, educations, beliefs and convictions. And as a result of those discussions, arguments, debates, we have today, arguably, the greatest nation on the planet. I believe it should, and actually must, be discussed in terms of what do we ALL really want from it. I personally want gun owners to be responsible in their ownership and at this point, don't believe some are. Which has led to this being a subject of discussion. What needs to be done about it?

Response by COL Dan Fuhr made Feb 2 at 2017 4:33 PM

COL Dan Fuhr — Thu, 02 Feb 2017 16:33:27 -0500

An important fact to consider regarding the relationship of the people and the militia: At that time, most if not all of the original 13 states had laws that defined every able-bodied man as a member of the militia. Each man was required to provide his own arms. Only two years after the Bill of Rights was ratified, the U.S passed the Second Militia Act of 1792 which codified this obligation including the specific requirements for arms and ammunition each person should provide. Therefore, the underlying assumption lost on most of us today is that almost EVERYBODY was in the militia and was expected to bring their own arms for that service. Even today, the Illinois Constitution states that every able-bodied resident is in the militia.

Response by CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 2 at 2017 6:04 PM

CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 02 Feb 2017 18:04:32 -0500

Leave the Constitution alone. Leave gun ownership alone. Safety measures and things to attempt to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the insane are common sense, but that's as far as it goes with me. Anyone that can't agree on these is part of the problem and unable to offer any solution(s). The Constitution is what has held us together all this time and other than during the Civil War we've never been this "politically" divided. Some might argue otherwise with regard to civil rights and anti-war movements of the 60's and that's their opinion. Mine is that we now have a "us" and "them" mentality politically, and even see each other as the "opposition", and that can never be good. Man is often his own worst enemy and we shouldn't buy into any weak rationale or sales job to fix something that is not broken.

Response by SFC George Smith made Feb 2 at 2017 7:05 PM

SFC George Smith — Thu, 02 Feb 2017 19:05:48 -0500

LOL... I've had a Concealed carry for 37 years and the 2nd amendment does not need any changes... Just a class for Progressives and Liberals To Understand what it means and Why i't there... but most are too inept and will never be able to Understand its Complexities...

Response by COL Charles Williams made Feb 3 at 2017 1:07 AM

COL Charles Williams — Fri, 03 Feb 2017 01:07:47 -0500

I don't think so... Amending the Bill of Rights is a slippery slope... MSgt George Cater

Response by COL Dan Fuhr made Feb 3 at 2017 12:47 PM

COL Dan Fuhr — Fri, 03 Feb 2017 12:47:59 -0500

The following excerpt from "The Address and Reasons of Dissent of the Minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania to their Constituents" December 12, 1787 provides excellent insights into the thinking of many that prompted the addition of the Bill of Rights and the 2nd Amendment specifically:

"7. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up: and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers."

Response by SSgt Christopher Brose made Feb 3 at 2017 1:20 PM

SSgt Christopher Brose — Fri, 03 Feb 2017 13:20:05 -0500

A couple more Supreme Court nominees like Gorsuch, and this will be a moot question.

Response by PO2 David Ball made Feb 4 at 2017 12:00 PM

PO2 David Ball — Sat, 04 Feb 2017 12:00:11 -0500

Just what did the Second Amendment amend any way? Article One Section 8 right after To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia .Note the "Bill of Rights" are articles in amendment of and in addition to the Original Constitution !It's to bad that most of you still do not understand that. Oh and most of you use the alternative facts that our form of government is a democracy which in fact we are not !!

Response by PV2 Glen Lewis made Feb 6 at 2017 1:50 AM

PV2 Glen Lewis — Mon, 06 Feb 2017 01:50:53 -0500

I really don't find anything unclear about the wording of the second amendment. What I find unclear is why people fail to recognize that with the number of people increasing it is logical that violence would increase in proportion. There is also the fact that the media uses anything and everything to increase its subscribers and watchers. The less sensationalism the fewer in the audience.

Response by SGT Philip Klein made Feb 8 at 2017 6:07 AM

SGT Philip Klein — Wed, 08 Feb 2017 06:07:22 -0500

You completely changed the intent of the text. So no, it's fine. You're confused.

Response by MSgt Neil Greenfield made Feb 15 at 2017 8:43 AM

MSgt Neil Greenfield — Wed, 15 Feb 2017 08:43:53 -0500

No way. This is how the founders wrote it. Leave it alone. All that does is open up a can of worms.

Response by SSgt Boyd Herrst made Feb 15 at 2017 9:04 AM

SSgt Boyd Herrst — Wed, 15 Feb 2017 09:04:52 -0500

AFJROTC;... It consumed me.. literally &
Physically.. I was trying to juggle Scouts in there to.. and had sitreps come up, scouts in one hand and ROTC in another.. so I figured a way to do both together.. I got the two leaders together and they held a head bang together.. exchanged ideas.. we had a SAR ting come up and we went out in mixed teams.. it gave us more teams and it actually worked out good..
the troop we inter-acted with had their search skills down good.. as were their first aid and some leadership.. room for improvement on both sides.. nobody was trying to "outdo" the other person.. emphasis on teamwork.. work together and get the job at hand done.. The AF Reserve judges gave our SAR test a big thumbs up on all points considered.. perfect weather; wet, foggy, miserable, the more obstacles in your way and the more you do good to overcome them, the better you look for points.. later we seen these scouts in school and there was a better rapport between us.. and that was a great example to other kids in school ..
I thought.. one of my teachers asked us
(All the kids) what we did on our weekend.. one kid; oh we went to cedar point.. rode some wild rides.. bla-bla-bla..
One of the girls; usual girl stuff that can be shared.. go to the mall(oh whoopee)..
I'm trying to be nice and a nice hand clap
When theiy're done.. some were doing the high 5 thing .. really, over an amusement ride?.. "Mr. Herrst, what did you do this weekend? ;" she asked.. I stood up as did the the otherCadets and turned and addressed the class and told of our SARtest and what we did on it .. three
On the team we're in the room.. I motioned for them to stand to share credit
When I told that our team grabbed the
SARtest trophy.. one student asked; "so how does that compare with going to cedar point or the mall with friends?" Actually it doesn't Mr . _____, not at all,
II exceeds it! While you're out playing kiddie games, the team and I were out
Searching for an "supposed to be" injured
Person with multiple injuries and do to the inclement weather, the Air transport couldn't get in.. so we had to hoof it out over treacherous terraain in the iron mountain region in the U.P... carting the simulated injured party.. and making sure they were not injured further." (We had a mbr. Who was also our photographer and recorded what we did.. he developed his own film and made slides..). He narrated
The slide presentation.. Mr._____ was enthralled by what he seen and so were others.. then the bell rang.. The teacher
Promised to pick up where we left off..
Nobody complained I took to long, which surprised me.. I remembered to thank them for being so courteous and patient
With my spiel.. there are always a few that are not.. one or two don't even offer anything about what they did.. that's just them, who they are and I don't hold it against them.. Our JROTC program picked up 4 new people that would start next semester.. and some others changed their opinions of us, hopefully positive.. even not in uniform I tried to maintain professionalism; the way I clothed myself: neat clothes(even my jeans had creases). Not picked with holes.. or Irish pennants.. one guy who clothed himself out of whatever he found in the hamper bottom.. unkempt hair..
that was who he was.. didn't care .. or couldn't afford .. he ragged because I always tried to look decent.. my family
Worked to put bread on the table and wear decent clothing .. his point was "did I have to have creases in e'thing I wore"? Could I dress more comfortable?.. "so you want me to wear my pjs?" I replied.. " you look like your tense all the time," he'd say.. I told him roudy was for the weekend,
You'll even see creases in those jeans, also I told him.. so, throws up his arms an walks away shaking his head back an' forth... I have loosened some as the years have moved on.. but still try to mailntain some semblance of self discipline in clothing and characteristics..

Response by PO3 Mike Wimbish made Mar 7 at 2017 7:27 AM

PO3 Mike Wimbish — Tue, 07 Mar 2017 07:27:21 -0500

One problem you may be having is multiple commas. There was only one in the official, ratified version.

"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."

I see it quoted most often with 3 commas when 2A-opponents seek either to redefine its meaning or make it extraneous. When comma-spliced into ambiguity, the resultant sentence is meaningless.

Response by SPC Randy Torgerson made Mar 7 at 2017 12:23 PM

SPC Randy Torgerson — Tue, 07 Mar 2017 12:23:51 -0500

No it should not be changed. Its already clear. And just like President Trumps temporary travel restriction executive order, no matter how you word it the other side will always say its not clear. The Heller case supreme court decision made it more clear. The 2nd amendment's main purpose is to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government.

To prove my point, it is clear that the left and altleft don't even understand the definition of "infringed". What possible words could be used that they would understand the meaning of them?

Response by Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 7 at 2017 3:35 PM

Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 07 Mar 2017 15:35:11 -0500

NO !!!! There has NEVER been confusion until the Illegal Alien, moslem Terrorist, communist !!!!!

Response by CDR Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 15 at 2017 7:23 PM

CDR Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 15 Mar 2017 19:23:03 -0400

Maybe and no. I disagree with most people on the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. I feel it is narrow in scope and it only applies to the descendant of local militias which is the National Guard of today. It only applies to allow National Guard members the right to have access to and the use of arms and only in regards to their duties in protecting the United States and the states each guard represents. So in this regard the Constitution is quiet on whether citizens can own a gun or not. It only applies to guard members and is only applicable when a guard member is active with the guard.

For everyone else the 10th Amendment gives guidance that it is up to the individual states to decide.

So if you want an amendment that grants everyone the right to bear arms then you need either a new amendment or to rewrite the 2nd Amendment. If you want to leave it up to individual states then you can leave the 2nd Amendment alone.

Response by Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 30 at 2017 2:21 PM

Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 30 Mar 2017 14:21:01 -0400

WHAT 'confusing phrase' !!!

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 1 at 2017 3:16 PM

SCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 01 Apr 2017 15:16:17 -0400

There is no confusion. Those simple, forthright words say exactly what the Founding Fathers intended. They convey an undeniable and immutable truth. The issue yesterday, today, and, inevitably, tomorrow is the constant barrage of liberal interpretations, based not upon legal principles, but social contexts of the day, always an ill-advised and ignorant practice.

Response by Maj Wilk Dedwylder made Apr 20 at 2017 11:19 AM

Maj Wilk Dedwylder — Thu, 20 Apr 2017 11:19:58 -0400

There's no confusion with the prefatory clause, unless you want there to be. Scalia was correct about this. That people are ignorant of the extent of the militia would better be repaired by a Hamiltonian correction: the states should regulate their militias, by requiring every adult capable of doing so to head for the shooting range one or two weekends per year. Give them some instruction, an M-4, and a hundred rounds, and there's no confusion about almost all adults being in the militia.

Response by CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 20 at 2017 6:56 PM

CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 20 Apr 2017 18:56:38 -0400

If they are dead set on outlawing something, outlaw lobbyists. They used to serve a purpose and cause legislation in the public interest. Not so much anymore. Just a system of legalized influence-peddling to push through legislation that is detrimental to all in society other than the ones putting up the cash. Outlaw homesteading in Congress. They push servicemen out when they're deemed as no longer effective, so why a double standard? Most MOC's have sold their souls years ago but the cash keeps them in office. Outlaw dark money that is protected by Citizens United. They can bundle through Super PACs and due to the wording we as the public have no right to know who is putting up the cash. For all we know, foreign interests are channeling cash to campaigns to circumvent our system. I'd like to know and every citizen should want to know if foreign interests are controlling our system from afar. We already know that elected positions are indirectly for sale to the highest bidders, but we assume only from US citizens. It defeats the purpose of spending $ 600 billion annually on defense when foreign actors can achieve their goals without ever firing a shot.

Response by SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA made Apr 24 at 2017 11:28 AM

SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA — Mon, 24 Apr 2017 11:28:51 -0400

Categorically, no.
The phrase is not confusing. It clearly states that a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free state. We haven't had a well regulated Militia in over a century. Maybe that's why both security and freedom are slipping in this country.
It's not hard to find out what a Militia was when the Amendment was written, and thus what it should be today if we followed the Constitution.

The National Guard is not the Militia. Neither are State Defense Forces. Neither is Bubba playing Army in the woods. The Constitutional Militia is a State government institution comprising at least every free adult male, organized, armed, and disciplined for war. We haven't had that at least since the Dick Act of 1903, but we need to have it.

Response by GySgt Douglas Dare made Apr 25 at 2017 8:54 AM

GySgt Douglas Dare — Tue, 25 Apr 2017 08:54:53 -0400

NO. We don't mess with it! A well regulated Militia, THIS IS A RIGHT! THE COMA IS A PAUSE. WE THE PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO "A well regulated Militia! Than there is a explanation, "being necessary to the security of a free State". THIS IS THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF A STATE TO KEEP THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT UNDER CONTROL! Our founding fathers did not believe in the Federal Government being in charge. Remember, "WE THE PEOPLE" now we move to how a State, WE THE PEOPLE, can insure we control the federal government, "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP (OWN) AND BEAR (CARRY) ARMS, Here is another pause. WE THE PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN AND CARRY OUR GUNS!!!!! and the last portion, this is the most important part, "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Check the period out, very important also. This insures a ending not continuation. Our founding fathers did not trust a federal government and to insure the 1st AMENDMENT WE THE PEOPLE WERE EMPOWERED TO DEFEND THE STATE! The word INFRINGED is defined as, "The encroachment, breach, or violation of a right, law, regulation, or contract. The term is most frequently used in reference to the invasion of rights secured by Copyright, patent, or trademark".

Response by SSG Steven Mangus made Apr 25 at 2017 10:12 AM

SSG Steven Mangus — Tue, 25 Apr 2017 10:12:42 -0400

No changes should be made..a lot of individuals blame firearms in the commission of crime; however, the firearm is a tool and the individual(s) make the choice how to use said tool..

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 25 at 2017 12:42 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 25 Apr 2017 12:42:57 -0400

Look how seldom 38 States agree on something. If the naive governor Jerry Brown's of the United States got together to agree on this is going to take decades but in the meantime the bad guys don't care and laugh at Progressive but will still have guns and will continue to kill and this is true even here in Canada.

Response by SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth made Apr 25 at 2017 5:44 PM

SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth — Tue, 25 Apr 2017 17:44:37 -0400

That's a fact, those that have a problem with people that own weapos legally are the problem.

Response by PO1 Mac MacIntyre made Apr 27 at 2017 7:09 AM

PO1 Mac MacIntyre — Thu, 27 Apr 2017 07:09:08 -0400

What is confusing about it? Seems pretty straight forward to me.

Response by Maj Ken Brown made May 1 at 2017 9:02 PM

Maj Ken Brown — Mon, 01 May 2017 21:02:18 -0400

The first part of the amendment justifies the Selective Service System. Note that draft boards are on the county government level: the federal government establishes a levy and the counties respond by naming their candidates, choosing them from amongst the unorganized militias (males in the age range established by the draft decree). The wording is quite tricky, but its meaning is established by use.

Response by CMSgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 2 at 2017 8:34 AM

CMSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 02 May 2017 08:34:31 -0400

It would not fix the problem because the Liberals don't understand simple English. They will always say what they "believe" it means, not what it actually means.

Response by GySgt Duane DaVein made May 2 at 2017 7:42 PM

GySgt Duane DaVein — Tue, 02 May 2017 19:42:54 -0400

It is clear. The language has changed since the Constitution was written. “Well regulated” meant “properly equipped or well equipped or well ordered”.
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.
That translates in modern English to:
A well equipped militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
A militia to the framers, is not the National Guard. The National Guard is a sworn, standing Army, not private citizens.
Since them various Supreme Courts had ignored the Second Amendment as written because it is difficult for those in power to allow the People to be empowered and not totally at the mercy of its rulers.

Response by SFC Jimmy Sellers made May 3 at 2017 6:18 AM

SFC Jimmy Sellers — Wed, 03 May 2017 06:18:43 -0400

I believe that clarifying the 2nd aement is an excellent idea. Also, there must be some sort of federally mandated training course that must be passsed by anyone wanting to legally purchase a firearm. This training would include a psychological evaluation.
The penalty for being caught with a illegally aquired gun must be more severe. A lot of veterans may disagree with this, but think about how you had to prove that you could be trusted with love ammo in basic training/boot camp before you were allowed to live fire on the range. Everyone needs to be held to the same high standard if they wish to have the responsibility of owning a weapon.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made May 4 at 2017 11:21 AM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 04 May 2017 11:21:50 -0400

What is the basis of your proposal? As for now, I cannot see the need to change it. What needs to be changed is the discussion about gun control.

Response by SSgt Donald Ostrem made May 6 at 2017 7:06 PM

SSgt Donald Ostrem — Sat, 06 May 2017 19:06:15 -0400

No! leave it alone! Look what has happened to places like France and Great Britain! The Islamo-Nazis want to overthrow their gov't and establish Sharia. Some people never learn!

Response by GySgt David Weihausen made May 8 at 2017 11:33 AM

GySgt David Weihausen — Mon, 08 May 2017 11:33:45 -0400

IMHO it is already clear. Leave it be. Those who would claim otherwise are the same people trying to disarm the masses to make it easier for them to control. They seize upon that first phrase in an obtuse attempt to justify their position when their real purpose is to confuse the facts so they can delete the whole amendment. The Constitution as it is written should be left alone. Semper Fidelis.

Response by SFC Terry Murphy made May 9 at 2017 9:50 AM

SFC Terry Murphy — Tue, 09 May 2017 09:50:23 -0400

Changing the Second Amendment would open the door to change all the other amendments. Maybe freedom of speech should be changed to freedom of speech that doesn't offend anybody or freedom of religion as long as it's not a certain religion. Leave things as they were written the courts will figure out what they mean and we know what they mean!

Response by LTC Charles Spangler made May 9 at 2017 10:57 AM

LTC Charles Spangler — Tue, 09 May 2017 10:57:33 -0400

A Convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution, also called an Article V Convention, or Amendments Convention, called for by two-thirds (currently 34) of the state legislatures, is one of two processes authorized by Article Five of the United States Constitution whereby the Constitution, the nation's frame of government, may be altered. Amendments may also be proposed by the Congress with a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
Currently 11 states have signed up for the Convention of States (Texas being the latest last week). The problem is that when such a convention if formed, all bets are off on what amendment is modified, eliminated or created. Such a convention can even pass an amendment to dissolve the Union. The writers of our Constitution were smart and savvy. This is dangerous stuff. I strongly suggest leaving it alone.

Response by SGT Richard McArthur made May 11 at 2017 9:12 PM

SGT Richard McArthur — Thu, 11 May 2017 21:12:25 -0400

At first glance, I like that drafting. Give me some time to consider it; and to view other responses.
Sarge Cater, have you legal training?

Response by SSG Vincent Wilson made May 13 at 2017 8:24 AM

SSG Vincent Wilson — Sat, 13 May 2017 08:24:37 -0400

Amend to replace the word "right" with "responsibility"

Response by PO1 Kevin Dougherty made May 14 at 2017 10:35 AM

PO1 Kevin Dougherty — Sun, 14 May 2017 10:35:24 -0400

Nothing confusing about it, especially when you consider 10 U.S. Code § 246. Pay particular attention to paragraph (2).

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Those arguing otherwise are either intentionally ignoring or ignorant of US Code. since most are lawyer types .....

Response by MSgt Darren VanDerwilt made May 14 at 2017 7:16 PM

MSgt Darren VanDerwilt — Sun, 14 May 2017 19:16:55 -0400

It was written that way for a purpose. "Well regulated," has been conveniently miss-interpreted by the anti-self defense crowd to mean the government can regulate firearms. Anyone with a military background understands the real meaning, standardization. Also, militia references non-professional military citizens. In short, the first part says; A standardized, uniformly equipped and armed citizenry, being the best means of protecting liberty,... In truth, the first part could say; The moon, being made of green cheese, the right of the people...

Response by Cpl Bill Johnson made May 18 at 2017 6:46 PM

Cpl Bill Johnson — Thu, 18 May 2017 18:46:52 -0400

How about clarifying the original intent?

"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to a free state, the right of all men of appropriate age, physical and mental capacity, being designated as such, to bear arms in defense of said state, shall not be infringed"

Response by SGT Linda Burgess made May 23 at 2017 4:18 PM

SGT Linda Burgess — Tue, 23 May 2017 16:18:26 -0400

If people took the time to "actually" understand English there would not be the big discussion. It's not ambiguous, it's clear. The only people that think it's ambiguous are the ones that malign gun owners, police and the military. The same people cry like whiny babies when anything bad happens and they need to be defended. The Democrat Governor Ann Richards understood.

Response by SCPO Lonny Randolph made May 28 at 2017 12:42 PM

SCPO Lonny Randolph — Sun, 28 May 2017 12:42:56 -0400

In a word - no. It is perfectly clear, unambiguous and well written in completely understandable English. The last thing we need is for a bunch of post revisionist changes to make the language "clearer".

Response by SGT John Penrose made May 28 at 2017 5:12 PM

SGT John Penrose — Sun, 28 May 2017 17:12:47 -0400

Want an explaination as to why I disagree with a change. See the Oathkeeper Youtube site - Videos - Molon Labe. Vidwo is very good explanation of why the Second Amendment, as it is written, is the foundation for the security of our free Republic. Take the time. It's worth the listen. Taz - out.

Response by Maj Bill Smith, Ph.D. made May 28 at 2017 8:34 PM

Maj Bill Smith, Ph.D. — Sun, 28 May 2017 20:34:55 -0400

I agree with those saying leave it alone. Please note the military was established to take on our enemies out side the USA. However if an enemy ever took a foot hold on / within the United States, then it would be Armed Americans who would opposes such an enemy. And a well regulated / today's terms co-ordinated militia will be American citizens stepping forward to rebuff / resist such an enemy.

Response by PVT Raymond Lopez made Jun 2 at 2017 12:56 AM

PVT Raymond Lopez — Fri, 02 Jun 2017 00:56:28 -0400

Should the 2d Amendment be amended to remove the confusing first phrase? NO!!!! Since I was a little boy I have been obsessed with history especially military history. The genius of the Second Amendment actually predates the American Revolution and the foundation of the United States and the adoption of the United States Constitution in 1789. It is actually something which to the very early colonial period.

In the first four years of the French Revolution created turmoil in the nation's armies, and were characterized by revolt, mutiny, counter-revolution, and largescale emigration within the aristocratic officercorps.1 The catastrophic defeat of General Charles François Du Périer Dumouriez (1739–1823) at Neerwinden in March 1793 seemed to nullify the effects of previous army reform and brought back the spectre of foreign invasion.2 The levée en masse of 23 August 1793 was the French Convention's direct response to this looming crisis. It ambitiously declared that:

From this moment and until all enemies are driven from the territory of the Republic all French persons are placed in permanent requisition for the service of the armies. The young men will go to battle, married men will forge arms and transport provisions; women will make tents and clothing and serve in the hospitals; children will shred old linen; old men will have themselves carried to public places to arouse the courage of warriors and preach the hatred of kings and the unity of the Republic.
At its most apparent and superficial level, this compelling and extraordinary legislation sought to assemble recruits for an army of 750,000 men, and to create a logistic framework of sufficient magnitude to support such an unprecedented military establishment.4 Although these tangible goals were of fundamental importance, this mass mobilization was to be much more than a mere drive to extract manpower and strategic resources from the French population.
Compulsory military service, or at least the sovereign's right to compel his subjects to enlist in the armed forces, was nothing new in either French or European history. Indeed, the ancien régime monarchy's imperfect recruitment and militia system had enabled France to field some of the largest armies of the early modern period.5 Despite the apparent achievements of Louis XIV's (1638–1715) armies during the grand siècle, by the late eighteenth century it was felt that fundamental reforms were necessary.6 Military analysts like Joseph Servan (1731–1807) and the counts of Guibert (Charles Benoît, 1715–1786), and Saint Germain (Claude Louis, 1707–1778) , affirmed that institutional reorganization, or the introduction of Prussian-style tactics and discipline, was insufficient to break the stagnation into which venality, poor leadership and ill-trained troops had plunged the royal army-of-the-line. A new military 'spirit' had to be instilled into the nation at large.
These writers, inspired by classical antiquity, believed that, through education and training, the subjects of the king could be transformed into citizen soldiers. Universal military service in an enlightened polity placed the entire population of the nation at the disposal of the state, thus providing a potentially inexhaustible source of manpower. It was further hoped that these troops, who were patriotic, intelligent and highly-motivated, would be able to decisively influence the outcome of any battle. This proposal was certainly inspired by the Enlightenment's broader strategy of defining a new civic identity, which would expand participation in public administration and thus create a more benign system of governance.
The levée en masse was the culmination of this long-standing call for the creation of a new military culture. The Constituent Assembly had already introduced the principle of merit in the promotion system of officers. There had also been experiments in creating volunteer legions and a more humane code of military discipline. Despite the publicity accorded to these innovations, their efficacy on the battlefield failed to materialise.9 The fall of the Constitutional Monarchy and the radicalization of Republican politics gradually allowed the Jacobins to urge more far-reaching reforms.10 They felt that previous attempts had not gone far enough in bringing the spirit and energy of the 1789 Revolution to the army. They viewed with suspicion bordering on obsession the remaining noble officers and white-uniformed veterans of the old royal army. They were certain that battlefield failures were due to a refusal, on the part of traditional elements within the military, to push forward reforms. Only by imbuing the army with revolutionary zeal could this situation be reversed.
The Jacobins claimed the levée en masse was not an instrument of state coercion, but an extraordinary recruitment measure intended to harness the French people's pre-existing enthusiasm, patriotic fervor and ideological commitment to the Revolution.11 The levée was a complex formula in which political ideology was transformed into a secret weapon which would ultimately result in the Revolution's triumph over ancien régime despotism.
The dissymmetry between the physical realty and the ideological claims of the levée has been the subject of significant debate and controversy. Although many historians dispute the actual numbers of the army created in

In 1912 the Swiss Army included 281,000 men and could call on an additional 200,000 auxiliary troops…Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany visited Switzerland that year. As the Kaiser observed Swiss army maneuvers, Swiss President Ludwig Forrer told his guest that “we have the resolute intention of protecting our independence against any attack on this land, our dearest possession, and of upholding our neutrality against anyone who fails to respect it.” In a conversation depicted on a contemporary post-card, the Kaiser queried what the quarter of a million Swiss Army would do if faced with an invasion of Switzerland by half a million German troops the Swiss President replied “shoot twice”.
Can you imagine the New York Times publishing an account of a 13-year old girl who won the City’s military rifle competition, being congratulated by the mayor? Not today, but a century ago the U.S. President did so. None other than Teddy Roosevelt congratulated the New York schoolboy who was the best rifle shot of the year. His message was reprinted in Why School Boys Should Be Taught to Shoot? (1907), by Gen. George Wingate, head of the N.Y. Public Schools Athletic League and NRA founder. Wingate had occasion to note: “Switzerland has no regular army, but depends for her defense on her riflemen.” Zurich’s youngsters who shoot military rifles have a lesson to teach Americans. It is a lesson of peace, family values, and responsibility, while gaining the ability to defend oneself and one’s community from aggression. As was well known to America’s Founders, who were enamored of the Swiss model, teaching the young to shoot is both a civic virtue and a wonderful sport.
One of the things which amuses me the most is the ignorance of practitioners of the profession of arms of history keeps haunting military professionals. Has anyone ever wondered why you practice drill and ceremonies especially passing in revue before senior officers on a reviewing stand? Once upon a time when the colonels raised their regiments at their own expense and then the government reimburses him for his expenses and pays his troops’ salaries. The Kings’ Commissioners counted the actual number of troops present. Does anyone remember “ghost soldiers” in Afghanistan?

Response by 1SG Brian Emmert made Jun 2 at 2017 9:21 AM

1SG Brian Emmert — Fri, 02 Jun 2017 09:21:55 -0400

No.

Response by CMSgt Thomas Halcum made Jun 5 at 2017 7:33 AM

CMSgt Thomas Halcum — Mon, 05 Jun 2017 07:33:13 -0400

Keep it just like it is

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Jun 5 at 2017 8:36 AM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Mon, 05 Jun 2017 08:36:01 -0400

If you have to change it to make it say what you want it to say, then it doesn't say what you want it to....

Response by Sgt Brian Chin made Jun 9 at 2017 1:32 PM

Sgt Brian Chin — Fri, 09 Jun 2017 13:32:22 -0400

The only thing I'd add is right after "defend themselves" and before "their property", is "their family".

Response by SGT George Duncan made Jun 9 at 2017 6:18 PM

SGT George Duncan — Fri, 09 Jun 2017 18:18:56 -0400

when we elect / appoint some one i can trust to babysit my kids then we can talk about it

Response by PO1 Joseph Glennon made Jun 10 at 2017 6:30 PM

PO1 Joseph Glennon — Sat, 10 Jun 2017 18:30:20 -0400

It's not confusing to me, Top - but, if a change *had* to be made for clarification's sake, it could be done by adding one word to the subjective clause (the "confusing first phrase"):
"Because"

The main clause of the Amendment comes after the second comma - it can (and does) stand on its own:
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Since it can stand on its own, it's clear that the first clause is the subjective clause; that is, it's clarification of the "why".

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." This preamble, if you will, doesn't *say* anything. Reading that part without having the main clause behind it, says and codifies nothing. Except: using the phrasing of the day (and one can easily understand the meaning of each part if they read other writings by the Founders), one will understand this:
"A well practiced and able military group, standing ready for action, is necessary for a country's security from external and internal attack."

Then we go to the main clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Any time the Constitution says "people", specifically, it is referring to the individuals. When it's referring to the whole, it refers to the United States or the State. For example, the 10th Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

- this specifically spells out that the Constitution was not written to limit the citizens, it's purpose is to limit the Federal government. If there is a problem with understanding any of the Constitution or the Amendments, or what they actually mean; it's not the phrasing that's the problem, or the "archaic" use of language, the problem is with the education of those reading it, or the willingness to twist the meaning by those who are teaching it.

But, again - if we "must" change it for clarification, how about this:
"Because a well regulated Military is necessary to the security of a free country, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed or restricted."
... that is, after all, what it says in our current vernacular.

Response by PO1 Michael Garrett made Jun 11 at 2017 12:27 PM

PO1 Michael Garrett — Sun, 11 Jun 2017 12:27:04 -0400

Historically, militias in the US were formed by local citizens for their own defense. They supplied their own arms and ammunition which meant no standardization of arms. Military training was spotty, as was discipline. Yet militias were a ready group of men who were able to fight at a moment’s notice. Militias were the first to respond to the opening shots of the American Revolution. Militias were also the first to fight in the Civil War.
Their deficiencies were all-too-apparent by the time of the First World War. There needed to be standards for training and for weapons. The US government went to a National Guard system during WWI. By providing National Guard units with weapons and training, it was felt that they could augment regular Army forces in time of war. During peace time, the states could call them out for emergencies.
Modern-day politicians and liberals see the National Guard system as making the 2nd Amendment obsolete.” Why do citizens need assault weapons if the government will provide for the defense of the states through the National Guard system?”
The reason why our Founding Fathers phrased the 2nd Amendment this way, is because they had seen first-hand what a government would do with a military against a populace who stood up against repression. They felt that despite the flaws of the militia system, it was still a good idea to have an armed populace to counter an armed government.

Response by SrA Merwin Hayes made Jun 12 at 2017 12:45 AM

SrA Merwin Hayes — Mon, 12 Jun 2017 00:45:32 -0400

Some of the expressions used in the Constitution do require some interpretation; words and expressions that were common in 1789 are not quite so clear two hundred years later. The problem is, if the Bill of Rights is to be modernized, who should we trust to modernize it "properly?" Could a glossary of old terminology and words suffice to clarify the meanings? Maybe The Federalist Papers should abbreviated to become the Constitution? I do like the initial suggestion for the 2nd Amendment proposed by MSgt Cater.

Response by 2LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 13 at 2017 2:34 PM

2LT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 13 Jun 2017 14:34:01 -0400

I would have to say no, just because we should interpret what the original text says, but not alter it. There is clearly a debate over the meaning of different clauses. I do not think the appropriate solution is changing the original text.

Response by PO2 Steven Hardy made Jun 15 at 2017 8:49 AM

PO2 Steven Hardy — Thu, 15 Jun 2017 08:49:59 -0400

The language isn't confusing. The first part stress the importance of the right, and the second part clearly guarantees the right. The opponents of liberty will always argue against it regardless of the language used.

Response by Sgt Wayne Wood made Jun 15 at 2017 9:49 AM

Sgt Wayne Wood — Thu, 15 Jun 2017 09:49:56 -0400

Remove the militia part... then add language to make dueling legal...

That should cure a lot of butt-hurt & add some civility to public discourse.

" an eye for an eye" leads to a world of the blind only works when #libtards rule... normal people are capable of learning.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 17 at 2017 3:25 AM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 17 Jun 2017 03:25:48 -0400

I don't think its confusing. See this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hx23c84obwQ

But why add to it? How bout "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Penn & Teller Explain The Second Amendment

Penn & Teller Explain The Second Amendment to The United States Constitution

Response by CPO Glenn Moss made Jun 17 at 2017 4:16 AM

CPO Glenn Moss — Sat, 17 Jun 2017 04:16:53 -0400

The Second Amendment is only confusing to those people who MAKE it confusing by not doing even the most basic study of history.

People have a natural tendency to interpret things through their own experiences and views, which are formed by the events of their own times. Looking at things that happen outside their own times, their own culture, their own country, etc. often leads to misconceptions, confusion, and flat out wrong interpretations because such people are quite literally disconnected from the fundamentals in which those events occurred.

First of all, the "Bill of Rights" doesn't GRANT rights at all. It acknowledges the existence of certain rights and then places proscriptions on the GOVERNMENT with respect to denying citizens their rights. The "why" of the very existence of any right is never questioned. The right simply exists.

The Second Amendment acknowledges arms ownership and carrying itself as a RIGHT. It says that this right is ESSENTIAL to maintaining a free state...meaning a government that is not oppressive to its citizens. It never says that the right exists BECAUSE it's important to maintain the security a free state...it says that maintaining a free state is possible THROUGH the right. And the medium of that security is the militia, which means the able bodied citizens themselves.

The meaning is very clear if only people would look at the context of the time in which this amendment was drafted...including all the versions in which it was actually penned before the final draft. Not to mention just plain logic.

People who try to use modern English clause rules to figure this out are going to confuse the issue because modern English is not the same as Colonial American English at the time these documents we're talking about were written.

Also, people who might think that the drafters could not have made any errors in the written language when arguing how this was written would do well to notice the several spelling errors in the Constitution itself as testimony.

The history behind the Bill of Rights is very interesting. The states all provided a list of what they felt were essential rights which they were concerned about. The right keep and bear arms was one which was common among several of the states. They clearly meant it in its most basic meaning...CITIZENS HAD THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS AND THE GOVERNMENT WAS NOT TO BE ALLOWED TO DENY THAT.

Besides...even if the Second Amendment WAS changed to be exactly that clear...the government would STILL argue that no rights are absolute and the "reasonable" restrictions were OK.

Response by SGM Bill Frazer made Jun 18 at 2017 10:57 AM

SGM Bill Frazer — Sun, 18 Jun 2017 10:57:42 -0400

No, what folks need to realize, is at the time of framing this amendment, the militia was EVERY ABLE BODIED MAN in the town from 16 to 70 who had a weapon. There was no "National or State Guard" When the state needed troops it issued a call to the town militias to muster together. In essence, the phase a well regulated militia means every individual who is trained to use their weapon or knows how to use the weapon has a right to it.

Response by CWO4 Tim Hecht made Jun 19 at 2017 1:13 AM

CWO4 Tim Hecht — Mon, 19 Jun 2017 01:13:51 -0400

George - with all the hoopla about the 2nd Amendment I've done some research into the wording and the history of it.

It almost came down to a 1700's version of a coin toss between the 2nd Amendment and the 1st Amendment as to which one would be first. The 1st Amendment obviously won out. Reading about the 2nd regarding "A well regulated militia" the framers of the Constitution mean that the people (we the people) as opposed to the Army, Navy, or Marine Corps (only services at the time except the Revenue Marine, forerunner of the Coast Guard was established in 1790) were the well regulated militia. They wanted the people to be able to rise up against a tyrannical government as they did when they fought the King and England.

I guess I'm old school; I don't think that the Bill of Rights should not be changed. There are more the 20,000 laws in the US concerning guns; way too many.

Response by Sgt Mike Jacobi made Jun 19 at 2017 7:59 PM

Sgt Mike Jacobi — Mon, 19 Jun 2017 19:59:15 -0400

Do not touch a letter of the 2nd Amendment. Opening that question would result in a storm of gun haters ju
Ping in to destroy it utterly. Just leave well enough alone.

Response by SPC Jon O. made Jun 20 at 2017 11:54 AM

SPC Jon O. — Tue, 20 Jun 2017 11:54:43 -0400

I believe any revisions to the wording of the 2nd Amendment would open Pandora's box. The LEFT would take advantage of any thought they could to change our right to bear arms. Great question and comments!

Response by SSG Edward Tilton made Jun 21 at 2017 9:50 PM

SSG Edward Tilton — Wed, 21 Jun 2017 21:50:15 -0400

We know it

Response by SCPO Lonny Randolph made Jun 22 at 2017 4:13 PM

SCPO Lonny Randolph — Thu, 22 Jun 2017 16:13:29 -0400

The one single element in a lot of these threads that makes me twitch the most is the notion that the Supreme Court of the United States's job is to "interpret" the Constitution. The document is quite clear and doesn't need "interpretation". One uses an interpreter to help one understand something written or spoken in some other language. The SCOTUS's only job is to decide whether or not a given law is compliant with the Constitution. Anything beyond that is ACTIVISM... Nothing but love tho...

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 25 at 2017 10:30 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 25 Jun 2017 22:30:14 -0400

It's too bad that as military professionals, we have to sink to name calling. In my years of military service leading up to retirement, I have always hoped that we could be the one segment of society who could voice an opinion based upon logical thought. Now I see that even among the senior ranks, we are rolling in the mud of name calling and insults. Can we remember what we stand for, offer an opinion based on serious thought, and remember that we are ONE military, not necessary of one mindset, but made up of the segment of society who represents the greatest Country on Earth?
Thank you-
Master Sergeant Leasha Dixson
Retired

Response by SPC Phillip Anderson made Jun 28 at 2017 8:55 AM

SPC Phillip Anderson — Wed, 28 Jun 2017 08:55:05 -0400

I appreciate the thought that goes into making things clearer. People who want to do away with personal weapons will be against them no matter what the 2nd Amendment says. The only thing a modification to the wording will do is solidify each side to the for/against arguments.

Response by Capt Edward Hannan made Jun 29 at 2017 4:05 PM

Capt Edward Hannan — Thu, 29 Jun 2017 16:05:59 -0400

I think the amendment is clear as written but unfortunately "activists judges read unwritten words into our constitution. we see this most obviously where freedom of religion becomes "freedom from religion". however, this does not seem to apply to Muslims. that being said, I like the way the proposal is worded.

Response by LTJG Edward Bangor Jr made Jun 29 at 2017 6:00 PM

LTJG Edward Bangor Jr — Thu, 29 Jun 2017 18:00:53 -0400

Here's the problem with the 2nd Amendment in my eyes: the Framers of the Constitution did not maintain a standing Army and thus needed to rely on local militias who would in turn outfit themselves for combat. That meant owning a gun. Did they mean that all people should be allowed to buy a rifle at Wal-Mart? We can't know. The courts are supposed to try to interpret the Constitution, but times change and verbiage that may have once been innocuous is a sudden hot point of debate. The "militia clause" could be interpreted to mean that only law enforcement and the military are guaranteed the right to own a weapon. But this is only an issue because the use of militias has been supplanted by the formation of the standing forces and law enforcement agencies we now have.

In that same vein, the 4th Amendment limits the governments access you your home. But there are a surprising number of politicians who believe that access to information for the police is more important than being able to have a risqué photo of your significant other on your phone with out Uncle Sam knowing. One of the common arguments is that the Framers didn't know about the capability to transmit and store information we have means the interpretations of the 4th Amendment must shift.

For what it's worth, for as many "liberals" that try to limit 2nd Amendment protections, there are just as many "conservatives" trying to undermine the 4th. I think a different discussion needs to happen before we talk about revising the Bill of Rights. Namely, do interpretations of the Constitution need to change to reflect the capabilities of the parties concerned? This is, in my humble opinion, a more basic and more important question that we need to answer first.

Response by PO2 Richard C. made Jun 30 at 2017 1:11 AM

PO2 Richard C. — Fri, 30 Jun 2017 01:11:03 -0400

Leave it alone!! As precise as (I believe) the Constitution is, SCOTUS is always making legal rulings that make you think they are either 1) reading a different document, or 2) bending words to enable a specific political agenda (for either party). Care to guess which possibility I lean towards?

Response by MCPO Kurt Stauff made Jun 30 at 2017 1:20 PM

MCPO Kurt Stauff — Fri, 30 Jun 2017 13:20:09 -0400

I think it should stand as it is, because it is not at all confusing unless you twist it to be. Just like studying biblical hermeneutics, you must read it as it was written to the audience of the time. They were speaking of a God-given right here, not some insignificant local law, and they wanted to ensure that those rights would be upheld as long as the Constitution was in effect--very far-reaching thinking based on historical precedents. In truth, I think that a possible solution to our gun rights issue in this country would be to use the Swiss pattern of self-defense, and have every state form local militias and supply able-bodied citizens with defensive weapons and ammo, as well as regular training, to mount a defense, if required, when the National Guard isn't around. Posse Comitatus would not allow regular US armed forces to take control in every locality in the country unless martial law was declared--that would not work so well in the US. I think it would also be beneficial in teaching citizens of their personal responsibilities and would go far as to removing the objectification of weapons as intrinsically evil, but teach people gun safety, practice, and ownership responsibilities. It would also teach citizens that, ultimately, safety and security in their own communities is a shared responsibilities. Some may say that I'm a dreamer...

Response by Sgt John Erskine made Jul 2 at 2017 9:56 AM

Sgt John Erskine — Sun, 02 Jul 2017 09:56:24 -0400

Do everything to keep your weapons because with these open border, progressive (Socialist) types trying to regain the government, if they do there will be hell to pay !

Response by SFC Charles Temm made Jul 2 at 2017 3:08 PM

SFC Charles Temm — Sun, 02 Jul 2017 15:08:34 -0400

No, it's only confusing to those who wish to think it is for political reasons. Amending the Bill of Rights would only encourage progs/statists of both major parties to try and "clarify" other parts of the Constitution too.

Response by Capt Christian D. Orr made Jul 4 at 2017 9:45 AM

Capt Christian D. Orr — Tue, 04 Jul 2017 09:45:29 -0400

Might not be a bad idea, just to stick it to all those leftie pinko snowflake anti-gunners.

Response by PO3 Kenn Andrus made Jul 5 at 2017 7:52 PM

PO3 Kenn Andrus — Wed, 05 Jul 2017 19:52:19 -0400

once you start changing the wording of the Constitution, you will give every Liberal an opportunity to change the whole of our country to suit their own needs and trample on the rights of the rest of us. Leave it alone!!!!!

Response by Cpl Gabriel F. made Jul 6 at 2017 12:29 AM

Cpl Gabriel F. — Thu, 06 Jul 2017 00:29:17 -0400

We the people are the well regulated militia.
The 4th gets stomped on all the time. The IRS don't need no stinking warrant. IRS takes and the highest court in the land does not hear appellant tax cases.

Response by TSgt Melissa Post made Jul 6 at 2017 2:06 AM

TSgt Melissa Post — Thu, 06 Jul 2017 02:06:21 -0400

I say no. Leave it as is. People understood our language much better back in those times. When you start to debate about what this or that should say from back then, we start to divide views and split hairs over things that don't really need splitting. I have always wondered why we needed "interpretations" of our constitution. What is there to interpret? Webster made a dictionary. Don't know what a word means? Look it up. Fill in the blank and there is your legal definition. But that is just my "interpretation".

Response by PO1 Gregg Mundy made Jul 8 at 2017 11:43 PM

PO1 Gregg Mundy — Sat, 08 Jul 2017 23:43:07 -0400

I agree with CPT Jack Durish, If you start changing the wording it will just open up a big can worms. Just an observation, why do we need, as hopefully intelligent people, to down grade each other during these discussions?

Response by SSG Norbert Johnson made Jul 10 at 2017 2:19 PM

SSG Norbert Johnson — Mon, 10 Jul 2017 14:19:36 -0400

Leave it as it is. Look for the definition of the terms from a 1700's dictionary and it will remain unambiguous without modification. It is NOT what your definition of IS, is, but the definition known to the framers of teh Constitution!

Response by TSgt Lars Eilenfeld made Jul 13 at 2017 12:31 PM

TSgt Lars Eilenfeld — Thu, 13 Jul 2017 12:31:05 -0400

First Phrase isn't confusing at all it is very clear and absolute the problem these days is most people can't read

Response by Sgt William Collins made Jul 13 at 2017 2:16 PM

Sgt William Collins — Thu, 13 Jul 2017 14:16:16 -0400

I don't think we ought to mess with it. I really wish Madison hadn't used that confusing phrase when drafting it, but at that time it made sense because it was common knowledge that in times of trouble the militia, composed of all able-bodied men, would respond. Now, our society is not organized in remote groups and an organized militia is not generally necessary. That, however, does not affect the main clause - the right of the People to keep and bear arms. If we were to throw it up to amendment by the process in the Constitution, anti-gun groups would also have their say and the meaning of the remainder of the amendment would be modified, perhaps even lost. If it's working, don't fix it.

Response by CDR Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 13 at 2017 2:20 PM

CDR Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 13 Jul 2017 14:20:42 -0400

That's still not unambiguous. What classifies as "arms"? Are there limits that are reasonable? Would RPGs would acceptable arms? What about ammunition? Are there types of ammunition that are acceptable or not? The reason the amendment is there was so that government couldn't suppress the people. Are any amount of personal firearms going to be able to fight off our military?

Response by SrA Merwin Hayes made Jul 14 at 2017 1:57 AM

SrA Merwin Hayes — Fri, 14 Jul 2017 01:57:50 -0400

I was thinking it might help for Congress to pass a resolution containing an official definition, with discussion, on its meaning. But now that I know Congress better, I think the definition would change every time the political party with a majority changed.

Maybe certain chapters of The Federalist Papers could be officially foot-noted as references for the language-confused.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 17 at 2017 5:17 PM

PO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 17 Jul 2017 17:17:36 -0400

Honestly, we could probably really use another constitutional convention. And I say this as someone who has extensively studied the constitution and seriously admire it and the process behind creating it.

Response by Maj Okpahrah Fennerson made Jul 18 at 2017 11:07 AM

Maj Okpahrah Fennerson — Tue, 18 Jul 2017 11:07:35 -0400

Are we talking about updates, really updates. Updates shouldn't scare American's; however it should frighten the psuedo patriotic ones.

Party politics on gun control is weak and old. The unchanging traditional South America (Southern States) have a unhealthy grip on gun rights, and that needs to change. White Americans occupy our list of founders who wrote the U.S. Constitution, but last I checked current law makers are represented by all creeds and colors. Is it possible that the old antiquated laws need a second look. Shit last I checked the gad damn voting rights law on the books ain't representative of the current American melting pot. Oh, now I get it...as long as the outdated U.S (Un.Scritinized) Constitution represent those it was originally deaigned to protect, then the rest of American's should just deal with it. Please...take that ole klan thinking back to hell.
The laws need a second look, if for no other reason to validate that they are relevant to the current American demographic.

The sky is no longer the limit, go beyond!!!

Response by PFC Darrell Mcphetridge made Jul 19 at 2017 6:22 PM

PFC Darrell Mcphetridge — Wed, 19 Jul 2017 18:22:30 -0400

What is the confusing part you're talking about? It's pretty plain English and easy to understand.

Response by SSG Edward Tilton made Jul 22 at 2017 10:38 PM

SSG Edward Tilton — Sat, 22 Jul 2017 22:38:05 -0400

Article 1 of the Constitution defines a Militia and places it under the Command of the President. I see no need to expand that.

Response by SrA Merwin Hayes made Jul 24 at 2017 5:31 AM

SrA Merwin Hayes — Mon, 24 Jul 2017 05:31:42 -0400

The argument over the meanings of the words in the second amendment show the need for teaching American History, with emphasis on original word-meanings. I had history courses in grade school, and in high school there were mandatory Constitution and American History classes; the American History course was reserved for during the senior year. From what I read, it seems those courses are no longer taught.

Response by Sgt William Collins made Jul 27 at 2017 12:17 PM

Sgt William Collins — Thu, 27 Jul 2017 12:17:33 -0400

I'd agree with simply "The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." No qualifiers. However, if you put it up for amendment under the procedure outlined in the Constitution, you couldn't predict what the outcome would be today. Leave it alone.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Jul 28 at 2017 7:28 AM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Fri, 28 Jul 2017 07:28:50 -0400

The problem with this is that it will be another issue to polarize the country around. I believe 2A and 14A need to be updated. Unfortunately, my view of how they need to be updated is not in line with those who are quite vocal about their position. IMHO, we no longer live in a country where we can have opinions and not be verbally abused for having them if someone doesn't agree with us. We also, IMHO, have a government that is too concerned with keeping their jobs rather than doing their jobs so any attempt at changing the Constitution won't get past the idea stage.

Response by CPT Wes Marsh made Jul 30 at 2017 10:12 PM

CPT Wes Marsh — Sun, 30 Jul 2017 22:12:46 -0400

Leave the words alone, fiddle with the interpretations.

Response by PO1 Kevin Dougherty made Aug 3 at 2017 11:55 PM

PO1 Kevin Dougherty — Thu, 03 Aug 2017 23:55:56 -0400

It is only confusing if you ignore the historical context, the contemporary usage of words, and US Code. The word regulated was understood in the 1700s to mean trained. The USC still specifies two militias, a formal militia, defined as the National Guard, and an informal militia, defined as all able bodied men between the ages of 17 1/2 and 47. (I may be off a little on the ages, it's been a while since I looked at it.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Aug 3 at 2017 11:58 PM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Thu, 03 Aug 2017 23:58:12 -0400

Is it confusing, or does it simply imply that the current popular interpretation may not be the right one?

Response by PO2 Danetta Troisi made Aug 4 at 2017 11:08 AM

PO2 Danetta Troisi — Fri, 04 Aug 2017 11:08:02 -0400

Why? I understand it just fine and so does my family. It is quite clear, as far as I am concerned, as to what it says. For those who cannot read and comprehend plain English, use a dictionary. I believe we do still have those, online even. My mother taught my siblings and I to research anything that we didn't understand and I taught this to my children. Simple study of what was written, the meaning of the words, how they were used ,very easy to do. We used to be taught how to do this in school, too.
Leave the 2nd Amendment alone. To change it could lead to wording it in a way the could take away our rights. We don't have to guess what the writers meant, they were clear. I have heard the argument about needing to fit into 'changing times'. While times have changed, the need to to protect life, limb, and liberty have not. It does mean we abuse these right by just attacking/adsaulting people. It just means that if attacked/assaulted we will respond, with force if necessary.
Children were once taught gun safety in schools. Now, they are taught to fear guns, that guns are bad. What's next? There are gun safety rules for a reason. Each of my children knows them, and understands them. They have have been taught about the 2nd Amendment and what it means.
My husband, older son and I are all veterans who stand ready to defend our Constitution, our family, our friends, our country, and all rights the Amendment afforded us. My other children stand ready to do the same.
I say leave the 2nd Amendment alone.

Response by LT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 4 at 2017 4:02 PM

LT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 04 Aug 2017 16:02:55 -0400

Currently, the Second Amendment can be read in a variety of ways, as evidenced by countless arguments by self-styled Constitutional experts. However, nobody actually wants to ask the Constitutional experts of record (the Supreme Court), because there's a good change they wouldn't like the clarification provided. For the same reason certain firearm-related cases never make it to the Supreme Court, I doubt we'd ever agree on a rewrite.

Response by PFC Michael Lester made Aug 5 at 2017 8:41 AM

PFC Michael Lester — Sat, 05 Aug 2017 08:41:12 -0400

No, its written that way to protect us( the people ),the state and the nation.

Response by SCPO Michael Tate made Aug 8 at 2017 2:01 PM

SCPO Michael Tate — Tue, 08 Aug 2017 14:01:46 -0400

While we have made needed changes to the document. It is not wise to play around with the first 10. The anti-federalist worked hard to ensure the central government did not wield to much power. The Bill of Rights were fought against by the Federalist then and the current breed of federalist now. Do not mess with the original articles. Leave them alone.

Response by SPC Mitch Saret made Aug 11 at 2017 11:56 PM

SPC Mitch Saret — Fri, 11 Aug 2017 23:56:34 -0400

I don't think it's confusing at all. Only those wishing to distort the meaning claim it's confusing and try to put other meaning into it or take meaning away from it.

Response by Maj Mike Sciales made Aug 13 at 2017 4:42 PM

Maj Mike Sciales — Sun, 13 Aug 2017 16:42:56 -0400

No. The US Constitution is not some reg needing updating. Its a flexible document designed to go with changes as society changes. The drafters never expected it to be interpreted as carved in stone. The people's right to bear arms doesn't have to be infringed, but there can be reasonable restrictions attached to that right. This can include mandatory training because the founding fathers would agree that a well prepared militia is better than any unskilled bunch of rabble. Registration should be required, if for no other reason than to deter the general public from committing an offense and keeping the weapon as the framers intended, self defense and the like. Governments are also free to issue licenses so weapons are properly permitted by responsible gun owners and the gov't can charge for that service. In this same way government could set a reasonable limit on annual ammunition purchases for home defense and tax heavily any purchases over that amount. I won't worry about "if the enemies parachute in like Red Dawn" we can hand out ammo later. In the military, Commanders can restrict the carrying of firearms on their installation, we have security to provide for folks on base so people can check them in when they come on base, like a cop does when he walks into a jail.

My point is, we don't need to change a thing in the Constitution -- look how bad Prohibition worked out for everybody, we just need to establish intelligent solutions.

Response by PO1 J Lewis made Aug 13 at 2017 7:26 PM

PO1 J Lewis — Sun, 13 Aug 2017 19:26:13 -0400

No, but it's not relevant anymore because the average person doesn't have the hardware to take out modern weapons.

Response by PO3 Sherry Thornburg made Aug 16 at 2017 10:34 PM

PO3 Sherry Thornburg — Wed, 16 Aug 2017 22:34:16 -0400

That sounds pretty clear to me, but I don't have a law degree, so am not conversant in forked-tongue.

Response by Dennis Aubuchon made Aug 18 at 2017 2:48 PM

Dennis Aubuchon — Fri, 18 Aug 2017 14:48:09 -0400

The 2nd amendment to the Constitution should not be changed. Any change in the language would open up another series of problems. The intent of this amendment was clear it is those individuals or groups who want to confuse others about what it represents. The 2nd amendment is not the only one that is being attacked. Another point to make is it would be difficult if not impossible to come up with the language that a majority of the stats would agree upon. Our Constitution has been around forever and has only been changed where it was necessary and a appropriate number of states agreed. No language in an amendment has ever been revised and we should not start now.

Response by LCpl Dave Haskins made Aug 18 at 2017 2:50 PM

LCpl Dave Haskins — Fri, 18 Aug 2017 14:50:20 -0400

To some, the entire 2nd Amendment is confusing, but to the plain thinking man, in its entirety it is crystal clear.

Response by Kurtis Roers made Aug 18 at 2017 11:18 PM

Kurtis Roers — Fri, 18 Aug 2017 23:18:17 -0400

It's only confusing to over-educated idiots.
Sorry to be so harsh, but it's not that hard to understand. It took the modern educational system a long time to produce people too dumb to be able to understand it.

Response by Kurtis Roers made Aug 18 at 2017 11:47 PM

Kurtis Roers — Fri, 18 Aug 2017 23:47:18 -0400

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 19 at 2017 12:13 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 19 Aug 2017 00:13:13 -0400

37 states are needed to ratify and it takes a long time. Liberals are hoping for an Australia loner massacre situation to take guns and ammo away from the non-criminals. Jerry Brown and Jerry's liberal kids legislature tried and the supreme court said no you can't on the over 10 shot magazine ban after the 2014 Xmas party terrorists in San Bernardino attack had weapon and 30 round magazines from Nevada but Jerry's Liberal Kids decided to punish Californians instead.

Response by SPC Byron Skinner made Aug 20 at 2017 2:43 PM

SPC Byron Skinner — Sun, 20 Aug 2017 14:43:29 -0400

Sp4 Byron Skinner. I will agree that the 2nd. Amendment has period applications that the country has sense outgrown. The right to bare arms in historical context didn't apply to everyone, think Slaves, many cities to include Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Charleston S.C. etc has laws of no carry on the streets and when you entered town and owns a weapon you were expected to let the Elected Town Marshall, Sheriff or Constable know you had a weapon. Two principle reason until 1839 there wet no sworn paid law enforcement so when the Constable needed a posse he knew who had a weapon. Also if there was a problem with an household or an individual it was convent to ion if that person or household had a weapon (s). The second phrase was made obsolete by the National Guard Act. It is in the public interest to know who has weapons and what type and monitor the purchases of ammunition. If somebody is attempting to purchase ammunition for a weapon she/he doesn't own this could alert law enforcement of a straw purchase. And perhaps maybe somebody who legally can't own a weapon is not provided ammunition. A couple of points from the fire department first if the are approaching a burring home and hear the pop of bullets going off they will just back of and let it burn down. Also if you have large amounts of bullets (car lots) don't store them on a second floor or higher. they will hasten the collapse of upper floors during a fire.

Response by SSgt Boyd Herrst made Aug 21 at 2017 4:51 AM

SSgt Boyd Herrst — Mon, 21 Aug 2017 04:51:44 -0400

That's clear enough, so what is them peeps major malfunction aside from dyslexic?...

Response by SPC Tom DeSmet made Aug 21 at 2017 8:58 AM

SPC Tom DeSmet — Mon, 21 Aug 2017 08:58:03 -0400

Any attempt to open the ammendment for any reason would result in massive cuts to our rights IMHO.

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 21 at 2017 9:38 PM

PFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 21 Aug 2017 21:38:21 -0400

To be honest there is no confusion about that first sentence it says clearly the people so the second amendment was designated to advocate personal ownership of firearms there is nothing confusing about that.

Response by SSG Roger Ayscue made Aug 21 at 2017 9:43 PM

SSG Roger Ayscue — Mon, 21 Aug 2017 21:43:13 -0400

ABSOLUTELY NOT
The militia is every able bodied male citizen...and it should stay that way

Response by SSG Edward Tilton made Aug 27 at 2017 2:14 PM

SSG Edward Tilton — Sun, 27 Aug 2017 14:14:25 -0400

We do know it

Response by CPO Charles Helms made Aug 27 at 2017 5:09 PM

CPO Charles Helms — Sun, 27 Aug 2017 17:09:16 -0400

It is a pretty clear statement!! Why should it be changed and open up a brand new can of worms for liberals elites jump on for gun control and confiscation!! Leave the document as it was written!!

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 27 at 2017 7:24 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 27 Aug 2017 19:24:22 -0400

No. It isn't confusing if you do your homework regarding the term "militia". in the 1700s and earlier, the term militia referred ro every able bodied male between the ages of 16 and 60 that could supply their own ammunition (i.e. ball & powder) and a functioning firelock, musket, or fusil.

Response by MSG John Wirts made Aug 27 at 2017 9:06 PM

MSG John Wirts — Sun, 27 Aug 2017 21:06:01 -0400

It's only confusing to those who want it to be confusing, The wording is specific to its meaning. That these are God given RIGHTS, not man given which would mean that what man giveth man can take away! All gun discussion could be resolved with requiring gun safety training in schools as it once was, and demanding that anyone who promoted gun control would be the first to be denied the right to own, possess, carry, get a CCW permit, hire or be assigned armed security!

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Aug 27 at 2017 9:24 PM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Sun, 27 Aug 2017 21:24:36 -0400

If you feel you have to change it to make it say what you think it does, then it doesn't mean what you think it does...

Response by SSgt Daniel d'Errico made Aug 28 at 2017 2:03 PM

SSgt Daniel d'Errico — Mon, 28 Aug 2017 14:03:10 -0400

No other article of the Bill of Rights, has ever been so criticised so much as the 2nd Amendment. Congress, the citizens of this country and the military hsve no choice but to let this amendment stand as is, for the last two hundred odd years. There is no desparite need to reword this amendment for any reason. And if it should be re-worded, let it include the hired body guards of all politicans, including POTUS, present and past.

Response by Louisa Wesson made Aug 29 at 2017 3:05 PM

Louisa Wesson — Tue, 29 Aug 2017 15:05:36 -0400

Absolutely not

Response by LTC Tom Smith made Sep 1 at 2017 9:24 AM

LTC Tom Smith — Fri, 01 Sep 2017 09:24:13 -0400

The reference to a well regulated militia is important ... BUT ... the gun control idiots don't understand it. When the Bill of Rights was written ALL able bodied men were considered members of the militia. It was NOT that time's version of the National Guard. It was expected that all male citizens maintain and have ready, arms. Back then the assault rifle was a musket or Kentucky (I prefer Pennsylvania) rifle.

So, don'r screw with the constitution. Educate the ignorant.

Response by SPC Michael Joyce made Sep 2 at 2017 9:54 AM

SPC Michael Joyce — Sat, 02 Sep 2017 09:54:40 -0400

Leave it alone. The founders were brilliant.

"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".
A militia by definition is made up of civilians. A militia would typically be fighting against a tyrannical government. If private citizens were not allowed to keep and bear arms where would we get them to fight against the tyranny? draw them from the tyrannical government armory?

Response by 1stSgt Edward Jackson made Sep 3 at 2017 10:40 AM

1stSgt Edward Jackson — Sun, 03 Sep 2017 10:40:39 -0400

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.
Seems clear to me. The US Armed Forces are not a Militia, it is a formal military force, which includes the reserves and National Guard. A Militia is a civilian force, and in is most commonly unorganized or semi-organized. The idea behind the 2A is a civilian check and balance against an imposing government. Hunting, sports shooting, etc. are not mentioned but are part of 2A due to the training aspects of both.

Response by CPT Ray Doeksen made Sep 3 at 2017 3:32 PM

CPT Ray Doeksen — Sun, 03 Sep 2017 15:32:11 -0400

I'm good with the Constitution just as it is, for now. It's got all you need right there, and I expect that it'll hold up fine in the long run.

Response by PO1 Charles Babcock made Sep 5 at 2017 3:39 AM

PO1 Charles Babcock — Tue, 05 Sep 2017 03:39:34 -0400

Im not confused by any part of the 2nd amendment. Anyone who is confused by it should go back to "old school" learning of the English language instead of the liberal common core misrepresentation of anything and everything not left leaning

Response by SGT Edward Gallen made Sep 8 at 2017 9:04 AM

SGT Edward Gallen — Fri, 08 Sep 2017 09:04:13 -0400

The purpose of the second amendment goes beyound personal self defense, but includes self defense against the government should it become a government for the governing and not of a government by and for the citizens. The founding fathers, though founding this government were very conscience that all government can become oppressive thus we the people should never be striped of our ability to overthrow an oppressive government.

Response by A1C Stanley Kolakowski made Sep 8 at 2017 5:33 PM

A1C Stanley Kolakowski — Fri, 08 Sep 2017 17:33:21 -0400

On the "original" statement by the OP, do we really need to be re-writing amendments just because the language used then isn't common now?

But if we are going to do this, remember:
Convention allows a full total rewrite of Constitution
Amendment process only allows a yes/no on the exact wording of the proposed amendment as submitted. So if this is going to be done, the amendment process with a wording close to the OPs, would be much safer.

However, I'm going to pull this tangent out: Militias are all "able bodied" citizens. The brain IS a part of the body, and if it is "malfunctioning" (severe enough mental disease/disorder) enough to lead people to seriously question a person's ability to participate in an actual "mobilized" militia, then that IS enough reason to claim that, per the amendment itself, that said individual does NOT possess the inherent right to own and bear arms.

Response by SSG Jay Guhlke made Sep 11 at 2017 10:41 AM

SSG Jay Guhlke — Mon, 11 Sep 2017 10:41:10 -0400

I see nothing confusing with this statement. Our forefathers learned a valuable lesson, which this line specifically addresses; A bully with an unfair advantage over another will cash in on that advantage by persecuting the weaker or disadvantaged. It is human nature to gain advantage for themselves, this statement merely evens the playing field, so to speak, and allows at least a percentage of that advantage to be mediated. Oppressors come in many forms, and the "free state" says to me that a government could be the oppressor if the wrong influence is in power. A quick look at any dictatorship (think Hitler or Mao Tse Tung or ...) or socialist regime like Venezuela should be enough evidence of that.

Response by CSM Curt Tipton made Sep 18 at 2017 10:42 AM

CSM Curt Tipton — Mon, 18 Sep 2017 10:42:17 -0400

First of all, people need to realize that the "militia" is not the national guard. According to the constitution of the state of Arizona (and many other states) "The militia of the state of Arizona shall consist of all able bodied male citizens between the ages of 18 and 46 years and those between said ages who shall have declared their intention to become citizens of these United States, residing therein, subject to such exemptions as now exist or as may hereafter be created by the laws of these United States or of this state."

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 20 at 2017 1:14 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 20 Sep 2017 13:14:34 -0400

I say , let the Left keep on their tirade. When it comes to a head, we can have the discussion based on how the majority of the nation interprets the 2A.

Response by TSgt Lars Eilenfeld made Sep 20 at 2017 6:29 PM

TSgt Lars Eilenfeld — Wed, 20 Sep 2017 18:29:05 -0400

No there's nothing confusing about it, it's in clear English and has stood the test of time from loony lefts for over 200 years. They keep trying to redefine what the language says. Thats like trying to redefine the 10 Commandments, God was very clear on it.

Response by Robert Leviton made Sep 23 at 2017 12:07 PM

Robert Leviton — Sat, 23 Sep 2017 12:07:04 -0400

The 2nd amendment covers two different subjects. So no it should not be changed. The Constitution was not written for lawyers to interpret. It was written for the common man. The founding fathers were well educated and understood that the majority where not as well educated. They wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights in clear english so it would be the same to all!

Response by LCpl Allen Luze made Sep 24 at 2017 12:06 AM

LCpl Allen Luze — Sun, 24 Sep 2017 00:06:38 -0400

Too many extra words

Response by CPL James Mitchell made Sep 24 at 2017 3:23 AM

CPL James Mitchell — Sun, 24 Sep 2017 03:23:14 -0400

The Constitution and the Ammendments should be left to stand as they are. They are precise and clear, and honor God.

Response by SSgt Steve Swiontkowski made Sep 24 at 2017 3:25 PM

SSgt Steve Swiontkowski — Sun, 24 Sep 2017 15:25:08 -0400

It is not confusing if you consider that before the standing armed forces grew in importance from the1890's forward, ALL citizens were considered the militia. Those of us who swore an oath to preserve and defend the Constitution and the country from all enemies, foreign and domestic, bear that burden gladly though sometimes reluctantly. Since no longer in the active or reserve components, I for one will try to join an organized national guard unit for the duration of any trouble that requires me to do so. That is why the militia is not confusing. It is only the lawyers that question it, and they are paid to parse words into the opposite of what they mean. They need to take a course in the history of the Constitution to bring them around.

Response by SSgt Steve Swiontkowski made Sep 25 at 2017 11:52 AM

SSgt Steve Swiontkowski — Mon, 25 Sep 2017 11:52:51 -0400

Reading the comments, it brings to mind a comment I read a long, long time ago. "The problems with the world mean there's too many people messing with it educated beyond their intelligence." Further evidence can be gathered on the college campuses around the country which block free speech by conservatives through violent protests against opposing ideas to what the professors teach. Hard to expect they read the Constitution with any study of the language of the time it was written. Add they've been taught the State knows better, and it is no surprise they don't see their problem is totally their fault.

Response by Sgt Jimmy Dee made Sep 25 at 2017 1:17 PM

Sgt Jimmy Dee — Mon, 25 Sep 2017 13:17:52 -0400

The right needs no explanation; take out the extra words: "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" is sufficient.

Response by CPO Robin Beres made Sep 26 at 2017 2:20 PM

CPO Robin Beres — Tue, 26 Sep 2017 14:20:17 -0400

Response by SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 28 at 2017 10:24 PM

SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 28 Sep 2017 22:24:11 -0400

its not confusing. its very exact. just like the rest of the bill of rights. its not meant to be interupted just read as is.
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.
a well regulated militia meaning the people, being necessary to the security of a free state meaning necessary to keep our country free from anyone who would try to enslave or conquor it, the right of the people to keep & bear arms meaning the no matter what or who says the people can will keep their firearms or other weapons, shall not be infringed meaning can not be taken away by anyone or by any government. that wasnt hard to understand. there is a point why the constitution was written as it was when it was written. people were more educated than they are now. people have become dumber to everything.

Response by SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 28 at 2017 10:25 PM

SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 28 Sep 2017 22:25:52 -0400

plus the bill of rights are the only amendments that can not be changed or amended by anyone. thats why they are call the bill of rights. cause if they could then the democrats who hate guns will change it so that the people cant have weapons of any kind except those that are allowed by government which is the point of the bill of rights.

Response by SGT John Robinson made Sep 29 at 2017 4:47 AM

SGT John Robinson — Fri, 29 Sep 2017 04:47:41 -0400

No. Don't touch it.
Any of the.

Response by PO3 J.W. Nelson made Sep 29 at 2017 1:19 PM

PO3 J.W. Nelson — Fri, 29 Sep 2017 13:19:51 -0400

Absolutely do not open this amendment for any kind of changes !!! Leave it alone, it's worked for over 200 years and does not need to be "tweeked" or "changed" by any group for any reason !!

Response by SGT Robert Hawks made Sep 29 at 2017 3:55 PM

SGT Robert Hawks — Fri, 29 Sep 2017 15:55:52 -0400

You do not want to open the 2nd amendment messed with at all. If so we will all have our guns confiscated.

Response by Sgt Martin Querin made Oct 2 at 2017 11:15 AM

Sgt Martin Querin — Mon, 02 Oct 2017 11:15:45 -0400

Gun laws are not about making people safe, they are about neutering the citizens of this nation and making it possible to turn them into the Eloi from H.G. Wells book The Time Machine.

Response by SSG R Brooks made Oct 5 at 2017 11:36 AM

SSG R Brooks — Thu, 05 Oct 2017 11:36:38 -0400

It needs to be left "AS IS". This is the thread of the Constitution. Article I, Section 8 States
1: The Congress shall have Power ... to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties ... shall be uniform throughout the United States;
11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
13: To provide and maintain a Navy;
14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Note Clause 15, Congress (not the Senate or the President) has the power to call forth the Militia. The Militia of that day was "the whole people, except a few public officers" of the various States. Each State was to have its own militia.

“Mr. Chairman, a worthy member has asked who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country, and if we are not to be protected from the fate of the Germans, Prussians, &c., by our representation? I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor…” George Mason, Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 16, 1788

The “militia clause” is merely to accentuate and clarify the point being made in the words that follow. Removing it removes the need, and perhaps even the authority, of Congress to call forth the Militia.

Response by SrA Vern Cox made Oct 5 at 2017 2:59 PM

SrA Vern Cox — Thu, 05 Oct 2017 14:59:52 -0400

In ANY assembly involving amending the Constitution, I always demand that ALL of the "Bill of Rights" be off limits.

Response by SFC Jim Turner made Oct 6 at 2017 6:29 PM

SFC Jim Turner — Fri, 06 Oct 2017 18:29:10 -0400

Because of the wording of the First and Second Amendments neither can be amended. Congress shall make no law, and shall not be infringed were genius on the part of James Madison. He ensured those two rights could never be changed by Government. Amending the Constitution through the congressional process is making new law and infringing on rights. The only the First Amendment can be amended through A Constitutional Convention of the states (ConCon). They way the Second Amendment is worded not even a ConCon can amend it.

Response by SPC Robert Coventry made Oct 6 at 2017 7:30 PM

SPC Robert Coventry — Fri, 06 Oct 2017 19:30:02 -0400

No changes if they try and clean it up, something will be taken away. Our forefathers did a damn good job, Oh by the way most of them were in the Army

Response by LTC Michael Staves made Oct 7 at 2017 4:24 AM

LTC Michael Staves — Sat, 07 Oct 2017 04:24:50 -0400

Our founding fathers were much smarter than we are today and based on their lessons learned wrote the constitution taking into account those that would destroy this country

Response by SSG Al Campos made Oct 7 at 2017 10:56 AM

SSG Al Campos — Sat, 07 Oct 2017 10:56:33 -0400

No place did I ever read GOD giving anyone the right to kill another. In fact I think it reads: "THOU SHALL NOT KILL".

Response by TSgt Henry Alau made Oct 7 at 2017 1:20 PM

TSgt Henry Alau — Sat, 07 Oct 2017 13:20:16 -0400

The original 2nd Amendment reads, "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." In contemplation of this amendment, I once came up with revised version that I believe makes the 2nd less ambiguous, specifically, that the militia is dependent on the people being armed. The right to keep and bear arms is NOT dependent on the existence or use of the militia. The right exists with or without the militia, but without the right, the militia is useless. Hence my rewritten version of the 2nd Amendment as follows: "The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed that they may be well prepared to secure a free State." I make no claim as to a perfected amendment, but I believe this is the base intent of the 2nd Amendment, that the citizenry be armed to secure their freedom and freedoms.

Response by SGM Bill Frazer made Oct 7 at 2017 2:34 PM

SGM Bill Frazer — Sat, 07 Oct 2017 14:34:05 -0400

The confusion is only when YOU try to structure the Bill of Rights to your language. Remember when and why it was written, The well regulated militia was EVERY man and boy between 16 and 60, who had a gun. The state provided powder and shot if you were lucky. You were required to drill once a month regardless. The 1st move by a tyrannical gov't when facing mounting criticism was the attempt the confiscation of this powder, shot and any arms they could find. Resistance against this tyranny was the "shot heard around the world" Concord and Lexington.

Response by SSG Dennis Rybicki made Oct 7 at 2017 6:36 PM

SSG Dennis Rybicki — Sat, 07 Oct 2017 18:36:09 -0400

The 2nd Amendment is the back bone of American Freedom. As long as the people have the ability to defend themselves against tyranny we the American People will be free. History show that foreign nations fear the 2nd Amendment because the Average American has the right to keep and bear arms. This in itself has prevented the Japanese from invading the American West Cost During WWII. The 2nd Amendment also has the ability to defend themselves, family, and others that are endanger from criminals. I swore an oath to Support and Defend the Constitution of the United State Against All Enemies Foreign and Domestic and to Bear True Faith and Allegiance to the Same. This mean defending the 2nd Amendment and all our rights as Americans the Socialist Democratic Party wants to destroy. God Bless America.

Response by SMSgt Franco Ortega made Oct 7 at 2017 6:43 PM

SMSgt Franco Ortega — Sat, 07 Oct 2017 18:43:25 -0400

Leave it alone there is nothing confusing about the way it is written

Response by SSG Edward Tilton made Oct 7 at 2017 8:05 PM

SSG Edward Tilton — Sat, 07 Oct 2017 20:05:05 -0400

You bet, the Las Vegas shooter was a true patriot. What he needed was a few RPGs. When people are exercising their 2nd Amendment Rights, why involve the Police.

Response by LTC Ronald Stephens made Oct 7 at 2017 8:14 PM

LTC Ronald Stephens — Sat, 07 Oct 2017 20:14:53 -0400

It is my opinion that we should leave the second amendment as the framers wrote it. It is unequivocal in its wording: "A well-armed 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 right to self defense is part and parcel of the words
"security of a free state". Can't get much planer that that. Webster's Dictionary defines a militia as "A group of able-bodied male citizens between the ages of 18 and 45. No qualifiers regarding military service before or after. The framers were uncommonly insightful in the wording of those articles. We will always have a segment of the population that will interpret the second and all of the other amendments according to their own perspective. In simpler words, "don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up."

Response by Steven Dufour made Oct 9 at 2017 2:57 PM

Steven Dufour — Mon, 09 Oct 2017 14:57:44 -0400

I think the problem is the meaning of "bearing arms." If arms means the weapons of war then no, we don't have that right under present law. As useful as guns can be for defense and possible resistance to a tyrannical government, we are not now bearing arms.

Response by SPC Joshua H. made Oct 12 at 2017 11:22 AM

SPC Joshua H. — Thu, 12 Oct 2017 11:22:28 -0400

Leave it alone. It was wrote as it is for a reason. In old english, the , between State and the seperate them into 2 seperate articles. The 2nd is all about the people, and not about the .gov infringing (the 24,000+ gun laws in our country already do to much of this) on the rights of the people.

Response by SPC Joshua H. made Oct 12 at 2017 11:29 AM

SPC Joshua H. — Thu, 12 Oct 2017 11:29:18 -0400

Response by PO1 Gerald Sutton made Oct 13 at 2017 3:38 PM

PO1 Gerald Sutton — Fri, 13 Oct 2017 15:38:37 -0400

Problem people have with the second amendment is a: those who don't know what a well regulated militia is. b: the difference in weapons that were available then compared to now. Now since bush did away with most of the Brady bill, insane people can walk into bass pro and buy if they don't have a felony. I'm a gun owner but I want more regulations not less. I'm willing to give up my sks if necessary.

Response by Cpl Bernie Stanaway made Oct 13 at 2017 6:25 PM

Cpl Bernie Stanaway — Fri, 13 Oct 2017 18:25:39 -0400

Absolutely not! Leave it alone!

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 13 at 2017 6:29 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 13 Oct 2017 18:29:11 -0400

I had a suicidal young Marine friend - my personal trainer - pull a weapon on me yesterday. What is the relationship between the 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms - vs the right to have your fully loaded weapons readily accessible when you are in severe pain and wanting to end your life? We checked him into County Hospital ER - got him onto some anti-inflammatory meds - got him off strong opiates - and worked him up for everything from cardiac to infectious diseases. It looks like he may have an autoimmune disorder - needs bone marrow biopsy - will try to get that done in a day or two. But, his weapons are in the gun safe at my house now - except the M16 retained by security department. How do we reconcile the safekeeping of his weapons until he is well again under the 2nd amendment? Warmest Regards, Sandy :)

Response by PO3 J.W. Nelson made Oct 14 at 2017 5:54 PM

PO3 J.W. Nelson — Sat, 14 Oct 2017 17:54:00 -0400

The 2nd Amendment has been fine for nearly 200 years just the way it is and I see no reason to change a single word !! If you are of average intelligence and can read and do understand English you should not have a problem understanding "plain English" !!

Response by SSG Dave Johnston made Oct 14 at 2017 8:54 PM

SSG Dave Johnston — Sat, 14 Oct 2017 20:54:25 -0400

If the removal of the 2nd Amendment is by the Constitutional Convention Amendment process, then those individuals that were sent to the convention are to be held in contempt, perhaps sued for dereliction, However, if, as it is being done by Litigants in the States Courts, and States Legislators; than those legislators, Judges, and Litigants, must be held for Libel and Contempt of the Oath they swore to uphold. Every elected official swears an oath to up hold the US Constitution, the States Constitution and the laws of the state [see Oath of Office by state and Federal].
Mayhap we citizens, may need to begin a campaign of Citizens Arrests, charging Treason on those who would deny the Constitution and the rights expressed therein.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 15 at 2017 11:40 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 15 Oct 2017 23:40:06 -0400

Framers had a much better grasp on “the words” than citizens do today. Leave it alone. Really, when was the last time a modern legal expert founded the greatest and most enduring nation ever? That’s right, they didn’t.

Response by Cpl Charles Rosenbusch made Oct 16 at 2017 12:39 AM

Cpl Charles Rosenbusch — Mon, 16 Oct 2017 00:39:42 -0400

The federalist papers makes it clear that first phrase was deliberate and intentional. The point of the 2nd amendment according to Hamilton was to allow for the arming of civilians in order to form state militias to fight for the states and the country. To him a federal army was the antithesis of liberty and therefore believed that militias were necessary to their security and freedom.
"Of the different grounds which have been taken in opposition to the plan of the convention, there is none that was so little to have been expected, or is so untenable in itself, as the one from which this particular provision has been attacked. If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security. If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia, in the body to whose care the protection of the State is committed, ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions. If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force. If it cannot avail itself of the former, it will be obliged to recur to the latter. To render an army unnecessary, will be a more certain method of preventing its existence than a thousand prohibitions upon paper." (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed29.asp)

We have since gotten far from this this ideal, which is why you are even asking about if the phrase should exist.
Personally I am against any constitutional convention that would allow for the type of change that you are asking for, regardless of intentions of those who initiate it. Several other commenters have stated worries about the 2nd amendment being changed in ways that they dislike, but they are being too narrow with their concern. A convention would allow for the whole document to be rewritten if so desired, which to me is terrifying. I have no faith in the outcome of such a venture.

404 - File or directory not found.

Response by MAJ James Woods made Oct 16 at 2017 6:08 PM

MAJ James Woods — Mon, 16 Oct 2017 18:08:12 -0400

Nothing wrong with what the 2nd amendment currently states. Right to bear arms. Check. Right to defend oneself, property, and nation. Check. Right to have any kind of weapon, any caliber of weapon, any type of accessory, any rate of fire capability...uh, well, let either the State or Federal government define what arms one has the right to bear...right? That's how I view this issue.

Response by SMSgt Patrick LaChance made Oct 17 at 2017 3:40 AM

SMSgt Patrick LaChance — Tue, 17 Oct 2017 03:40:28 -0400

The first 10 amendments AKA "The Bill of Rights" should not be amended since they are a specific set of rights and not just a change or addition to the Constitution.

Response by TSgt Tommy Amparano made Oct 17 at 2017 7:13 PM

TSgt Tommy Amparano — Tue, 17 Oct 2017 19:13:41 -0400

I think it is pretty clear now. You can change the font of the comma if you like. Make it huge.

Response by PO1 Don Mac Intyre made Oct 19 at 2017 6:21 PM

PO1 Don Mac Intyre — Thu, 19 Oct 2017 18:21:42 -0400

What? What's so confusing?

Response by 1stSgt Edward Jackson made Oct 20 at 2017 7:54 AM

1stSgt Edward Jackson — Fri, 20 Oct 2017 07:54:49 -0400

We need to leave the 2A as it is. We need to leave the entire bill of rights as they are. Messing with the Constitution and its Amendments as a whole opens up everything to be rewritten. That is why I'm against a Convention of the States. After a Convention of the States, it takes 3/4s of all the states (38 of 50 states) to amend anything in the Constitution. Congress is not involved in the States Convention. Each state has a voice, but bigger liberal states like Massachusetts, New York, and California will demand a bigger seat at the table at the expense of the small conservative states, pushing to eliminate the Bill of Rights. Liberals hate guns (unless it is their guns), freedom of speech, religion, press (that does not agree with the liberal agenda), or the right to assembly (unless it is for a liberal cause). They also hate the 10A, State's Rights.
In a Convention of the States every word in the Constitution and all of its Amendments, as well as the Federalist's papers are on the table. We cannot allow that camel to get his nose under the tent wall. I like the Constitution just as it is.

Response by CW3 Harvey K. made Oct 20 at 2017 8:55 PM

CW3 Harvey K. — Fri, 20 Oct 2017 20:55:13 -0400

The "militia clause" of the 2nd Amendment is simply the statement of a reason (a damned good one) that the new-born Federal government would not WANT to infringe on the pre-existing "right of the people to keep and bear arms”, now stated and guaranteed in the 2nd Amendment. A Constitutional government would "cut its own throat" if it tried to disarm its people.
It would be against the self-interest of a Constitutional Government, greatly restricted concerning a “standing army” and dependent on the militia as its primary defense, to infringe on that RKBA, and thereby undermine the militia. It was from the armed citizenry that the militia was drawn. That militia might very well be all that stood between the officers of that Government and a jail cell ---- or the gallows.
The militia was the Founder's answer to the question ''If the citizens will not defend the state, then who will?" Indeed, if mercenaries with no loyalty but to their profit, are required to defend the state because the citizens don't care, then either the citizens have abandoned the state, or the state has abandoned its citizens.
An armed citizenry can not only defend a Constitutional Government of, for, and by the people, from both foreign and domestic enemies, but can defend itself from a government that usurps the Constitution and turns despotic.
A Constitutional Government welcomes an armed citizenry that will preserve and defend it. A despotic government fears the people with guns at hand, who can end that despotism.

Response by CW5 Edward "Tate" Jones Jr. made Oct 21 at 2017 6:16 PM

CW5 Edward "Tate" Jones Jr. — Sat, 21 Oct 2017 18:16:13 -0400

over 300,000,000 Guns.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 22 at 2017 9:08 AM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 22 Oct 2017 09:08:39 -0400

I think that it is pretty clear. People who don't like the 2nd Amendment believe that government should have ultimate control. Those people are called Marxist-Leninists.

Response by SFC William Allen made Oct 22 at 2017 9:40 AM

SFC William Allen — Sun, 22 Oct 2017 09:40:53 -0400

I say no- the 2nd amendment is just fine and very clear the way it is. I am one of those people who look at the intentions of the framers and what they sought to accomplish. Remember it's a Government for the people, by the people and OF the people. Those amendments are there for a reason. They where created to address shortcomings of the original Constitution.

Response by SSG Matt LaFramboise made Oct 23 at 2017 9:37 AM

SSG Matt LaFramboise — Mon, 23 Oct 2017 09:37:59 -0400

I would say you decided to put so much ignorance and a lack of history into one statement

Response by Dennis Aubuchon made Oct 24 at 2017 9:25 PM

Dennis Aubuchon — Tue, 24 Oct 2017 21:25:06 -0400

I totally agree the rights we have under the second amendment is constantly under attack and individuals constantly take the opportunity to say we need more gun regulations when something happens. Guns are not the problem. Creating new laws and/or regulations is not going to change anything. What people do not realize is that criminals do not obey the laws on the books, honest individuals do. I like the caption, it is perfect

Response by 1SG Charles Simpson made Oct 25 at 2017 1:25 AM

1SG Charles Simpson — Wed, 25 Oct 2017 01:25:45 -0400

The problem with the Second Amendment is not its wording and it should never be amended because our Constitution is not a living document to be changed every time someone's opinion changes. The problem with the Second Amendment is that the citizens of the United States have been dumbed down to the point that they no longer understand our language, which is English. The moment we start changing the wording of our Constitution, we change the entire meaning of our freedom and our way of life. Chaos will ensue and that chaos will lead us into complete anarchy and total destruction as a free society. Leave the Constitution alone and educate our citizens.

Response by SFC Gary Guyer made Oct 25 at 2017 3:14 PM

SFC Gary Guyer — Wed, 25 Oct 2017 15:14:25 -0400

I believe that if you open that forum, the left woul try to get rid of not only the 2A, but the A and 4A as well. Good as it is written.

Response by TSgt Johnnie Keller made Oct 25 at 2017 10:09 PM

TSgt Johnnie Keller — Wed, 25 Oct 2017 22:09:17 -0400

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

Response by SPC Robert Coventry made Oct 26 at 2017 1:42 PM

SPC Robert Coventry — Thu, 26 Oct 2017 13:42:01 -0400

I think if Congress touches the 2nd amendment they will take away our given rights to carry firearms. I believe it takes a 2/3 vote of The House of Representatives and 2/3 of Congress to pass or amend an amendment, unfortunately 2/3 of Congress can't agree on the time of day or what day of the week it is. I say leave it alone, the supreme court is swinging conservative and the court will uphold the 2nd Amendment. All Amendment are a little outdated but the spirit of the Bill of Rights (first 10 Amendments) was to limit the power of the Federal Government and to give citizens certain rights I say leave it as is.

Response by PO1 Tom Follis made Oct 26 at 2017 7:14 PM

PO1 Tom Follis — Thu, 26 Oct 2017 19:14:38 -0400

Absolutely not. Leave it alone. Changing even one simple word will only open doors for any kind of change that someone doesn't like. We are already under heavy fire from within. I always thought, if America ever came under heavy attack, it would come from some foreign country. I would have never dreamed of coming under attack from my fellow American. So sad. I'm keeping my guns. PERIOD.

Response by SSgt Daniel d'Errico made Oct 28 at 2017 3:35 AM

SSgt Daniel d'Errico — Sat, 28 Oct 2017 03:35:12 -0400

No. This amendment is clear enough. So the words were 18th century in their way, but any amendment to this amendment would be longer in legalize, which can lead to long drawn out court proceedings over the words used. Meanings would take longer to interpet in years, than the Constitution was to be ratified. Let sleeping dogs lie, amending the 2nd could lead to amending the whole Bill of Rights.

Response by SGT Greg McAulay made Oct 28 at 2017 7:53 AM

SGT Greg McAulay — Sat, 28 Oct 2017 07:53:33 -0400

Confusion on the language used comes from those who take the amendment out of the cultural and historical context as well as the textual context of the amendment. Those seeking to control others attempt to rewrite the definitions. The right is for every man, male or female, and is unconditional, only the use of arms is conditional.

Response by SGT Paul Walliker made Oct 28 at 2017 4:03 PM

SGT Paul Walliker — Sat, 28 Oct 2017 16:03:23 -0400

The "well regulated militia" is the legal underpinning of each state's national guard. I don't think that you are suggesting that states give up their national guard units, or are you?

Response by CW5 Edward "Tate" Jones Jr. made Oct 28 at 2017 4:14 PM

CW5 Edward "Tate" Jones Jr. — Sat, 28 Oct 2017 16:14:57 -0400

300,000,000 guns in civilian hands.

Response by 1SG Robert Rush made Oct 28 at 2017 6:40 PM

1SG Robert Rush — Sat, 28 Oct 2017 18:40:21 -0400

No! Read it, it's meaning is clear and not confusing at all. Our forefathers understood what they were writing. They foresaw thing happening like what happened to Poland just prior to WWII. While in was in the military, I had a sign on my wall. This was from a Russian General, It said, " Russia would not try to take the USA. It was not because of the American military, but the civilians that had more guns than their military." Anyone that wants to change or do away with our Constitution wants to change or do away with our way of live. Our nation has risen to it present position in the world because of our Constitution and the guidance and protection it gives the our everyday citizens. I have been around this large ball called Earth, and there is no other country like this one. None of the other developed countries offer what ours does to their citizens. This country may not be perfect but it is closer that any other country. Most of the people of this country don't know the price we have and are paying every single day to insure they have these freedoms.

Response by LCDR William Johnston made Nov 2 at 2017 12:28 AM

LCDR William Johnston — Thu, 02 Nov 2017 00:28:02 -0400

The question adduces a fact not in evidence. Having studied American History, I find nothing confusing about the first phrase. I've been a life member of the NRA since 1960. This may be my problem.

Response by SGT Clay Watts made Nov 2 at 2017 11:46 AM

SGT Clay Watts — Thu, 02 Nov 2017 11:46:34 -0400

No. The SCOTUS has already decided the definition and meaning of the 2nd in the Helper v. Washington DC case. What we need is legislation to further protect the people practicing the right. I haven't seen any other right regulated as much as the second is, and further regulation needs to cease.

Response by PV2 Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 4 at 2017 11:46 PM

PV2 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 04 Nov 2017 23:46:10 -0400

Fair question MSgt, but the better question I think is, what will happen if we do? 2nd amendment has been a long, ambiguous and touchy subject, but the fact of the matter is that if arms become illegal to the civilans we sign up to protect, we are going to have to put in a lot more effort to protect them. Only criminals would have weapons, and civilians would be defenseless against that. Not to mention all the money that we would drain out on trying to enforce such a change.

Response by CW2 Len Wood made Nov 6 at 2017 9:50 AM

CW2 Len Wood — Mon, 06 Nov 2017 09:50:17 -0500

Leave it alone. Our founding fathers knew first hand about tyranny. We should be discussing what the Progressive Left objectives are and expose them for what they are to our millenniums.

Response by Sgt Joseph Baker made Nov 9 at 2017 12:26 AM

Sgt Joseph Baker — Thu, 09 Nov 2017 00:26:00 -0500

It ain't broke, so don't fix it. I don't say that just off-the-cuff either, because to amend any part of the constitution requires a constitutional convention. During such convention people have the opportunity to change any part, not just the one part that triggered the convention. So it could result not only to a change to the 2nd amendment that some people think would be positive, but also to changes in other articles that would be negative. We have had a number of changes over the last 220+ years, mostly good, but that could change in a big way. Back to the 2nd amendment, if we remove the first phrase about a well regulated militia, we remove the proof positive that the amendment is about tyranny or threat of hostile invasion, and not about heading off to elk camp each fall. We already have enough ignorant people, even among gun owners and even two or three that might be NRA members that agree, foolishly, with the liberals who try to make it about hunting so they can reasonably take your gun rights away, except during hunting season, and by the way if it's not a classic muzzle-loading deer rifle you have no need for one, etc., etc., etc. right out of the handbook of Handgun Control Inc. Then once they decide it is an atrocity for you to kill and eat Bambi, you will have nor further need of that muzzle-loader either. And that is how a nation is disarmed.

Response by Sgt Joseph Baker made Nov 9 at 2017 12:35 AM

Sgt Joseph Baker — Thu, 09 Nov 2017 00:35:12 -0500

Now after reading a bit, I wish I had never engaged in this conversation. We run this one down every few months wrapped in a different wrapper. There was one here, in a different conversation on this topic who provided the links to the appropriate government-supplied definition of the term militia encoded into our Code of Federal Regulations which very clearly and emphatically identifies the militia as a grouping of individual citizens under arms which were completely separate from any government military command. Dear sir, if you are within the sound of my plea, please quickly post that link here ASAP to shutdown this waste of time trying to convince through our own arguments those who do not know what militia means in the 2nd amendment. Don't take our word for it, take federal law for it.

Response by SSgt William Mavis made Nov 9 at 2017 7:24 PM

SSgt William Mavis — Thu, 09 Nov 2017 19:24:07 -0500

there is no confusion,despite dc deciding that state militias were somehow reserves,we saw the fail on that when the az gov. tried to mobilize them,and Bill Clinton overrode him,we nearly had a battle,on I17.the Militia is all able body males 18-45 veterans till 65,under command of the state government.NOT THE FEDS.SADLY THIS is more important now then ever.as we have factions in dc openly trying to create unrest.I will only speak for myself,I took an oath,6 times,to defend the CONSTITUTION as it was written not as i wish it said.Im stand there.

Response by CW5 Ivan Murdock made Nov 11 at 2017 5:37 PM

CW5 Ivan Murdock — Sat, 11 Nov 2017 17:37:06 -0500

No - it is clear. "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." Comma's between them. Until the Cold War at the beginning of the Nuclear Age, we used extemporized forces. Our Whig beginnings had us fearful of a large standing Army. That was the tool of the Monarchs and dictators to rule the people. The Bill of Rights are prohibitive in nature. They restrict what the government can do. That protects us from the over reach. Any attempt to alter it will not be what anyone thinks.

Response by TSgt J.L. Brown Jr made Nov 12 at 2017 3:13 AM

TSgt J.L. Brown Jr — Sun, 12 Nov 2017 03:13:23 -0500

i think its pretty clear right now. it matters not how its worded, Democrats will always try to take our right away,

Response by SPC Vicky King made Nov 12 at 2017 12:42 PM

SPC Vicky King — Sun, 12 Nov 2017 12:42:40 -0500

The Constitution, Bill of Rights were written for the common man to understand. There's nothing confusing about it unless you WANT to change it's meaning. The problem, as I see it, people refuse to accept that the phrase, 'Shall Not Be Infringed' is an absolute. It literally means with no amending, contravention, violation, transgression, break or breach. Therefore, every federal gun law is unconstitutional. Every single one. To compound that violation, the federal government was not delegated authority over the firearms of citizens. Over the years, Washington has legislated itself more and more unconstitutional powers. But, to circumvent that, the founders stated that an unconstitutional law, is no law at all and it's null and void. It is our duty to disregard unlawful laws. That's why we must bring back constitutional teachings in the classroom. Whatever happened to Civics classes should be taught starting in grade school, like they used to be.

Response by SPC David Willis made Nov 14 at 2017 5:20 PM

SPC David Willis — Tue, 14 Nov 2017 17:20:27 -0500

Nope, that may be how you'd like it rephrased but there are many who would like the 2A to simply read "no guns". This is part of the problem that congress experiences anytime there's a change over in majority ownership. Laws that were made to help the democrats pass laws are now being used by the republicans to pass their laws, and anything the republicans do to make it easier for them will in turn be used by democrats next time they have the majority. The 2A may be rewritten how you want it this time, but next time it could be the other side that changes the words.

Response by CW5 Edward "Tate" Jones Jr. made Nov 14 at 2017 5:30 PM

CW5 Edward "Tate" Jones Jr. — Tue, 14 Nov 2017 17:30:08 -0500

300,000,000 guns at latest FBI estimates. 99.7% of which are in the hands of legal, law abiding citizens. Stats indicate that those weapons are also somewhat concentrated. IE: The average gun owning household has 8.1 weapons. I guess the .0 is a derringer. :)

Response by SPC Gary Hunt made Nov 15 at 2017 7:51 PM

SPC Gary Hunt — Wed, 15 Nov 2017 19:51:17 -0500

The Second Amendment, as ratified, reads:

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.

To shed a proper light on the intent, we can look at it as a form of resolution, thus:

Whereas, A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,
Therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Response by CW5 Randall Hirsch made Nov 15 at 2017 9:40 PM

CW5 Randall Hirsch — Wed, 15 Nov 2017 21:40:55 -0500

No, leave the 2nd Amendment alone! Those against the 2nd Amendment need to read the Supreme Court decision of the Miller vs US case adjudicated in 1939. Note item number 3.

On March 30, 1939, the Supreme Court heard the case. Attorneys for the United States argued four points:
1. The NFA is intended as a revenue-collecting measure and therefore within the authority of the Department of the Treasury.
2. The defendants transported the shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas, and therefore used it in interstate commerce.
3. The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.
4. The "double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230" was never used in any militia organization.

Response by SSgt Harvey "Skip" Porter made Nov 16 at 2017 11:45 PM

SSgt Harvey "Skip" Porter — Thu, 16 Nov 2017 23:45:56 -0500

Guns in the hands of the wrong people seems to be the problem. Look up and read about how many people are killed each year on our roads and highways the numbers are astonishing. There is no talk about taking away cars from people.

Response by SFC Charles Kauffman made Nov 17 at 2017 1:33 AM

SFC Charles Kauffman — Fri, 17 Nov 2017 01:33:03 -0500

Nope.

Response by Staci Siler made Nov 17 at 2017 7:51 AM

Staci Siler — Fri, 17 Nov 2017 07:51:32 -0500

Open up a Constitutional amendment conference and there is no guarantee of what will result. They don't have to merely address what you

Response by SSgt Boyd Herrst made Nov 19 at 2017 8:21 PM

SSgt Boyd Herrst — Sun, 19 Nov 2017 20:21:22 -0500

Leave it alone... it works, don’t fix it!

Response by PO2 Louis Fattrusso made Nov 21 at 2017 12:55 PM

PO2 Louis Fattrusso — Tue, 21 Nov 2017 12:55:08 -0500

The courts have always recognized that the phrase doesn’t change the people’s right shall not be infringed. I think they should understand what the not means

Response by SFC Rich Gomez made Nov 26 at 2017 5:45 PM

SFC Rich Gomez — Sun, 26 Nov 2017 17:45:27 -0500

First and Last....
The 2nd Amendment was written at a time when a single shot was the only weapon of choice... A 30 round magazine on a semi-automatic was not even close to being envisioned at the time much less owning more than you alone can handle aka Las Vegas shooter or any other mass shooter who is still waiting out there to strike... and you cannot tell how many of you are heros.

Response by CW4 Russ Hamilton (Ret) made Nov 26 at 2017 8:57 PM

CW4 Russ Hamilton (Ret) — Sun, 26 Nov 2017 20:57:33 -0500

No need - the US Supreme Court has already ruled on this. "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Simple. Let's not fool around with it. We may bear arms with some logical restrictions (felons, mentally incompetent, spouse beaters, etc.). When the 2nd was written they were talking about people - US citizens - bearing arms to prevent a tyrannical government from destroying our country as it was meant to be. There's now no question other than requiring people to obtain a permit to carry (this is a whole different conversation). Bottom line: There is nothing ambiguous about the 2nd amendment - so says the US Supreme Court.

Response by SSgt Boyd Herrst made Nov 27 at 2017 2:05 AM

SSgt Boyd Herrst — Mon, 27 Nov 2017 02:05:23 -0500

Absolutely ! It works don’t frig with it!

Response by CPO David Sharp made Nov 27 at 2017 9:05 AM

CPO David Sharp — Mon, 27 Nov 2017 09:05:57 -0500

From my memory, I believe the intent of the 2nd Amendment was the right for the people to bear arms for the purpose of defending them from the incursions from the Government upon their freedom and rights. It is no wonder that the "progressive movement" would be in favor of removing this right. They are for all power to be in the hands of Government. Let us not forget the fact that once disarmed, we can not protect ourselves from any actions from those who would do us harm personally, but, from tyrannical persons in the larger spectrum in powerful positions.

Response by CPL Steve Freeman made Nov 29 at 2017 2:54 PM

CPL Steve Freeman — Wed, 29 Nov 2017 14:54:45 -0500

It's already pretty clear in its existing form. And the Supreme Court has already ruled on it several years ago stating that it means what it says.

Response by SSG Russell Snyder made Dec 1 at 2017 11:44 AM

SSG Russell Snyder — Fri, 01 Dec 2017 11:44:38 -0500

I believe that we should interpret the 2nd Amendment to mean we have a duty to establish a well-regulated militia. The National Guard is more often used, due to the GWOT, as a reserve force. We face the possibility of a Chinese century. Should we not be more prepared for an existential conflict such as a World War? Bring back the draft, train all military-age males, and toughen up the population. The Swiss have a good model to follow regarding the establishment of a militia, but the American culture is so obsessed with violence and video games I would not recommend allowing Militiamen to take their arms home with them. Still, they'd be available in an arms room should the need arise. The Founding Fathers never envisioned collecting firearms as a hobby.

Response by SGT George Duncan made Dec 3 at 2017 4:02 PM

SGT George Duncan — Sun, 03 Dec 2017 16:02:27 -0500

not a good idea two ,different missions

Response by SSG Jeffrey Brady made Dec 5 at 2017 3:34 PM

SSG Jeffrey Brady — Tue, 05 Dec 2017 15:34:36 -0500

From those who study the Constitution truly believe the founding fathers knew the fledgling country would evolve. To what extent they didn't know. What they wanted though were the freedoms they fought for to be extended to all who followed. Not for each generation to reinterpret what they may had thought or what it means today.

We now have politicians wanting to ban muzzle loaders because they can fire .50cal ammo. Last I remember those who wrote the Constitution loaded their rifles by the muzzle.

Response by SPC John Gifford made Dec 7 at 2017 4:47 PM

SPC John Gifford — Thu, 07 Dec 2017 16:47:32 -0500

Any changes would open up the amendment to changes we don't want. NO CHANGES!!!!

Response by SPC David Willis made Dec 7 at 2017 4:50 PM

SPC David Willis — Thu, 07 Dec 2017 16:50:38 -0500

You mean should we remove the whole reason the 2A was made? No, no we should not...

Response by SN James MacKay made Dec 10 at 2017 10:37 PM

SN James MacKay — Sun, 10 Dec 2017 22:37:09 -0500

There's no confusing first phrase, it's all part of the same sentence, and sets forth the reason for and the intent of the whole. The 2nd Amendment was never meant to be understood as "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Response by SPC Wade Webb made Dec 24 at 2017 10:14 PM

SPC Wade Webb — Sun, 24 Dec 2017 22:14:14 -0500

The right of the people to defend themselves, their property and their Nation being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 26 at 2017 1:09 AM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 26 Dec 2017 01:09:50 -0500

The question we really should be asking ourselves is should we continue to dumb down our language to the lowest common denominator. For years our public schools have failed to educate our population in both the nuances of our language and the basic mechanics of our government. The US Constitution has become one of the most studied documents in history, scrutinized with a micro scope for over two hundred years, and there has not been one grammatical error found. The language of the Second Amendment is not confusing, rather it is quite specific.

So do we break it down to the teletubby level for those who have been spoon fed their whole lives or do we give our citizens the tools to understand our language for themselves?

Response by 1stSgt James Jaqua made Dec 26 at 2017 1:42 AM

1stSgt James Jaqua — Tue, 26 Dec 2017 01:42:10 -0500

It was correct then, it still is, therefore no change necessary.

Response by Cpl Billy J Genaway made Dec 26 at 2017 9:32 AM

Cpl Billy J Genaway — Tue, 26 Dec 2017 09:32:29 -0500

I believe this move to be a Trojan horse by the gov't to amend all our bill of rights so I say HELL NO

Response by SCPO Douglas Munyon made Dec 26 at 2017 11:15 AM

SCPO Douglas Munyon — Tue, 26 Dec 2017 11:15:06 -0500

While the proposed verbiage may appease some, it deletes the opportunity for the people to call up the militia -- the militia being the "citizen army." Further, before we change something as important as our constitutional rights, we may want to educate ourselves and research the original intent and meaning, when written. To do anything less undermines the wisdom of our Founders. This is why Justices like Scalia and Gorsuch are so important to the continuing "experiment" of the American system of self-governing. Rights, as defined by our Founders, do not change or evolve with the societal pendulum, but movements toward that must necessarily be re-introduced to our original definitions and we must determine to keep in place, that which we as a people have been able to access to the betterment of the human condition.

Response by SPC(P) Craig Kupras made Dec 26 at 2017 12:20 PM

SPC(P) Craig Kupras — Tue, 26 Dec 2017 12:20:29 -0500

If it ain't busted, don't fix it.

Response by SPC(P) Frank Gilliland made Dec 28 at 2017 6:17 AM

SPC(P) Frank Gilliland — Thu, 28 Dec 2017 06:17:00 -0500

Why is this even a question? There is nothing confusing

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 29 at 2017 10:23 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 29 Dec 2017 10:23:58 -0500

My question is what is so ambiguous about it?

Response by SSgt David Marks made Dec 29 at 2017 10:22 PM

SSgt David Marks — Fri, 29 Dec 2017 22:22:05 -0500

If that statement is ever removed, I'll guarantee the gov't will come for our weapons. Hopefully I'll be long gone from this world if and when this comes to pass.

Response by SFC Michael Peterson made Dec 30 at 2017 11:34 AM

SFC Michael Peterson — Sat, 30 Dec 2017 11:34:14 -0500

Anyone who can Google can look up the meaning. "Well regulated", at that time, meant "trained" or "proficient" and "militia" meant "any able bodied man". Also, I don't trust our politicians enough to allow them to change it. Just look at those clowns. They can't pass one single legislation with less than 1000 pages, without attaching some unrelated B.S. to it and, wording it in such a way that no one who isn't a lawyer can understand. Hell, I would bet that 90% of them don't even read the bills and, wouldn't understand them if they did. So, NO, they should leave it alone.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 31 at 2017 12:01 PM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 31 Dec 2017 12:01:58 -0500

It would be impossible to have a constitutional convention to amend the 2nd amendment without losing it at this point. The forces of evil would probably remove it, believing in their heart that it is no longer necessary. They are wrong. But we cannot give them the chance.

Response by PO2 George Frasier made Dec 31 at 2017 3:19 PM

PO2 George Frasier — Sun, 31 Dec 2017 15:19:40 -0500

The wording of the American Constitution is very specific and should remain. IF the American Bill of Rights is changed, why not start at the very beginning ? There ARE other Bills and acts that support the 2d Amendment, like the "Efficiency of Militia" Bill (1902), and the "Dick Act" (1909) that spells out the word "militia", and the amount of guns a citizen CAN have. Look them up and don't assume the meaning. AGAIN, the wording is very specific.

Response by SSgt Boyd Herrst made Dec 31 at 2017 5:06 PM

SSgt Boyd Herrst — Sun, 31 Dec 2017 17:06:13 -0500

It works just fine.. leave it be as is !

Response by Sgt Jon Mcvay made Dec 31 at 2017 8:00 PM

Sgt Jon Mcvay — Sun, 31 Dec 2017 20:00:54 -0500

Amendments were put into place for certain issues that the before form of government would give or take on a whim. Because today can not see years from now things change and may need to be changed to correct areas of uncertainty. So now that we today are asked if there needs to be clarity? Yes is what I would recommend. It should be so clear as to a 1st grader would understand. As long as there are evil people out and about. If you want to carry a weapon you shall be allowed to do so. You want to own a weapon go get one or more. No permit, no restriction, so far a large amount of mass shootings were with people that didn't get a weapon the now legal way at all. Of course I'm just one vote and I will always vote to own and bear arms.

Response by SSG William Zopff III made Jan 1 at 2018 8:32 AM

SSG William Zopff III — Mon, 01 Jan 2018 08:32:17 -0500

Leave the 2nd Amendment alone, it covers the matter enough! Remember, at the time there was no standing Army, so having a community militia was important for defense of the community at large. So, in the sense of gated communities or subdivisions, it’s not as relevant today, and doesn’t make sense to some that live there. To those of us outside of the towns and suburbs; where one constable or deputy sherriff is all there is within 15-50 miles. The militia phrase makes more sense, where the 2nd Amendment still directly applies. Granted, there are no longer tribes of marauding natives (just gangs) or invading French (just disrespectful thieves).
Protection of life and property, that right to own and bear arms is a mighty deterrent to most, and only a irritation to the hardcore criminally minded.

Response by SPC John Decker made Jan 3 at 2018 8:07 AM

SPC John Decker — Wed, 03 Jan 2018 08:07:03 -0500

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.---I've become a bit of a constitutional nut these last few years. I believe it's worded this way because the founders were talking to the states themselves. As there is no allowance for a standing army, the militias of the several states would have to be called up to handle certain issues. Also this newly formed country had not money to outfit and army, so when the militias were called up, those people would have to bring their own "arms".

Response by PV2 Terry Hughes made Jan 3 at 2018 9:41 PM

PV2 Terry Hughes — Wed, 03 Jan 2018 21:41:04 -0500

Historical writings and reasoning enhance our understanding of our founders intent. Only progressive liberals want to change the 2nd Amendment. It's purpose is simple and supported by both our Supreme Court and Congress. I say leave it alone.

Response by PO2 Douglas Starr made Jan 4 at 2018 12:04 PM

PO2 Douglas Starr — Thu, 04 Jan 2018 12:04:32 -0500

don't bring it up. leave it alone. it has worked well for 241 years

Response by SSgt Nevin Kirkland made Jan 4 at 2018 4:18 PM

SSgt Nevin Kirkland — Thu, 04 Jan 2018 16:18:59 -0500

I agree with all of those who say it should not be amended. I have been a practicing attorney for the last fifteen years and seen enough of the Congressional and Judicial branches to know we don't want Congress or Judges "reworking" what the Founding Fathers accomplished with the Second Amendment. That can of worms won't turn out like anyone thinks it will - leave it alone.

Response by CWO2 Frank Slaby made Jan 4 at 2018 4:33 PM

CWO2 Frank Slaby — Thu, 04 Jan 2018 16:33:47 -0500

No, I think the language of the Second Amendment should be left "as is" if for no other reason than to piss off liberals when they try argue semantics. One of their favorites is "well regulated" means TO THEM "federal firearms regulations and laws." It means nothing of the kind. Back in the day, "well regulated" meant "trained and disciplined.

Another major point on the EXACT meaning and intent of the Second Amendment can be found in the early various state constitutions of the former original 13 colonies and early states which joined the union after the Revolutionary War on the topic of individuals "bearing arms." Most of them are a bit more specific less confusing yet reinforce the fact that self defense is a God given right and NOT a "privilege" granted by a secular government.

Response by SP5 Jim Ford made Jan 5 at 2018 11:20 AM

SP5 Jim Ford — Fri, 05 Jan 2018 11:20:10 -0500

The confusion most people have with the 2nd Amendment derives from their ignorance (deliberate or otherwise) of the meaning of "well regualted militia". "Well regulated" in the 1780's was understood to mean "personally responsible" to be ready for defense with a functioning firearm and ammunition as well as personal provisions while acting in defense of person, property, community, or nation from enemies foreign or domestic. The 2nd Amendment does not need to be reworded, American people just need to be better educated and more "personally resposible".

Response by CPT Phil Bronner made Jan 7 at 2018 5:37 PM

CPT Phil Bronner — Sun, 07 Jan 2018 17:37:19 -0500

George Mason, the author of the 2nd amendment was asked the question as to WHO constituted the "Militia". His response, "Why, The People....the WHOLE People." AS long as this concept is understood, there should be no problem. It IS currently "unambiguous", if one understands the thinking behind the 2nd. And remember...the first battles of the Revolutionary War were at Lexington and Concord....when GOVERNMENT troops marched to seize militia weapons and stores.

Response by CPT Phil Bronner made Jan 7 at 2018 5:44 PM

CPT Phil Bronner — Sun, 07 Jan 2018 17:44:42 -0500

And, let's not forget...the Bill of Rights is meant to INFORM the government that at the very LEAST, those rights enumerated are beyond government interference. The government's SOLE purpose is to protect and guarantee those rights, which PRE-DATE government. (Even cavemen picked up a weapon (stick or rock) to protect their family and territory.) When SCOTUS began violating their Article III limitations, and began "interpreting" (and were allowed to) what the Constitution said and meant...THAT's when things starting going downhill. As Justice Scalia so rightly said, "The Constitution says what it says, and doesn't say what it doesn't say." The Constitution is a LIMITING document on the power of government.

Response by CDR Michael Goldschmidt made Jan 11 at 2018 4:38 PM

CDR Michael Goldschmidt — Thu, 11 Jan 2018 16:38:04 -0500

I would be willing to replace it with this text from the New Hampshire Constitution's Bill of Rights: "All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property, and the state". It can't get any more straightforward than that!

Response by Jose Cornejo made Jan 12 at 2018 6:39 AM

Jose Cornejo — Fri, 12 Jan 2018 06:39:01 -0500

In my country we say "But the devil knows as old as devil" The founder fathers were clear when they wrote the constitution and bill of rights. a well regulated militia, is not only limited to actual armed forces, a local force with their own rules, intended to protect their land and people, could be a well regulated militia.

The only thing i can read when some people are questioning the nature of the 2A is just the fear of this "well regulated militia" could screw their agenda. The leftist, remember that, started taking away the guns from their citizens.

Response by 1LT Peter Duston made Jan 12 at 2018 8:44 AM

1LT Peter Duston — Fri, 12 Jan 2018 08:44:35 -0500

As a lifelong historian of US History, it is mine and most constitutional historians view that the 2nd Amendment was all about maintaining a militia - now called the National Guard for the State to defend itself from oppression (remember the Revolution?) and not to support the kind of gun ownership that we see today with armed radical militias and individuals threatening the social "tranquility" of the citizenry with machine guns. A "gun" during the colonial days was to hunt for food. I was a senior weapons instructor as NCOIC of BRM and US Weapons training committees. I don't want military assault weapons in the hands of amateurs and the mentally ill. Moreover, owning an assault weapon designed to kill another human being is not the "Will" of my God!

Response by Sgt Tee Organ made Jan 12 at 2018 8:50 AM

Sgt Tee Organ — Fri, 12 Jan 2018 08:50:22 -0500

No leave them guessing, the debate alone keeps the right at bay. If we try to define it, it will be restricted by the definition.

Response by Sgt Tee Organ made Jan 12 at 2018 8:58 AM

Sgt Tee Organ — Fri, 12 Jan 2018 08:58:56 -0500

Oh and anyone that says any different, punch them in the face and Yell AMERICA!!

Response by SSG Ken McClintick made Jan 14 at 2018 12:12 AM

SSG Ken McClintick — Sun, 14 Jan 2018 00:12:24 -0500

The problem isn't the wording of the 2nd amendment. It's these progressive left wing nut burgers who claim it doesn't mean what it states with some ridiculous notion that it's a "living document" that must evolve to their wishes. I've heard some of the silliest arguments from these crackpots... claims it was limited to muskets and that it doesn't serve any useful purpose in modern times.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Jan 14 at 2018 12:46 AM

COL Charles Williams — Sun, 14 Jan 2018 00:46:46 -0500

No... MSgt George Cater

Response by PFC Calvin Greathouse made Jan 15 at 2018 10:29 AM

PFC Calvin Greathouse — Mon, 15 Jan 2018 10:29:18 -0500

wow what the hell is so confusing but it makes perfect sence to me lol

Response by PO3 J.W. Nelson made Jan 15 at 2018 1:21 PM

PO3 J.W. Nelson — Mon, 15 Jan 2018 13:21:30 -0500

It has worked successfully for nearly 200 years now as it is written....if Americans have gotten dumber in these 200 years, maybe it's not the 2nd Amendment that needs changing ??

Response by SP5 Thomas Brooks made Jan 17 at 2018 12:02 PM

SP5 Thomas Brooks — Wed, 17 Jan 2018 12:02:17 -0500

Don't change a thing. It's right the way it is. Change anything and it'll open the gates for the liberals to try and change everything.

Response by PO2 Joshua Shellenberger made Jan 21 at 2018 1:03 AM

PO2 Joshua Shellenberger — Sun, 21 Jan 2018 01:03:24 -0500

People forget that "Criminals Mock Society's laws." from Batman Begins.

Response by SFC Patrick Machayo made Jan 22 at 2018 2:49 PM

SFC Patrick Machayo — Mon, 22 Jan 2018 14:49:19 -0500

The second Amendment is irrelevant in 2018. We no longer have Indians whose wrath we have to deal with. No despot would monopolize the media and other structures necessary to enforce tyranny. Scrapping it would be the right thing to do.

Response by SFC Patrick Machayo made Jan 22 at 2018 2:51 PM

SFC Patrick Machayo — Mon, 22 Jan 2018 14:51:59 -0500

Scrap the amendment altogether. We no longer have Indians whose wrath we have to face after stealing their land. Our institutions and media are dynamic enough to defeat any despot. Scrap this amendment, that's the better option.

Response by SSgt Harvey "Skip" Porter made Jan 22 at 2018 11:16 PM

SSgt Harvey "Skip" Porter — Mon, 22 Jan 2018 23:16:11 -0500

MSgt George Cater The scumbag criminals and the occasional lunatic gives gun owners a bag reputation when they go out and commit senseless acts of violence. However overall guns are safe until people start to use them in ways they were not intended to. The lawmakers should concentrate on penalizing the scumbag criminals. Instead of making all these ridiculous laws attacking law abiding citizens.

Peace!

Response by Sgt William Locklear made Jan 24 at 2018 7:33 PM

Sgt William Locklear — Wed, 24 Jan 2018 19:33:25 -0500

Any attempt to clarify the wording in the 2nd amendment would also leave it open to be rewritten by future anti gunners, it would be better to simply add a clearly worded amendment that the 2nd amendment and it's rights are not open for interpretation or modification for any future anti gun legislation and that NO new anti gun legislation is ever to be considered in any capacity for legislation.

Response by Francis McNeil made Jan 25 at 2018 9:37 AM

Francis McNeil — Thu, 25 Jan 2018 09:37:34 -0500

It's just fine the way it is. People just need to understand 18th century thinking and the definition of words as they pertain to the 18th century.

Response by SrA James Cannon made Jan 26 at 2018 10:29 AM

SrA James Cannon — Fri, 26 Jan 2018 10:29:14 -0500

I understand what you are getting at, but it's not the wording that needs to changed. It's the education and misinterpretation of the wording that needs to be changed.

Response by SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 26 at 2018 3:19 PM

SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 26 Jan 2018 15:19:18 -0500

NO! The Second Amendment IS crystal clear to everyone except delusional Liberals and other deluded people.

Response by Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen made Jan 28 at 2018 8:21 PM

Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen — Sun, 28 Jan 2018 20:21:26 -0500

Language of the 2nd Amendment isn't the problem. It is fine as is given type of weapons available at the time. Problem is people trying to use those words to justify unlimited access to weapons of the modern world and the fact that one doesn't need weapons in day to day life to survive in 2018.

Response by LCpl Paul Miller made Jan 29 at 2018 2:22 AM

LCpl Paul Miller — Mon, 29 Jan 2018 02:22:26 -0500

First off the first sentence is not ambiguous. The militia at the time was "we the people." It still is "we the people." The 2nd amendment is not so we can hunt deer, elk and bear. It si so we can protect ourselves against gov't tyranny. Those 27 words were well crafted by our founding fathers and the only interpretation needed is absolutely none. Those who feel the need to interpret those 27 well crafted original words, and add commas where there were none, have only one goal. To disarm Americans so there is no resistance to the new world order. But as long as there are patriots there will be resistance.

Response by Capt David Bays made Jan 29 at 2018 6:46 PM

Capt David Bays — Mon, 29 Jan 2018 18:46:32 -0500

It is already clear and unambiguous. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The Second Amendment was written the way it was to stop individual states from enforcing laws that would prevented federal government from "organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia" per Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 of the U.S. Constitution. Many different versions were proposed and failed. What we have now was the best they could agree on back then. Starting from scratch now to fix it could very well backfire, given the political climate...

Response by SGT Don Schaffer made Feb 2 at 2018 8:36 AM

SGT Don Schaffer — Fri, 02 Feb 2018 08:36:23 -0500

There is no confusing phrase. 2nd says the we need a militia. It says the our citizen's right to own armourment privately shall not be infringed on in any way by that militia.
Any other reading is an intentional twisting of our forefathers intent to protect our country and its citizens from tyranny.

Response by PO1 Mary Vermont made Feb 4 at 2018 10:35 AM

PO1 Mary Vermont — Sun, 04 Feb 2018 10:35:30 -0500

NO!

Response by MSgt Fred Spanier made Feb 7 at 2018 6:28 PM

MSgt Fred Spanier — Wed, 07 Feb 2018 18:28:41 -0500

Keep it!

Response by SFC Ralph E Kelley made Feb 8 at 2018 10:24 PM

SFC Ralph E Kelley — Thu, 08 Feb 2018 22:24:23 -0500

Under English Law (which the colonys had and obeyed - even to the point where they rebelled to keep the goverment of England from changing it) the Militia consisted of every able-bodied citizen to be armed. If you remember your history, the British were marching to disarm the colonials and they resisted at Concord and fired "the shot heard around the world."
It's not confusing to those that learn from history.
The Constitution is an intergrated whole.

Response by A1C Brian Bonner made Feb 13 at 2018 5:03 PM

A1C Brian Bonner — Tue, 13 Feb 2018 17:03:14 -0500

There is no problem in order for their to be a well regulated militia The PEOPLE'S RIGHT to Keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 14 at 2018 7:01 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 14 Feb 2018 19:01:01 -0500

Our For Fathers thought it out well with the wording, they lived then under a oppressing country. The problem with anti-gunners is, they lived all their lives "FREE."

Response by SPC Mitch Saret made Feb 15 at 2018 9:58 AM

SPC Mitch Saret — Thu, 15 Feb 2018 09:58:59 -0500

No. It's not confusing if you read it as written. Pay attention to the punctuation.

Response by SSgt Harvey "Skip" Porter made Feb 18 at 2018 1:54 PM

SSgt Harvey "Skip" Porter — Sun, 18 Feb 2018 13:54:58 -0500

COL Mikel J. Burroughs SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSLSMSgt Minister Gerald A. "Doc" ThomasLTC Stephen F.SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth SFC George Smith CPT Jack DurishSSG James J. Palmer IV aka "JP4"PO1 William "Chip" Nagel TSgt Joe C.SP5 Mark Kuzinski Maj Marty Hogan MSG Private RallyPoint Member SSgt Private RallyPoint Member LTC Stephen C. LTC Private RallyPoint Member Capt Seid Waddell Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS If it's amended California congressional and senate representatives should not be allowed to vote. LOL

Peace!

Response by SSG Edward Tilton made Feb 18 at 2018 3:34 PM

SSG Edward Tilton — Sun, 18 Feb 2018 15:34:33 -0500

The second Amendment is fine. Bring back the Assault Weapons Ban and enforce it. My experience was that other than Law Enforcement persons tended not to take it seriously. We would seize the weapons only to have someone return an illegal weapon to a person who was weapon prohibited

Response by PO2 Gerry Tandberg made Feb 19 at 2018 12:30 PM

PO2 Gerry Tandberg — Mon, 19 Feb 2018 12:30:32 -0500

I’m a little confused! What part of the first phrase (sentence or paragraph) in the 2nd Amendment should be removed? "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." I say remove NOTHING.

The 2nd Amendment is intended to guarantee the nation could never be overcome by any military power, foreign or domestic by guaranteeing the right for citizens to own and possess firearms. Here in the USA we don’t have a gun problem; we have people problems, attitude problems, responsibility problems, education problems, and problems admitting errors in judgment. What we have are problems of the heart, morality problems, disrespect and intolerance problems to conservative views, yet we talk about respect, acceptance, and tolerance for all political views and religions except Christianity.

We are a nation of immigrants, but we have lowered our standard for citizenship for certain ethnic groups, which amounts to reverse racial profiling. We have given immigrant status to some people who come here with the sole purpose to harm us. Many have come here to radicalize, indoctrinate, and deceive others who are socially vulnerable to their message of hate and violence as solutions to their inadequacies or world view.

In today’s society we have approximately 30,000 gang killings annually, including drive-by shootings part of an initiation or gang wars. We have home invasions by mostly uneducated youth with no fathers and no jobs. The vast majority of shooting involve perpetrators who would have committed the crime regardless of any current or future gun laws. Far too many want to attribute all this to guns. In the aftermath legislators want to make it difficult; even impossible, for millions of responsible people to own a gun. What about those who want to protect themselves from all the above?

Background checks do not hinder high profile attackers in the least – although the gun grabbers relentlessly push background checks as the solution to stopping high profile attacks on innocent Americans.

More people are killed with clubs, hammers, vehicles, DUI, suicide, and knives than guns. In no case is there a conversation to ban vehicles, hammers, knives, or alcohol. More children under 10 die by fire, drowning, and motor vehicle accident, than gun deaths. The blame in these cases rests on people, unless it involves a gun. Where is the logic? The knee jerk reaction is to enact more gun control.

We teach home safety, driver safety, job safety, machinery safety, kitchen safety, travel safety, credit card safety, etc., but in no case do we teach firearm safety in public schools. What happened to the NRA Eddy Eagle Safety Program?

Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year. Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times justifiably annually for self-defense. Other publications declare Guns are legally used for Self-Defense purposes approximately 760,000 A year. These are staggering numbers and highlight the fact we have people problems.

Concealed carry laws help reduce crime and criminals avoid armed citizens. Gun-Free Zones are Killing Fields – school shooting are evidence of that fact. So, why are there so many of our schools declared gun free zones?

Response by PO3 J.W. Nelson made Feb 19 at 2018 1:00 PM

PO3 J.W. Nelson — Mon, 19 Feb 2018 13:00:02 -0500

NO !! Nothing contained in the 2nd Amendment is confusing if you have a grip on the understanding of the English language !!

Response by Sgt Charles Welling made Feb 19 at 2018 11:03 PM

Sgt Charles Welling — Mon, 19 Feb 2018 23:03:30 -0500

There is nothing confusing there. There is only confusion in those that want confusion to exist...................... the F left in America.

Response by SSG Eddye Royal made Feb 19 at 2018 11:22 PM

SSG Eddye Royal — Mon, 19 Feb 2018 23:22:49 -0500

I say yes for the reason:
1. The Constitution when setup tried to be setup as a broad document that could be used throughout time and is a LIVING one and is NOT static and be modified or updated.
2. Most Americans have lost the idea that we as AMERICANS has always was able to BEAR ARMS.
3. Gun shows on a massive level has become big business, the FBI and 3 day wait period is not working We are labeling all people as Mentally ill, which I don’t believe is the case nor do most Americans.
4. Lastly Congress con not went out of its own way, truth be TOLD when President OBAMA was Elected people went out and purchased at least 12 to 50 guns and all types of rifles, and now these same people gun regulations.

Response by SPC Joseph Durham made Feb 25 at 2018 1:09 AM

SPC Joseph Durham — Sun, 25 Feb 2018 01:09:46 -0500

Obviously you never read the first amendment. In it's short paragraphs, it explains a lot. It gives people the right to form groups that use guns. It gives you the right to protect yourself from an over-bearing government thru the use of arms. That's two things you missed. We the people must keep this country free. Not just call the country a free State.
There are 320 million guns in this country. If we ever start a new civil war, the military will run out of ammo before it could kill enough people to stop this war. The Civilian population would win. And I know some people have the stand amount of ammo each division is supposed to carry. And some would say I am wrong. But know this, the civilian population has former military in it. Some of the best of the best. With snipers and SF showing civilians how to aggress against Government forces, it will take billions of rounds for the government to win.
That's why we have the first amendment.

Response by GySgt Craig Averill made Feb 27 at 2018 3:52 AM

GySgt Craig Averill — Tue, 27 Feb 2018 03:52:21 -0500

There is nothing confusing about the 2nd Amendment;
""On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

The first TEN AMENDMENTS shall not be Amended as they are our GOD GIVEN RIGHTS.
No level of Government has any authority to infringe on our RIGHTS, see if these words need to be changed as OUR Governments were created to Secure our RIGHTS, matter-of-fact our RIGHTS were so important to us they are repeated in most of Sovereign State's Constitutions for a DOUBLE guarantee. The Federal Government is NOT above the States, it is the other way around and the Centralized Government has LIMITED and DEFINED AUTHORITIES, none of which is to control any domestic Issues not to attack our RIGHTS.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. "
Governments are INSTITUTED AMONG MEN TO SECURE OUR RIGHTS and when they don't it is time to replace the Government.

Many want you to believe that only the Militia had the RIGHT and not the PEOPLE. Well the people were the Militia and here are some notable quotes.

""A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence ... I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

"To disarm the people...[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

"...the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone..."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
- William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance ofpower is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves."
- Thomas Paine, "Thoughts on Defensive War" in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments 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."
- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789

"For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, December 21, 1787

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

Response by PO1 Sam Elbe made Feb 27 at 2018 11:09 AM

PO1 Sam Elbe — Tue, 27 Feb 2018 11:09:58 -0500

No there isn't anything confusing about it.

Response by SSG Clayton Blackwell made Feb 27 at 2018 2:15 PM

SSG Clayton Blackwell — Tue, 27 Feb 2018 14:15:59 -0500

I don't see a need. There is also a militia act that defines the American militia as any able body male 17-45, who is or has declared his intention to be a citizen of the United States, and any female citizen that is a member of the National Guard. There is more to it of course, but that covers the ambiguity.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 27 at 2018 7:18 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 27 Feb 2018 19:18:15 -0500

That sounds great, but my question to you is: what do we do about the people who have no business owning a gun?

Response by LCDR Donald Galluzzi made Mar 1 at 2018 12:27 PM

LCDR Donald Galluzzi — Thu, 01 Mar 2018 12:27:34 -0500

Leave it as the Founding Fathers wrote it.

Response by PO1 Don Rowan made Mar 5 at 2018 7:15 AM

PO1 Don Rowan — Mon, 05 Mar 2018 07:15:25 -0500

Leave it alone. DO NOT give politicians an inch. They always end up taking a mile.

Response by SGT Sean Hale made Mar 10 at 2018 12:22 PM

SGT Sean Hale — Sat, 10 Mar 2018 12:22:03 -0500

The only persons that are comfused by the first part of the amendment are gun grabbers and those who dont understand proper grammer.

Response by PFC Greg Ortiz made Mar 11 at 2018 12:37 PM

PFC Greg Ortiz — Sun, 11 Mar 2018 12:37:52 -0400

I personally don't believe it's confusing. Shall not be infringed is quite clear. What I believe the issue is the phrase well regulated militia. Most people believe militia means military, but this has to be put into context, militia in the Colonial era were not regular soldiers, they were like the minutemen, citizens who were ready to fight.

Response by PO1 Joseph Smith made Mar 12 at 2018 2:21 AM

PO1 Joseph Smith — Mon, 12 Mar 2018 02:21:59 -0400

Leave it as it is. I don't see the need for military style weapons in civilian hands. We all served or are serving. I think we can all agree on that level of thinking. And honestly, anyone that thinks it is okay for someone with no training to buy and keep an AR in their home for self defense really needs to take inventory of what their priorities in life are, because damn.
So, in a country where kids can't drink and smoke (in some states) until they are 21 and your favorite band can't get play on the radio unless Clearchannel says its okay, I am good with limiting the types of guns available to the general public. That isn't infringing on my right to bear arms. That said, why do felons lose their second amendment rights again? I'm talking about someone that stole a pizza in California type felons. Anyway, go team! I'm with you fellas.

Response by SSG Edward Tilton made Mar 20 at 2018 4:49 PM

SSG Edward Tilton — Tue, 20 Mar 2018 16:49:45 -0400

Amend the Amendment so that people can have a pacifier.

Response by SFC John Scanlon made Mar 21 at 2018 8:05 AM

SFC John Scanlon — Wed, 21 Mar 2018 08:05:18 -0400

I agree with the CPT. Whether you own or not, I do not. It is a right we fought and fight for. It worked for over two hundred years, Leave it alone.

Response by PO1 Bobby Olds made Mar 22 at 2018 1:05 AM

PO1 Bobby Olds — Thu, 22 Mar 2018 01:05:30 -0400

Nope! If there is one thing I learned in the 58 years I have been alive and the 20 I spent in the Navy it is - "If it ain't broke; don't fix it"!

Response by SPC Rodney Kittle made Mar 25 at 2018 12:19 PM

SPC Rodney Kittle — Sun, 25 Mar 2018 12:19:14 -0400

The Second Amendment should stay as it is. It’s been this way for over 200 years and can continue to do the job. LEAVE IT ALONG

Response by PFC Sara Crusade (Leon) made Mar 26 at 2018 6:11 PM

PFC Sara Crusade (Leon) — Mon, 26 Mar 2018 18:11:26 -0400

The 2A wasn't about self-defense against thuggery & crime; it was/is about defending self from a tyrannical government. Any change in verbiage skews the true meaning at the heart of the Second Amendment.

Response by SGT Wilfred Rios made Mar 27 at 2018 5:27 PM

SGT Wilfred Rios — Tue, 27 Mar 2018 17:27:49 -0400

I totally agree with the right to bear arms,but not an assault style weapon. All you need to defend your home and property is at most a hand gun ,maybe two and a shotgun. We will never see a " zombie apocalypse" as so many people think. As a matter of fact, if you think you need a trove of weapons to fight off the government...you're never going to win such a battle. So then, where the hell is the need for an assault rifle in a home?!? Hunting??? If you can't hunt worth a damn with a regular rifle hunting with an AR-15 won't make you a better hunter. Maybe you ought to take up fishing instead.
Just my opinion. And yes,I am a legal gun carrier, but I am not blinded by the NRA's hype.
Too many children are dieing in our country due to reckless ownership of high powered assault weapons and high capacity magazines.
Hell,you can even legally purchase a 50 Caliber Machine Gun...WTF for?!?
People are just being ridiculous.

Response by PFC James (LURCH) Janota made Mar 28 at 2018 2:46 PM

PFC James (LURCH) Janota — Wed, 28 Mar 2018 14:46:24 -0400

We need to work on the other laws to make this a moot point.

Response by MSG Pat SingR made Mar 31 at 2018 1:19 AM

MSG Pat SingR — Sat, 31 Mar 2018 01:19:27 -0400

That's how Communist did after Vietnam war. Took the guns away, and then they turn around to use it against ppl. the Govt. can do whatever they please

Response by SFC Kenneth Hunnell made Mar 31 at 2018 10:51 PM

SFC Kenneth Hunnell — Sat, 31 Mar 2018 22:51:11 -0400

The Second Amendment,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. Which word do you want to eliminate

Since it is the people or citizens of any given community that would make up the Militia
The Militia maintains the security of a free state
Without the ARMS The Militia would be nothing but a group of people that can learn to march in time and look pretty in there uniforms.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms, makes the rest of the Bill of Rights relevant

Response by 1stSgt Jeff Blovat made Apr 2 at 2018 3:10 PM

1stSgt Jeff Blovat — Mon, 02 Apr 2018 15:10:19 -0400

No.

Response by 1stSgt Jeff Blovat made Apr 3 at 2018 10:26 AM

1stSgt Jeff Blovat — Tue, 03 Apr 2018 10:26:18 -0400

The founding fathers had great vision in seeing not only what was in our past but future as well. The Electoral College? Wow. Can you imagine the country without that? That little thing in the constitution changes a country. The US Constitution is not a “living, breathing and out dated document. It is a never changing constitution that is the very basic foundation of our great country.

Response by TSgt Tim (lj) Littlejohn made Apr 6 at 2018 9:48 AM

TSgt Tim (lj) Littlejohn — Fri, 06 Apr 2018 09:48:19 -0400

A lot of well thought out and informative responses here. Farmers, mechanics, engineers, ect. understand one very important lesson learned through experience! If it isn't broke don't try to FIX IT!!

Response by Jay Lint made Apr 6 at 2018 1:46 PM

Jay Lint — Fri, 06 Apr 2018 13:46:39 -0400

No read the Federalist papers. James Madison does a thorough job explaining the meaning of the 2nd as well as the nations reasons for needing to have it. Teach history in schools. Honestly though the problems we currently are having with school shootings that I assume was the prompt for this question has less to do with firearms and more to do with the availability of Healthcare that includes mental care. Todays schools run rampant with students who may be displaying symptoms of undiagnosed learning disabilities. These symptoms can manifest themselves as poor performance, behavioral problems, violent outbursts, bullying and being bullied, substance abuse, incarceration and crime. etc . These problems are leading to levels of frustration and stress in our students across the board. This, combined with the hormones and impulsiveness of the teenage years is causing some of them to react violently to a system and society they feel attacked enough by to attack back at.
I often hear people as the question of "We didn't have these problems in the (insert decade here), what changed/happened?" or "Other countries have firearms, why don't they have these mass shootings?" The truth and the answers is Healthcare, which used to be much more affordable and much more available to the people of this country. Also smaller classrooms where a teachers time and patience could be divided more evenly among the students, and problems could be identified and addressed. This is how we should fix the problem, HEALTHCARE and EDUCATION. The benefits of Healthcare would ripple out to other areas of our society, and while not being free or cheap at first would eventually result in a stronger more educated workforce because people would finish HS. These people would be able to command more income (HS graduates earn an estimated 1k more per month than a dropout. That is Taxable income folks and would raise them out of wellfare eligibility), incarceration rated would go down removing the cost of imprisoning people. Anyway you get the point, dealing with the lack of healthcare to diagnose and treat currently undiagnosed Learning disabilities could prevent the next shootings, improve the physical and emotional wellbeing of our communities, increase taxable income and the economy as a whole, decrease poverty and improve the nation overall.
In closing, we need to ask "Would gun bans and restrictions along with new laws stop the next school shooting?" It may help, but I doubt it will have the desired effect and we will continue having discussions on guns. However shootings are a symptom of the problem, not the problem. The problem is the person who decides to turn a weapon on his fellow man. Address this problem with preventative healthcare and you will have a far greater impact on this problem than you will by passing gun laws.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 6 at 2018 6:38 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 06 Apr 2018 18:38:43 -0400

I don't think there is really any ambiguity at all. If people would stop to think about it for a half second they would realize the interpretation that the second amendment only applies only to the Militia or the Government is crazy. (Seriously, why would the government need to affirm its own "right" to bear arms?)

"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." If you were to drop the middle clause "Becuase apparently its just filler", does "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed." make any sense at all? Any perceived ambiguity is either someone deliberately misreading it in bad faith to push an agenda or have been listening to those people and not giving it even a first thought.

Response by 1LT Dan Darrell made Apr 7 at 2018 12:10 AM

1LT Dan Darrell — Sat, 07 Apr 2018 00:10:01 -0400

What confusing language? Seems pretty clear to this old man.

Response by GySgt Craig Averill made Apr 7 at 2018 8:11 AM

GySgt Craig Averill — Sat, 07 Apr 2018 08:11:19 -0400

The Bill of RIGHTS is NOT AMENDABLE by any LEVEL or BRANCH of GOVERNMENT.

Show me in the Constitution where the Government was DELEGATED ANY AUTHORITY to REGULATE SPEECH? to REGULATE THE PRESS? TO REGULATE OUR WORSHIP? TO REGULATE ASSEMBLY? OR TO REGULATE OUR ARMS? Etc.

The Government has never been delegated any of these authorities, so how can they AMEND the Bill of RIGHTS when they have no authority to regulate what the Bill of RIGHTS protects?

The Constitution is a Contract among the states, ratified over 3 years before the Bill of Rights was drafted, debated and ratified. The Constitution is a LEGAL BINDING CONTRACT or rather COMPACT and is just as legally binding today as it was 200 years ago.

No one needs a lawyer to translate it, nor a judge to offer an opinion, the most one needs is a 1790 version of Noah Webster's Dictionary and one can easily read and understand it for themselves. The Federalist Papers are the "sales pitches" for the Constitution and Hamilton speaks of the Bill of Rights in Federalist #84. Hamilton says the following several years BEFORE the Actual Bill of RIGHTS was ratified. Read this short excerpt;
""I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights. "

Amendments 11 thru 27 are amendments to the body of the text of the Constitution. Of what body of text do amendments 1 thru 10 amend? They don't because the Bill of Rights is a totally separate Document. 12 amendments were submitted to the Delegation for review and at the end of the Debates, 10 came out and were ratified to be attached to the Constitution and with the Bill of Rights attached the remaining states signed the Constitution. The goal for the UNION was not have only 75% of the states be a part of it, but all the states and several would not sign the Constitution unless a Bill of Rights was attached. The Constitution got the required 75% of the existing states to sign it and ratify it some 3 and half years prior to the Bill of Rights. The remaining states came into the Union when the Bill of Rights was attached and Vermont which was a Sovereign and Independent State all of it's own, joined in.

The Wheel on a 1789 cannon is part of the Cannon, but is NOT a cannon part. Same with the Bill of Rights, the Bill of Rights is PART of the Constitution, but the Constitution is a Compact with all of the states and Defines the Limited Authorities of the Centralized Government and lists some restrictions to the states. The Bill of Rights is a DECLARATION OF INDIVIDUAL God given, UNALIENABLE RIGHTS with further restrictions to the Centralized Government.

The Bill of RIGHTS is a DECLARATION the same as the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE and can the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE be AMENDED? No! not even if it was an amendment, because it is a DECLARATION and not a CONTRACT.

The SUPREME LAW of the land is the Constitution and that is a plain and simple fact and lawyers want people to think they have a power no other has, because they can maybe recite court OPINIONS. Judges issue OPINIONS. The SCOTUS nor the Justices of that court have any Authority delegated to them to determine what is or is not constitutional. If anyone says that they do, then please provide the Article, section and clause where that authority lies. In Heller vs D.C. an individual sued for his INDIVIDUAL GOD Given RIGHT and the only duty of the SCOTUS was to hear the case. Any further opinions were just that.

I offer quotes from our framers and these quotes' sources can be found easily on line or in the Library of Congress.

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- From Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 13 November 1787

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
- William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments 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."
-- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
--Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
--Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

I will take what the framers say over lawyer or judge any day of the week, as the framers knew exactly what they meant, lawyers and judges love to make people think they can translate meanings that are not there. Judges can only offer OPINIONS and when one researches their background they will be lucky to find if they have ever even read the Constitutions. That is why a court case can be appealed, re researched and if the NEW lawyer trips over another document that contradicts what the first court case stated, then that is over turned and the NEW opinion takes over. That is how the legal system works, they really do not have a clue unless they have read and understood every document of the time and talked with the framers themselves. They refer to prior court cases, I refer to the Documents, federalist papers and correspondence of our Framers.

Once again how can our Bill of Rights be Amended by a Government that has never been delegated any authority to regulate any of our rights and if yo say that it can be amended and they do have the authority to regulate our Rights, show men Article, Section and Clause of either the U.S. Constitution or the State Constitution.

Here is also an interesting piece from a document where it clearly shows that the PEOPLE were armed with the same as the STANDING ARMIES they would have to confront or a corrupt Government. Keep in mind that the WHOLE of the people were the Militia and males from 15 to 50 were required to attend assemblies. The Revolution was fought mainly by common folk and the Continental Army was small as compared to the militias and common folk. The War of 1812 fought by the Militias as was much of the Civil War. So in conclusion Scalia was wrong, we are to be equally armed as our potential enemies are.

"shall take from every such person any cannon, mortar, or other piece of ordinance, "

"In 1779, the General Assembly passed a disarming act which was aimed primarily at Tories. It declared that "it is very improper and dangerous that persons disaffected to the liberty and independence of this state should possess or have in their own keeping, or elsewhere, any fire arms ...."[124] The act empowered militia lieutenants
to disarm any person or persons who shall not have taken any oath or affirmation of allegiance to this or any other state, and against whom information on oath shall be given before any justice of the peace, that such person is suspected to be disaffected to the independence of this state; and shall take from every such person any cannon, mortar, or other piece of ordinance, or any blunderbuss, wall piece, musket, fusee, carbine, or pistols or any other firearms, or any hand gun ... out of any building, house or place belonging to such persons.[125]"

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

Jefferson was POTUS just a few years after the ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

"The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpation of power by rulers. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally ... enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

-- Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, p. 3:746-7, 1833

Joseph Story was a Supreme Court Justice from 1811 to 1845, I think he knows more than some lawyer or justice in the 2000s.

Response by Cpl Edward Brown made Apr 7 at 2018 8:45 AM

Cpl Edward Brown — Sat, 07 Apr 2018 08:45:10 -0400

"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 Constitution IS a living document. The framers made it so. If it wasn't, they would not have included rules on how to modify, add, or delete ANY of the amendments.

The only God given rights are "...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..." as stated in the Declaration of Independence; all other rights are man-made, as iterated or inferred in the Constitution.

The left, for the most part, is not interested in taking away just any weapons. They are interested in the safety and well being of all. As a former Marine, I swore to protect this nation. As a civilian I believe my oath is still valid. To that end, I do not believe the average citizen needs an AR-15, or similar weapon for self defense. By extension, any weapon of a similar nature, or which has been designed to look like or emulate a military style weapon is also unnecessary. First, I think I can safely say that not one single owner of these type of weapons is a member of a well regulated militia. Second, does anyone really think, if it came down to it, that a bunch of untrained wannabes could actually stand up against the US military? Third does any sane person really think the US military would actually take up arms against the civilian population?

Anyway, the problem isn't with legal gun ownership. It is with ownership by those who would normally be considered unfit to own a firearm. Why anyone would be against taking steps to prevent more killings is beyond me. You don't put out a fire by throwing more gasoline on it.

Response by SSgt Brad Valois made Apr 7 at 2018 3:04 PM

SSgt Brad Valois — Sat, 07 Apr 2018 15:04:35 -0400

I think the founding fathers were very smart when it came to Human Nature, maybe smarter than we are today, leave it alone.

Response by PO2 Jerry Vest made Apr 8 at 2018 8:46 PM

PO2 Jerry Vest — Sun, 08 Apr 2018 20:46:16 -0400

The only confusion of the constitution comes from the Democratic left . Leave it alone.

Response by GySgt Craig Averill made Apr 9 at 2018 4:10 AM

GySgt Craig Averill — Mon, 09 Apr 2018 04:10:30 -0400

This is an excerpt from the Acts of the Pennsylvania's General Assembly in 1779. The Torries were British loyalist and supported the Brits and not the Colonist. This is BEFORE the Revolution was over, so one can understand why they should be disarmed, but check out what they were to have taken away. Does it seem from this document that KEEPING ARMS was LIMITED? No! because if the people are the last line of defense from a tyrannical Government or an Army gone bad, they should be equally armed and their foes.

"In 1779, the General Assembly passed a disarming act which was aimed primarily at Tories. It declared that "it is very improper and dangerous that persons disaffected to the liberty and independence of this state should possess or have in their own keeping, or elsewhere, any fire arms ...."[124]
The act empowered militia lieutenants to disarm any person or persons who shall not have taken any oath or affirmation of allegiance to this or any other state, and against whom information on oath shall be given before any justice of the peace, that such person is suspected to be disaffected to the independence of this state; and shall take from every such person any cannon, mortar, or other piece of ordinance, or any blunderbuss, wall piece, musket, fusee, carbine, or pistols or any other firearms, or any hand gun ... out of any building, house or place belonging to such persons.[125]

[124] Act of April 2, 1779, in Acts of the General Assembly, supra note 118, at 193.
[125] Id.

Response by PV2 Roger Mann made Apr 13 at 2018 5:45 AM

PV2 Roger Mann — Fri, 13 Apr 2018 05:45:48 -0400

There isn't anything confusing about the second amendment unless the person reading it is just brain dead stupid!
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people (the citizens of any particular state) to keep (own)and bear arms (carry guns of any type and caliber, anywhere, anytime) shall (absolutely) not be infringed!
The American people must demand that the government and the courts stop interpreting the constitution and instead enforce the constitution as it is written in plain simple and easy to understand english that a fifth grader can understand!

Response by Sgt Mike Jacobi made Apr 14 at 2018 1:08 AM

Sgt Mike Jacobi — Sat, 14 Apr 2018 01:08:14 -0400

i see nothing confusing about the 2nd Amendment. i see some who for their own ends try to make others feel confused by raising a lot of spurious reasons as to why they think it’s confusing. It is not. It is simply stated. The well regulated militia to which it alludes is the local “minute man” groups of the day. Those were local farmers banded loosely together to fight together or individually to endure life liberty and property.

Response by MAJ Hugh Blanchard made Apr 14 at 2018 6:02 PM

MAJ Hugh Blanchard — Sat, 14 Apr 2018 18:02:58 -0400

No! To convene a Constitutional Convention now would be to invite real insanity. The "Progressive Globalist-Socialists" would come out of the woodwork (as rats and roaches always do) and try to hijack the event. If they could, they would pass amendments to take away our individual rights and our nation's independence and sovereignty. I want the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution to remain in force, and I don't want to live under some wretched, unelected multinational uber-government like the EU or the UN.

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 16 at 2018 4:02 AM

PFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 16 Apr 2018 04:02:17 -0400

No... just simply put... no.

Response by TeXan Tex made Apr 16 at 2018 9:01 AM

TeXan Tex — Mon, 16 Apr 2018 09:01:11 -0400

Why are folks worried about this? It is perfectly clear the way it is. The first sentence make sure that you have a connection to the militia if you want to have a gun. How could this be more clear??
I am sure Gen Neller CMC of the Marine Core would agree.

Response by CPT Alfred Smiley made Apr 18 at 2018 6:20 PM

CPT Alfred Smiley — Wed, 18 Apr 2018 18:20:55 -0400

It's only confusing to those who haven't bothered to learn the history of period (1789-91) or who choose to remain willfully ignorant of it.

Response by PO3 Tom Howard made Apr 23 at 2018 7:52 AM

PO3 Tom Howard — Mon, 23 Apr 2018 07:52:50 -0400

If everyone had learned to read and have a minimal understanding of the English language in grammer school there would be no reason to add or take away any verbage.

Response by SP5 Michael Walter made Apr 27 at 2018 12:51 AM

SP5 Michael Walter — Fri, 27 Apr 2018 00:51:15 -0400

I think that anyone with ANY intellect realizes that the amendment was written at a time of black powder muzzle loadersand never dreampt of in a world of AK 47s and Tech 9s....the amendment should BE amended and brought into the 21st century.

Response by PO2 Charles Fanning made Apr 28 at 2018 1:05 PM

PO2 Charles Fanning — Sat, 28 Apr 2018 13:05:37 -0400

First question I have is Justice Stevens actually old enough to have talked to the founding fathers to know exactly what they mean? This is nothing more than a roundabout way for disarming the american people. In no way shape or form should "we the people" that served / serve this country with honor and integrity sit idly by to let this happen.
I have thought about this problem for years as I, like everyone else have watched violence in this country go up.
As we let business and politicians make trade deals to take jobs away from the USA the unemployment goes up, people have no jobs, no money and no hope. the American dream has been moved overseas. We actually had a recent president say that the american people just need to get use to it.
Can we the people get this to change? Do we the people have enough in our ranks to try to change this?
What can be done to change the constant yammering from the news channels, from the new indoctrinating our youth are getting in the classroom? And by indoctrination I mean things like where if one kid is defending himself both kids get suspended in a fight.
How, with the violence and unemployment we have in this country can a whole party say their most important issue is how to make illegal aliens more comfortable and have better access to all the services this country has to offer?
I dont have the answer to these questions just a hope enough people in this country have a loud enough voice to make sure these issues do not get forgotten untill someone can change it for the better for all not just a few.

Response by SFC Jim Ruether made May 2 at 2018 7:02 PM

SFC Jim Ruether — Wed, 02 May 2018 19:02:01 -0400

No I think we should have special classes for those Americans who have trouble understanding the first phrase of the 2nd Amendment but why change when some people don't understand it? Just educate them instead!

Response by SCPO Mark Robbins made May 11 at 2018 12:55 AM

SCPO Mark Robbins — Fri, 11 May 2018 00:55:38 -0400

I don't understand. There is nothing confusing about any part of the second amendment. The right to personal defense from ANY threat, foreign or domestic, civilian, military or government. Just because a hunting rifle was the same as a military weapon, there was no specific language for the distinction between them. Threat is met with equal or greater. I don't understand how this gets so confusing for the left.

Response by PO2 Mike Keyes made May 11 at 2018 1:27 PM

PO2 Mike Keyes — Fri, 11 May 2018 13:27:15 -0400

The first clause is only confusing for 1 of 2 reasons: 1) the person is not very well versed in the english language. They don't understand clauses or know the difference between a restrictive and non-restrictive clause, or 2) the above is NOT true but they are so against the right of individuals to bear arms that they have to create convoluted logic, wittingly or not, in an attempt to make reality and their beliefs compatible. This leads to such convoluted reasoning as 'modern guns didn't exist then so it doesn't apply to them' and that the authors suspended the meaning of standard english clauses for just this one sentence for some reason.
The entire Second Amendment boils down to one, and only one, thing. To unambiguously state that the government may not interfere with OUR right.

Response by SSG Vance Adams made May 12 at 2018 12:23 AM

SSG Vance Adams — Sat, 12 May 2018 00:23:53 -0400

All things being equal, if “ changing the language “ is the same as “ admending the Constitution “, Article V allows for admending, or making changes to, the constitution. Their have been 27 admendment to our geart Constitution in 227 years. Historically, both Republicans as well as Democrats have suggested changes to the Constitution. A current example would be the push for a “ Balanced budget admendment “.

Response by SSG David Kidd made May 16 at 2018 1:15 PM

SSG David Kidd — Wed, 16 May 2018 13:15:01 -0400

That confusing first phrase is the reason for the 2nd amendment.

Response by MCPO Lee Oslund made May 20 at 2018 11:08 PM

MCPO Lee Oslund — Sun, 20 May 2018 23:08:21 -0400

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.

From the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

Definition of militia
1 a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency The militia was called to quell the riot.
b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service.

The text of the Second Amendment followed by a dictionary definition of "militia" from Merriam-Webster.

What is a "well regulated militia"? What is well regulated?

Having served twenty years plus in the Armed Forces, in my trade, MOS, or NEC, depending on your branch of service, I understand very well the need for an armed force to defend our country.

Part 1a of the definition seems to address the Reserve Component of the Armed Forces or the National Guard.

Part 1b seems to address the military in general.

Part 2 is broader, and seems to address male citizens declared by law to be subject to military service.

The kicker is, apparently, there is no generally agreed upon definition for "a well regulated militia". The Armed Forces are well regulated. The National Guard and Reserve components of the Armed Forces are well regulated. How is a broad population of citizens who may be eligible for service regulated? Exactly what does well regulated mean when it is used in addressing a broad swath of the population that may be eligible for military service?

Regulations that may limit ownership or possession of firearms by ANYONE (excluding, of course, convicted felons) are railed against by many is being contrary to the 2nd Amendment. Before our previous President left office, he pushed for and I think (?) tried to establish and order that mandated mental health background checks to be included as part of the checks required prior to the purchase/possession of a firearm. After the current POTUS took office, and even before that proposed regulation took effect, the current President repealed it.

Just what is a "well regulated" militia? Does it mean that anyone that is part of a pool of men that are of age to be eligible for military service. That is not clear. As part of the definition does not include women, does that mean women are not to be part of a "well regulated militia" and therefore do not have the right to purchase, own, and possess firearms?

This needs to be clarified to eliminate confusion. There is no road forward on this issue until apples are apples and oranges are oranges, a definition that clearly defines what a "well regulated militia" actually is.

Response by CPO Private RallyPoint Member made May 21 at 2018 7:53 AM

CPO Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 21 May 2018 07:53:32 -0400

That phrase is not confusing unless you're some insipid libtard. The point of the 2nd Amendment is not personal defence. It is there as a check and balance to prevent a tyrannical government, which is pretty much exactly what the left is calling for. They want an overly intrusive government that controls virtually every aspect of your life. The 2nd Amendment MUST remain unchanged.

Response by PO1 Harry Champagne made May 25 at 2018 7:39 AM

PO1 Harry Champagne — Fri, 25 May 2018 07:39:09 -0400

one word CHICAGO

Response by PO1 Harry Champagne made May 25 at 2018 7:45 AM

PO1 Harry Champagne — Fri, 25 May 2018 07:45:06 -0400

there is a saying some people may remember " WHEN GUNS ARE OUTLAWED ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS".

Response by CPT Don Kemp made May 27 at 2018 10:47 PM

CPT Don Kemp — Sun, 27 May 2018 22:47:33 -0400

So, let me be sure I understand your question. You are asking if our current Legislators are smart enough to correct the language of our Founding Fathers? Our current legislators....the ones who cannot balance a budget, allow bureaucrats to supersede their roles, welcome illegal immigrants, who have gotten wealthy while serving in office, who fail to follow through on campaign promises....those legislators are in no way qualified to change one word of a document that has stood the test of time.
How would they remove the “ambiguity”? Would you trust them to correctly re-word the document as they see fit? I would not, MSG Cater. I most certainly would not trust them one bit.

Response by Richard Palmer made May 29 at 2018 8:02 PM

Richard Palmer — Tue, 29 May 2018 20:02:49 -0400

Clean up the language, please! As written, it's unclear.

Response by SFC Ralph E Kelley made May 29 at 2018 9:13 PM

SFC Ralph E Kelley — Tue, 29 May 2018 21:13:21 -0400

Does this read well?

Response by SSgt Daniel d'Errico made May 30 at 2018 11:39 AM

SSgt Daniel d'Errico — Wed, 30 May 2018 11:39:41 -0400

No. Removing the first sentence of the Second Amendment, would literally give the gun haters what they want. The right to ban guns from law a biding citizens.

Response by Sgt John Mondelli made May 30 at 2018 12:25 PM

Sgt John Mondelli — Wed, 30 May 2018 12:25:21 -0400

The second amendment is clearly written. Leave it alone.

Response by PFC Donnie Harold Harris made May 30 at 2018 4:22 PM

PFC Donnie Harold Harris — Wed, 30 May 2018 16:22:32 -0400

I am a lefty- But there is one thing I have known, and it is the people need and have the right to ownership.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made May 31 at 2018 7:24 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 31 May 2018 19:24:18 -0400

No, the framers who wrote “A well-regulated militia” for a very good reason. The Supreme Court has since changed the meaning to apply to every citizen, but that was NOT the original intent, meaning or application.

Also, to “change the wording” requires passing a new amendment that nullifies the original. There is no constitutional provision to “edit” the constitution or any of it’s amendments.

Response by SSG Guy Gould made Jun 1 at 2018 2:38 PM

SSG Guy Gould — Fri, 01 Jun 2018 14:38:42 -0400

The issue with the second amendment and people not understanding it is that they don’t understand things like the spirit of the law, legalese, and the fact that it wasn’t written for the everyday citizen. The entire Constitution is a legal contract between the federal government and the citizens of the republic. If you would like to change something that is confusing, change the name of this country from The United States of America to The Republic of American States. Then, people would understand that the federal government and its association with each state is not a democracy.

Response by TSgt Tommy Amparano made Jun 1 at 2018 4:04 PM

TSgt Tommy Amparano — Fri, 01 Jun 2018 16:04:27 -0400

It is fine the way it is. Everyone is a militia if the need arises. The important part to take away is that after the comma it does NOT say the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It says, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". That is pretty clear to me.

Response by SPC Robert Gary made Jun 2 at 2018 11:03 AM

SPC Robert Gary — Sat, 02 Jun 2018 11:03:31 -0400

No, do not change any part of it. That would be the opening steps for the democrats to re-write or dismantle it all together.

Response by Sgt Vance Bonds made Jun 3 at 2018 6:12 PM

Sgt Vance Bonds — Sun, 03 Jun 2018 18:12:11 -0400

I like it. It could open a can of worms though. Does a constitutional convention allow the entire constitution to be altered, or just the 2A?

Response by MSgt Stephen Council made Jun 3 at 2018 7:53 PM

MSgt Stephen Council — Sun, 03 Jun 2018 19:53:38 -0400

What part of "shall not be infringed" is confusing?

Response by Daniel McEleney made Jun 3 at 2018 9:22 PM

Daniel McEleney — Sun, 03 Jun 2018 21:22:45 -0400

IF you open a constitutional convention to change the wording of the 2nd admement, then you open a change to all of the constitution. Leave it alone

Response by MAJ John Douglas made Jun 3 at 2018 10:05 PM

MAJ John Douglas — Sun, 03 Jun 2018 22:05:39 -0400

I'd say this is right on target. If there was a problem with legal gun owners, it would have shown itself already. Having said that, law abiding gun owners are getting sick and tired of being blamed for criminals and their deeds.

Response by CPO Nate S. made Jun 5 at 2018 8:09 AM

CPO Nate S. — Tue, 05 Jun 2018 08:09:40 -0400

Is the Veterans Administration getting in on the "gun debate"?

Here is a link to the 370th Edition of the Scout Report (http://scoutcommsusa.com/2018/06/04/the-scout-report-370th-edition/) as you scroll down please read the article by Jay Price of NPR about “Battling Depression and Suicide Among Female Veterans”.

Veteran suicide is a major and concerning issue, and the reported increase in female suicide is very alarming. The need to provide more services to female veterans who are now experiencing new exposures as a result of their service is critical. Yet one sentence caught my eye as I was reading this article. The quote in the article is from Meghan McCarthy, PhD who is the Deputy Director for Suicide Prevention, Office of Mental Health and Suicide Prevention at the VA. In the article Ms McCarthy states:

"One of the reasons we think why women veterans die by suicide at higher rates than civilians do is because they are more likely to attempt suicide with a firearm than civilian women. Firearms are a very lethal method of suicide." The easy accessibility of guns in this country will continue to be a factor for at risk populations and should be a part of the discussion as we talk about suicide prevention.

Using veteran suicide deaths by the very agency charged with healing our brave warriors in order to impact gun policy is a despicable excuse for not addressing the more important issues of access to culturally competent care and building community so veterans and for that matter anyone does not ever have to consider by gun, by razor blade, by self-hanging, by drug overdose, car exhaust, or by lethal self-poisoning (Orthotox poison, etc.) or any other means – the act of taking their own life. In all of these cases it is about the desperation people feel when they don't know where to turn or who to trust!!!

I say this because after having two shipmates die in my arms from a massive drug and alcohol overdose, plus early in my naval career, as an emergency room Corpsmen working to save the lives of people who chose to cut their jugulars or slit their arms and legs (long way) and even with a crack medical team working feverishly lives were lost. So, this issue of suicide is personal for me! In the aftermath of such failure, you have to lock down your heart and soul and realize you and the medical team did your best, but it impacts you and you begin to ask questions.

This issue of guns, while important, does NOT get at the underlying causes and issues that led people to this final act of desperation - suicide. Those that travel this path have, before committing the act, have traveled a long and dark road of hopelessness borne out of losing faith and hope and most of all having their trust violated then they most needed to trust. It is trust and the need to know that when you are hurting and you reach out your hand, that you are seeking to trust someone, anyone who will grasp your hand and not let you sink further into the abyss of despair.

Even if we banned all guns and wiped away the 2nd Amendment tomorrow in the name of "public safety" people would still die, because we would NOT have fixed the underlying causes that drive people to lose all hope and take their own lives in the first place. Some people, including me, have called these people - those that commit suicide - "cowards". Yet, I wonder who the real cowards are? Are they those who see the problem and seek to make political hay to push an agenda, never really addressing the core issue(s)? Are they that say "Well it is not my problem. It does not affect me." and continue to have their martini's stuck to their lips. Are they that say, "Oh, I cannot imagine what that poor person must have gone through. But, I don't know what to do?" Are they the average person who has their own issues, who is struggling themselves to remain viable and while interested is not in a position to offer the support really needed? All of these are us and more.

The problem, comes from not understanding and furthermore not preventing the judging of people, who are often seen as strong and in a moment a fraction of a second, don't know why their inter-strength has or is failing them! It comes from providing people the capacity to share the depth of their very "human" spirits and not creating cookie-cutter solutions that, at times can be the wrong prescription for healing a bombarded and battered soul. It comes from listening, and being honest enough to admit that we have problems that will not be fixed with a "magic silver bullet" approach. It comes when we create a true interdependent community.

We should always have an honest platform and eyes wide open realism that has been lacking in the politically charge rhetoric of the day. We must assure that the issues (e.g. joblessness, homelessness, social disconnection, and so many more things) are always in front of the audience advocating for “gun control” and always challenging the very truths that others would hide or say don't exist or substitute for an agenda. Guns are inanimate objects that receive their animation wielded by the hands of a living breathing human being who had made a decision to act in a manner inconsistent with Abraham Maslow’s first three rungs on his Hierarchy of Needs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs):

• Rung 1 -.Physiological – e.g. food, clothing, shelter, etc.
• Rung 2 - Safety – personal safety, health, etc.
• Rung 3 – Social Belonging – friends, family, etc.

When people feel disconnected, unsafe or unable to be in out of the proverbial rain they begin to lose hope. Some are stronger, aka more resilient, than others. It does not make them weak. It makes them human!!! We (I) have to do more to help our fell vets return to wholeness. So, we should not be sidetracked by the rhetoric, not advocate pity for those in danger of committing this act of desperation; rather, we have to work up close and very personal at what being truly vulnerable means and what it really takes to become more secure, safe and connected.

In closing, the below link reveals some of the work the VA is doing regarding this very important topic. All efforts to save just ONE life and return that ONE life to wholeness is what we need, not diversion rhetoric!!!

(https://www.hsrd.research.va.gov/publications/forum/spring18/default.cfm?utm_source=FORUM&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=FORUM2018spring)

Just my humble thoughts!

"

Page not found – ScoutComms

ScoutComms, a Certified B Corporation, is the nation's leading communications, advocacy and philanthropic strategy firm dedicated to providing services that support veterans and military families.

Response by SSG George Duncan made Jun 14 at 2018 7:11 PM

SSG George Duncan — Thu, 14 Jun 2018 19:11:03 -0400

it's only confusing to the people who want to put the people under their thumb. the people have one obligation to replace the whole mess that is hard to do if you can't defend yourself

Response by LTC Pete Moore made Jun 15 at 2018 1:43 PM

LTC Pete Moore — Fri, 15 Jun 2018 13:43:36 -0400

Our right to defend ourselves is God given and this right is affirmed in the US Constitution and requires NO AMENDMENT or change unless you do not believe in absolute truth and in the absolute right to defend yourself, your family, and those under risk of physical harm from those with the means to harm them and are in preparation or the conduct of harming an innocent. Those seeking to change the Constitution don't support this right. Gun violence is a social and mental health issue not an issue of tools (guns). In years past kids would take guns to school so they could hunt on the way home with no gun violence issues. You can't desensitize a generation of kids by video games and violent movies (free speech or not), institutionalize hiding mental health and social issues under the guise of HIPPA protection, and allow state corruption NOT reporting said information to the US agencies responsible for regulating arms trade (California, Illinois, New York, etc) and not expect violence. Even with skewed FBI Crime statistics (adding suicide as gun violence), you are much more likely to die from being beaten or kicked to death, through medical error, traffic accidents, etcetera than gun violence. The truth is the truth- when legal gun ownership is high, violent crime is lower; where gun regulation/prohibition is highest there is a corresponding increase violent crime. Indeed most gun violence happens in the four states with the most restrictive gun laws, that fail to report as required by law, and also have the highest rates of governmental corruption allegations. Address the root issues not tools, if you hate guns say so but your hatred of the 2nd Amendment will NOT stop the violence, addressing its root cause will. For those that want to take away my means to protect my family, my community and myself, come get my guns I am waiting for you. NO the 2nd Amendment does not need to be changed but the social issues must be addressed to lessen gun violence which in the vast majority of cases IS perpetuated by folks that illegally have a firearm AND have recognized mental health issues that have not be reported as required by existing laws.

Response by SSgt Jeffrey Fatheree made Jun 15 at 2018 3:57 PM

SSgt Jeffrey Fatheree — Fri, 15 Jun 2018 15:57:17 -0400

If anyone could read English it is very clear, there is a comma on this so two connected but independent thoughts. “A well regulated militia being necessary to a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Obviously a militia is needed is necessary to maintain freedom, that being said the people’s right to keep and bear arms is necessary to prevent the establishment of tyranny. We have already allowed this to be watered down by the progressives. The intent was that the ordinary non-military citizenry, yes even us veterans, be armed as well as the military if so desired to make sure a tyrant doesn’t take over and use the military to wnforce their will.

Response by Michael Enderle made Jun 18 at 2018 12:04 PM

Michael Enderle — Mon, 18 Jun 2018 12:04:06 -0400

I'm not sure it would make a huge difference. Look how the first, second, forth, tenth amendment fare. It's words on paper these days regardless of their supposed guarantee.

Response by Eugene Howe made Jun 26 at 2018 11:47 AM

Eugene Howe — Tue, 26 Jun 2018 11:47:34 -0400

It was put in there for a good reason so leave it alone. The way things are going I am afraid we will use it.

Response by PVT John Williams made Jun 30 at 2018 7:05 PM

PVT John Williams — Sat, 30 Jun 2018 19:05:56 -0400

If you do that,where will it stop. That’s just opening the door to more abuse. The second amendment makes the first amendment possible and without a first we would not have a second. Leave it be. The Founders were some pretty smart guys and I’m sure they foresaw what could happen.

Response by SSG Anthony Young made Jul 6 at 2018 10:07 AM

SSG Anthony Young — Fri, 06 Jul 2018 10:07:44 -0400

It's not confusing if you know the meaning of the verbiage and what the Founders understood the militia to be. "Well regulated" in the context of the 2nd Amendment means skilled in the use of fire arms. It's nothing to do with "regulating" a National Guard. The militia was considered to be "all the people". The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with the National Guard or regulations concerning it. So...All the people skilled in the use of firearms being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The confusion comes from not knowing our history. Only people have rights, everything else is powers and authorities granted to government or our military. All of the Bill of Rights is about individual rights and the further limitations upon the federal government. The 10th Amendment, for clarity, that if not mentioned, it's left to the states or the people themselves. That's pretty good clarity from the Founders.

Response by SPC Miles Blackman made Jul 16 at 2018 12:19 PM

SPC Miles Blackman — Mon, 16 Jul 2018 12:19:59 -0400

Maj.Detwyler, I understand what you are saying. However I think that the US is to large to be able to follow Switzerland's example and issue every adult a battle rifle, even if it was only in semiautomatic. We have a hard enough time keeping firearms out of the hands of people who legally can't have them let alone those who shouldn't have them. The VA can't adequately handle the mental health issues of our veterans, and those are probably minor compared to what the civilian mental health providers have to deal with and they are swamped with just what the courts send them. So how are you going to screen the bad apples? I'm talking about the guys and gals who join to get the rifle and training so they can go play "Rambo" let alone the abusers ie. drug, alcohol, and domestic violence.

Response by PO1 Michael Spivey made Jul 22 at 2018 10:50 PM

PO1 Michael Spivey — Sun, 22 Jul 2018 22:50:24 -0400

The meaning is clear when one understands how the words were used and what their meanings were at the time the BoR, the 2nd amendment and the Constitution were written. "Militia" at that time was simply another way of saying an armed citizenry, "well regulated" meant operating properly. None of our Rights are given or provided by the Constitution or of Bill of Rights. Rights are Natural and Inalienable, Natural because they exist because we do, Inalienable because no one or government has the right or power to take them away. "The security of a free state" also addresses the condition of existence (the state) of Freedom and Liberty. A citizenry that is armed is necessary to remain free.

Response by LTC Mark Carroll made Jul 23 at 2018 10:07 PM

LTC Mark Carroll — Mon, 23 Jul 2018 22:07:42 -0400

no. The whole of the people is militia. that has been established in law so there is no need to change the wording, just educate the ignorant

Response by SGT John Lawrence made Jul 27 at 2018 9:48 AM

SGT John Lawrence — Fri, 27 Jul 2018 09:48:28 -0400

Our President before Trump made a statement that he said "The constitution is outdated and needs to be rewritten for our time", can you imagine how messed up it would be today if something like that would take place. The way our congress can't even fix the problems we have today with some of our laws because everyone has their own ideas and can not come together, changing the 2nd amendment would be a disaster and we would be at war with each other and then President Lincoln's statement would come true that powers out side of the US would not destroy us, we would be destroyed from with. Not his words exactly but close.

Response by CPL James S. made Jul 27 at 2018 3:25 PM

CPL James S. — Fri, 27 Jul 2018 15:25:55 -0400

offered IMHO only: The wording isn't the problem so much as it's the interpretation of the reader.

As the average reader is not likely to actually research the founding fathers and the origins of the wording, nor are they willing to accept the surrounding circumstances, then it means any and all changes to the wording today will come under the exact same interpretive discourse in the future.

Response by SGT Jon Creager made Jul 27 at 2018 8:52 PM

SGT Jon Creager — Fri, 27 Jul 2018 20:52:37 -0400

There is no confusion except for the liberal interpretation. Judge Antonin Scalia said this, the comma mean each and everyone of has the rights to individually own firearms. There is the pure intent. End of story.

Response by 1SG James Matthews made Jul 29 at 2018 9:43 AM

1SG James Matthews — Sun, 29 Jul 2018 09:43:28 -0400

I live by the 2nd. Amendment every day.

Response by CW4 Robert C. made Jul 29 at 2018 10:35 AM

CW4 Robert C. — Sun, 29 Jul 2018 10:35:09 -0400

My opinion of the second amendment is that it is perfectly fine the way it was written. The problem is those people that want to change or have it removed are not intelligent enough to know that this little amendment is the sole deterrent to other country’s invading our sovereign nation. They look at the size of our military and think ok we have more, then they look at how our civilian population may be armed and then they decide ok we would lose because we would have an advantage over them in shear numbers. So leave the amendment alone.

Response by MSgt James Peterson made Aug 2 at 2018 2:45 AM

MSgt James Peterson — Thu, 02 Aug 2018 02:45:53 -0400

No, leave it alone. There is no need to change it. It has lasted this long and has been understood. The schools need to change the curriculum and start teaching so it can be understood as when I was in school. It is very clear the way it is written

Response by MAJ Timothy Hyink made Aug 2 at 2018 1:20 PM

MAJ Timothy Hyink — Thu, 02 Aug 2018 13:20:52 -0400

Keep it.

Response by PO2 Emily Stanford made Aug 9 at 2018 8:49 PM

PO2 Emily Stanford — Thu, 09 Aug 2018 20:49:51 -0400

All I can do at this point is read these comments and laugh. My heart has ached for far too long over the hatred and division. So I've decided to just laugh, else I lose all hope in humanity. But what does it matter? I'm just a stupid libtard. A stupid, progressive, far left, LGBTQ loving, pro choice, Trump despising, climate change believing, feminist, GUN OWNING, snowflake. Only person in modern history who has stated the wanted to take anyone's guns away without due process is President Donald J. Trump. I dont know about you, but I'm not fond of the thought of him denying me my Constitutional right. But, it seeks to be his favorite thing to do--take away our rights, little by little, bit by bit.

Response by SrA Dan Heitschmidt made Aug 11 at 2018 4:45 AM

SrA Dan Heitschmidt — Sat, 11 Aug 2018 04:45:01 -0400

It is plane english.
What is so confusing about it.
Shall not be infringed upon, means exactly that.
Hands off, no trespassing, cannot be changed.

Response by 1SG Patrick Sims made Aug 13 at 2018 7:41 PM

1SG Patrick Sims — Mon, 13 Aug 2018 19:41:09 -0400

Most Americans don't have a problem understanding the 2nd Admentment. Law school liberals----not so much.

Response by MSgt Thomas Welch made Aug 17 at 2018 7:34 PM

MSgt Thomas Welch — Fri, 17 Aug 2018 19:34:35 -0400

the first phrase is only confusing if your an idiot.

Response by MSgt Thomas Welch made Aug 17 at 2018 7:36 PM

MSgt Thomas Welch — Fri, 17 Aug 2018 19:36:05 -0400

The only way the first phrase is confusing is if your are and idiot.

Response by LTC Stephan Porter made Aug 19 at 2018 1:07 PM

LTC Stephan Porter — Sun, 19 Aug 2018 13:07:38 -0400

What is confusing!?

...and , no!!!

Response by Sgt William Collins made Aug 20 at 2018 8:39 AM

Sgt William Collins — Mon, 20 Aug 2018 08:39:41 -0400

No, you're absolutely right. In the present atmosphere, any attempt to change the second amendment would more likely destroy it. What is needed is education about why we need it, unlikely to come about in today's schools.
In colonial times, far-flung settlements needed to count on the ability of citizens to come together to protect one another from common dangers, thus the "militia." Contrary to Madison's dictum, this was never a very organized group. A call would go out, generally from local constables, for armed men to come to a certain locale to fight a common foe. They would bring their own arms and provisions and when the problem was taken care of they would go back to tending their fields. That simple.
While there may have been more experienced men who led, you'll never hear reference to chains of command, militia headquarters, clerks, cooks or any other permanent troopers. They didn't exist. it was just organized enough to get everyone together for a while then to tell them it was time to go home.
When Madison wrote : "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State," this is what he was talking about, not exactly the First Marine Division. It was surplusage, not carrying the gravamen of the next phrase "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
But if you call a constitutional convention now to simplify it, you'll never recognize the product. Leave it be!

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 22 at 2018 9:10 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 22 Aug 2018 21:10:20 -0400

Who's doing the amending? Keep it the same. Do you really trust the Politicians that we have today? I'm talking about both sides of the aisle. The Supreme Court is there and they will do the interpretation of the laws.

Response by SPC Dennis Baker made Aug 22 at 2018 10:17 PM

SPC Dennis Baker — Wed, 22 Aug 2018 22:17:54 -0400

If it was a "God" given right, wouldn't he have given the right to food and shelter over a weapon?

Response by SSgt Matt Singer made Aug 25 at 2018 10:46 AM

SSgt Matt Singer — Sat, 25 Aug 2018 10:46:53 -0400

I also say leave it alone and start holding Congress accountable for breaches of their oaths of office.

Response by PO2 Keith Reese made Aug 26 at 2018 7:33 PM

PO2 Keith Reese — Sun, 26 Aug 2018 19:33:39 -0400

Absolutely not, it is written plain and simple. It's worked for 200+ years. Why is it such a problem for simple minded people to understand? How many federal, state and local LEOs will die trying to enforce Snowflake insecurities? Trust me when I say that IF by some slim chance they actually pass this idiotic gun grab by the One World Government nuts through the Liberal Snowflakes this country is a goner. I guarantee you that there will be quieter things that can be just as deadly.

Response by PO2 Keith Reese made Aug 28 at 2018 1:07 AM

PO2 Keith Reese — Tue, 28 Aug 2018 01:07:43 -0400

Response by MAJ John Douglas made Aug 28 at 2018 4:16 PM

MAJ John Douglas — Tue, 28 Aug 2018 16:16:19 -0400

If legal gun owners were the problem, we would know it by now.

Response by CPL Glynnda White made Aug 29 at 2018 5:30 AM

CPL Glynnda White — Wed, 29 Aug 2018 05:30:45 -0400

There is nothing ambiguous about it. "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 problem is that most people are uneducated about the origins, intents and meaning of Constitutional language. The best alternative to changing the wording of our Constitution is actually TEACHING our kids, adults and even Congress what it says and why. How do people understand their rights if they don't even know what they are and why they have them? In my personal opinion, no kid should be able to graduate HS without an in-depth knowledge of the Constitution and how our government works. Our leftist government has done a good job creating ignorance among the vast majority of Americans which is why we have idiots like Antifa running around destroying stuff and a bunch of Socialists on the left side of the aisle. If we begin playing with the language such as defining why people need to be armed, then we will have people start arguing about what is really necessary to protect oneself. We already have a lot of this because lefties and socialists who have created the ignorance problem and like to depend on the ignorance of people, ignore that little piece: "shall not be infringed". If we are to question the number of arms or what kind people may own individually, then why do we not limit other things that can hurt or kill, i.e. cars, knives, baseball bats, should we be able to learn and practice martial arts or even which self defense tactics are allowable? I mean really, we don't want to hurt our assailant too badly.....right? The individual states attempt to and have in many cases usurped the Constitutional rights of the people in their states and they need to have their butts sued off.

Response by PO2 Sam Vanderburg made Aug 29 at 2018 12:40 PM

PO2 Sam Vanderburg — Wed, 29 Aug 2018 12:40:30 -0400

Not even touched!

Response by SGT William D. Mitchell made Aug 30 at 2018 10:48 AM

SGT William D. Mitchell — Thu, 30 Aug 2018 10:48:51 -0400

We are the militia. The idiots just need to understand that.

Response by Capt Charles Morrison made Aug 30 at 2018 10:44 PM

Capt Charles Morrison — Thu, 30 Aug 2018 22:44:03 -0400

The way it was originally written was to point out that every able bodied person is actually a member of the militia and as such is invested with the defense of this nation. I believe it was written poorly to keep it ever in the forefront of Americans hearts and minds, and never take the defense of ourselves, others and the nation for granted. I would say it should stand as is.

Response by TSgt Gary Coons made Aug 31 at 2018 1:47 PM

TSgt Gary Coons — Fri, 31 Aug 2018 13:47:44 -0400

The "confusion" is from individuals & groups that want to control other individuals and groups. The 2nd Amendment is clear and concise, important to note that of all the Bill of Rights, it is the only one that SPECIFICALLY states "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"
Our forefathers knew exactly what they were doing and saw and used few words to prevent future tyrannical governments from removing Liberty from its citizenry.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 2 at 2018 10:50 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 02 Sep 2018 22:50:04 -0400

Honest Constitutional historians agree that the lynchpin of all 10 Bill of Rights amendments is that power should be reserved to the lowest level possible. Only issues that cannot be addressed by individuals as "We the People" or the individual states are responsibilities of the federal government (common defense, etc).
The text of the 10 amendments is either neutral or negative about the federal government. The states had positive, neutral, and negative connotations. It is only positive about the rights of the people. It is only logical that the Founders viewed government, at every level, as a necessary evil; as a fail-safe for the democratic republic, they reserved power, as much as possible, to the lowest levels.
Just because 50% +1 vote for an unconstitutional law, it is still illegal since the Constitution guarantees these rights to all American citizens.

Response by Terence Pounds made Sep 5 at 2018 1:54 AM

Terence Pounds — Wed, 05 Sep 2018 01:54:50 -0400

Nothing confusing about it, leave it alone!

Response by PO1 Walter White made Sep 7 at 2018 9:25 PM

PO1 Walter White — Fri, 07 Sep 2018 21:25:11 -0400

The second amendment has served this country well for 200 plus years. This was put in the Constitution by our founding Fathers for a good reason. LEAVE IT ALONE!!!!

Response by SFC Jim Wellman made Sep 11 at 2018 10:22 AM

SFC Jim Wellman — Tue, 11 Sep 2018 10:22:16 -0400

The revision of the 2nd amendment isn't necessary. What is necessary are revisiting the existing laws and enforcing them against known felons who illegally possess weapons. Close the loopholes that allow a purchase of weapons without a background check. And, at the same time put state and federal mandatory participation for background checks. Put in the mandatory requirement for mental health too. But for God's sake, punish those who have illegal weapons and use them in a crime. Stop mollycoddling the criminals. In the 1970's California had the death penalty and regularly executed prisoners for their crime. Then in the late 70's, it was abolished. Guess what happened? If you said "Violent crime went up" you are correct. Why? Because the criminal knew (s)he wouldn't be executed. California brought back the death penalty in the early 80's and the rate went down again.

SO, fix what is broken first!

Response by LCpl Stephen Sharp made Sep 15 at 2018 12:30 AM

LCpl Stephen Sharp — Sat, 15 Sep 2018 00:30:07 -0400

THE 2nd Amendment has worked for all there years, I do agree LEAVE IT AS IS....NUFF SAID

Response by SSG Lee Kujawa made Sep 17 at 2018 1:29 PM

SSG Lee Kujawa — Mon, 17 Sep 2018 13:29:59 -0400

I have nothing against the right to bear arms, in fact I too am a gun owner and hunter, but arms such as we now have, namely assault style military weapons could never been thought of back when the founding fathers wrote the Constitution. I’m sure if these weapons were around then, our founding fathers would have been much more thoughtful when writing the Consittution. Yes, it needs to be reviewed and rewritten to reflect today.

Response by SSG Lee Kujawa made Sep 17 at 2018 7:01 PM

SSG Lee Kujawa — Mon, 17 Sep 2018 19:01:33 -0400

Change it. It’s out of line with today’s realities.

Response by SFC Robert Brooks made Sep 19 at 2018 5:05 PM

SFC Robert Brooks — Wed, 19 Sep 2018 17:05:37 -0400

The problem with any discussion is we will only be offered two solutions; 1. Everyone is armed to the teeth or 2. No one is armed. If the far left and far right would STFU for awhile, well, who knows......

Response by AN Donald Miller made Sep 21 at 2018 12:11 AM

AN Donald Miller — Fri, 21 Sep 2018 00:11:54 -0400

There is an organization that has been moving from country to country in an attempt to remove the peoples right to bare arms. Why? In every country that has lost their private owner ship of weapons the crime rate has increased, why, because only the criminals posses arms. A law abiding citizen will always abide by the laws of the land, don't expect the same from criminals for if they did there would be no crime.

Response by Cpl Douglas Loven made Sep 22 at 2018 5:59 AM

Cpl Douglas Loven — Sat, 22 Sep 2018 05:59:17 -0400

It's not confusing, just the media is trying to muddy it.

Response by PFC Timothy Ahern made Sep 22 at 2018 10:27 AM

PFC Timothy Ahern — Sat, 22 Sep 2018 10:27:49 -0400

Definitely not I don't see anything confusing about this statement!

Response by PO1 Don Mac Intyre made Sep 24 at 2018 4:08 PM

PO1 Don Mac Intyre — Mon, 24 Sep 2018 16:08:55 -0400

What is confusing about it?

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 27 at 2018 9:19 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 27 Sep 2018 09:19:19 -0400

Um...no. The purpose of 2A isn’t home defense or self defense. It’s the preservation of a free state. If people can’t understand 2A, that’s an education problem.

Response by SFC Rob James made Oct 15 at 2018 6:43 AM

SFC Rob James — Mon, 15 Oct 2018 06:43:51 -0400

https://youtu.be/Hx23c84obwQ

What's confusing?

Penn & Teller Explain The Second Amendment

Penn & Teller Explain The Second Amendment to The United States Constitution

Response by CPT William Jones made Oct 20 at 2018 4:14 PM

CPT William Jones — Sat, 20 Oct 2018 16:14:37 -0400

As a nation, we have allowed the Second Amendment to become the bastard-child of the Constitution. In the Federalist Papers, the intent of the Second Amendment is well documented. The Second Amendment is not a phrase to be bantered about like some prophesetical evangelist on a street corner. The militia and “we the people” are one-in-the-same. The people are armed so they may stand up against factions and tyranny that work to disrupt the free nation that was formed. The “shall not be infringed” is reference to any action by the government (federal or states) to inhibit the right of the people to bear arms. While times have changed, and our governments and society in general have become more civilized (so-to-speak), armed insurrection against a tyrannical government is the right of the people, no matter how unlikely it is to occur in our lifetime, or how much our nation has changed since the 1700’s. So I say, “No”, the 2nd Amendment is very clear on the right of the people and should not be amended in any fashion.

Response by COL Ed Mullin made Oct 21 at 2018 6:42 PM

COL Ed Mullin — Sun, 21 Oct 2018 18:42:34 -0400

I never have heard anyone say that the language was confusing.

Response by SPC Kenny Watson made Oct 21 at 2018 8:24 PM

SPC Kenny Watson — Sun, 21 Oct 2018 20:24:57 -0400

No change is necessary. It's fine the way it's written and should forever be upheld.

Response by MAJ Hugh Blanchard made Oct 28 at 2018 8:44 PM

MAJ Hugh Blanchard — Sun, 28 Oct 2018 20:44:59 -0400

A Constitutional Convention would turn into a nightmare, with every lunatic socialist-globalist left-wing Kook coming out of the woodwork (like the cockroaches they are), demanding the end of our basic rights. No, please. You think the Kavanaugh hearings were bad? This would be ten times worse.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 28 at 2018 9:53 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 28 Oct 2018 21:53:15 -0400

Absolutely not. People should be more educated as to what it means.

https://www.upcounsel.com/lectl-the-second-amendment-the-framers-intentions

The Second Amendment: The Framers Intentions

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that a well regulated Militia, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Response by SSgt Bruce Probert made Nov 9 at 2018 10:30 PM

SSgt Bruce Probert — Fri, 09 Nov 2018 22:30:17 -0500

In light of the passage of new gun control in my former home state of Washington. I am outraged that the leftists think that the laws they don't like are okay to violate and only those rights they support are enshrined. I am an Old Marine and to have some one deem that I need to be trained on weapons handling to be allowed to purchase a weapon is ludicrous. It's almost as insulting as having a sitting Senator deem me a potential threat because of my service. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed means that we don't need anyone's permission and we are entitled arm ourselves as we see fit. I hope that it won't come to armed conflict but I will not relinquish my weapons, my oath to defend the constitution has no expiration date and I'll shoot back.

Response by SSgt Steve Swiontkowski made Nov 10 at 2018 6:14 AM

SSgt Steve Swiontkowski — Sat, 10 Nov 2018 06:14:25 -0500

The Federalist Papers clearly states the reasons for the present wording. When written, militia was an honorable association of citizens that would, as the Minute Men, take up arms to defend the country from invasion or insurrection. It is only recently that it has become associated with fringe groups. Leave it alone. Too much danger that the anti gun crowd will water it down and take away its teeth.

Response by LTC Gary Earls made Nov 10 at 2018 10:53 AM

LTC Gary Earls — Sat, 10 Nov 2018 10:53:00 -0500

It would take a convention of the states to change the Constitution and that would open the opportunity to the anti-gunners who would abolish the Second Amendment.

Response by PO1 Robert George made Nov 10 at 2018 8:53 PM

PO1 Robert George — Sat, 10 Nov 2018 20:53:12 -0500

Nothing confusing about it!
What other amendments do you wish to 'alter' to 'remove the confusion'? That's the pandora's box you would be opening. Just cuz it's 'uncomfortable' for some folks doesn't mean it needs changed. Other than the War of 1812, can you think of any other time the Continental US has ever been invaded? I can't. Then consider why that is.

Response by SFC Robert Walton made Nov 11 at 2018 9:39 AM

SFC Robert Walton — Sun, 11 Nov 2018 09:39:06 -0500

NO! JUST NO, you would only be opening the door for more amendments until that right was removed. We already have lost some freedom of choice because people won't defend it.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 11 at 2018 4:46 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 11 Nov 2018 16:46:48 -0500

I consider it clear and unambiguous as it is. The problem lies in the common historical malpractice of modernism. This is the practice of examining historical events and documents as if they had occurred or been written today, rather than in the past. It is only in trying to ascribe today's definitions to the words of the past that we start confusing people regarding what the intent and meaning of those past words were. That's the technique that the communist (Gasp! I used the "c" word, which describes what they are, instead of the "politically correct" euphemisms for communism, like "progressives" or "leftists" or "socialists"! Tsk! Tsk!) morons trying to undermine the 2nd amendment use.
There IS no ambiguity. The word "people" doesn't change in meaning from the first, to the second, to the fourth amendment. And the meaning of the introductory phrase has to be seen in the context of what those words meant AT THE TIME. So, since you've asked for opinions, here's mine: Leave it alone! It's been clear and unambiguous for over 200 years. No amount of communist braying today will change history.

Response by SP5 Howard Moore made Nov 16 at 2018 3:22 PM

SP5 Howard Moore — Fri, 16 Nov 2018 15:22:08 -0500

i believe the 9th covers that also

Response by MSG Don Burt made Nov 18 at 2018 12:07 PM

MSG Don Burt — Sun, 18 Nov 2018 12:07:32 -0500

Leave it as it is!
If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
I have full faith and support for our Founding Fathers ideas and ideals about this Country.
It has worked since its inception and only the IGNORANT, LOW LIFE, LIBERAL, PROGRESSIVE, SOCIALIST, COMMUNIST PUKES are the ones who want to change the Constitution and we all lived through what obama did to this Country so those types are the only ones raising hell about wanting it changed. You've described it pretty well, and probably would have been "honestly engaged" back in the early 1900's, but just leave it be.

Response by Tom Robertson made Nov 20 at 2018 4:43 AM

Tom Robertson — Tue, 20 Nov 2018 04:43:48 -0500

Why is the 2nd always truncated ?
Well regulated militia doesn't confuse me.
Until the recent supreme Court decision to overturn 200 yrs of precedent it well understood .
Just listen to Reagan if you don't understand
But the answer to 200 mass shootings a year is not more guns .
But there is so much emotions because the politicians want to be afraid .
Every year I heard Obama was coming for your guns .
And the gullible bought more
Year after year.
Of course now it will be polosi is after your guns so you'll buy more ammo
With your fear logic gets shioved to the side

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 20 at 2018 11:21 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 20 Nov 2018 11:21:26 -0500

I say leave the second amendment alone! It was written the way it is for a reason.

Response by COL John Handy made Dec 9 at 2018 12:23 AM

COL John Handy — Sun, 09 Dec 2018 00:23:56 -0500

The first sentence, about a well regulated militia, is only problematic if you are female or over age 45. The militia is defined (well regulated) in 10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes. The militia consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Response by Cpl Glynis Sakowicz made Dec 9 at 2018 9:50 AM

Cpl Glynis Sakowicz — Sun, 09 Dec 2018 09:50:31 -0500

Seriously, have you ever seen anything the Government wants to 'Clarify' become any clearer or easier to understand when they start screwing around with it?

Those of us who have guns understand the enormity of that law, and we have no problem understanding it. If I hear one more person howl "But they don't need to hunt anymore... so why do they need guns?" or the even better "That was written for muzzle loaders... it doesn't mean..." Oye.

If that law is 'taken under consideration to clarify, it would be sliced and diced until it would be non-existent.

Response by SFC Charles McVey Sr. made Dec 9 at 2018 3:25 PM

SFC Charles McVey Sr. — Sun, 09 Dec 2018 15:25:10 -0500

I am going to make just two suggestions regarding the Second Amendment, the first is read James Madison's original proposed Amendments to the Constitution of June 8, 1789, paying particular attention to each and every article of Amendment that he proposed. Next read the DC v Heller Decision very carefully, the read the McDonald et al v the City of Chicago et al decision and again pay particular attention to the entire decision, USSC. Once you have done thee two things, and do so with an open mind and open heart, then come back and tell me if you still have issues with the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, (in particular the 2nd Amendment), as well as the other 17 Amendments. You might also take the time to read the life of Chief Justice John Marshall, the longest serving Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court.

Response by SSG Paul Lundquist made Dec 9 at 2018 6:58 PM

SSG Paul Lundquist — Sun, 09 Dec 2018 18:58:37 -0500

The supreme court has already split the first words away from the rest of the amendment, a grievace error in judgement. IMHO: The amendment should be enforced as it was originally written, it's not that long or hard to understand. If people want to own weapons for self-defense or other purposes, they need to be a member of a well-organized militia... period. Anything short of that violates the constitution.

Response by SFC Freddie Porter made Dec 10 at 2018 9:37 AM

SFC Freddie Porter — Mon, 10 Dec 2018 09:37:08 -0500

NO, NO and again, NO.

This is not a hunting amendment. This is a writing that puts the responsibility for safety and security on the people and provides the ultimate restriction on overreaching, tyrannical governments. It is a section of the Bill of Rights that allows a people to be free despite those who want to abdicate their responsibilities of self government, safety and security to the government. It is not to be used or viewed lightly in its responsibilities but it a constant reminder about who ultimately runs things in this nation. Not Democrats, not Republicans, not Libritarians, not the Green Peace party and not big corporations. When any government infringes on the rights of the people and thier self governance responsibility, the people, not lightly (again) decided to work together as the founders did and use their ultimate rights to hold tyrannies in check.

If you try to clarify the wording by changing the wording, you provide the opportunity for those with bad intentions to take control and change the very nature of the nation itself; that of the right of self-governance despite their desire to rule over you. Do not change the wording....“It is necessay to the security of a free state...”.

Response by PO1 Gerald Taylor made Dec 15 at 2018 10:12 PM

PO1 Gerald Taylor — Sat, 15 Dec 2018 22:12:45 -0500

There is nothing ambiguous about the 2d amendment as written. It has been made ambiguous by the radical right, which appears to be a front for the Russian gov't. The words that are ALWAYS ignored by those claim ambiguity are, "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state", clearly refer to what is not the National Guard, and not to individual citizens.

Unfortunately the Supreme Court has, in effect, written these words out of the Constitution, similarly to what was done in the Dred Scott decision. What can be written out can be later written back in. Before entering into this debate, I suggest that everyone read the Amendment in its entirety.

Response by PO2 Travis Oehmen made Dec 16 at 2018 9:34 AM

PO2 Travis Oehmen — Sun, 16 Dec 2018 09:34:56 -0500

As US Code 10246 defines what the Militia is, as does every Constitution of every State, there is no need to change the 2nd Amendment. What is required is that we hold those who we have chosen to serve in public office to a higher standard, and make them study what they are arguing against before allowing them to do so. The Militia consists of all able bodied persons, with certain exceptions, between the ages of 17 and 45. So all these reporters and politicians who fit that criteria are part of the very Militia that they rally against. This Nation was founded on the premise of a Citizen Army. The Founders were dead set against a standing Army, which is why the Constitution was written to give funding to the Navy, but only fund the Army when needed: Article I Section VIII.12 To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years. Article I Section VIII.13. To provide and maintain a Navy. We do not need to change the Bill of Rights, we need the politicians around the Nation to uphold what it stands for. The fact that we have politicians who Swear an Oath to Support and Defend the Constitution of the United States, yet legislate opposite of what it says, should send up a red flag to anyone who still has a few brain cells rattling around in their heads. We, as a Nation, need to change our politicians, not our Constitution or Bill of Rights.

Response by 1SG James Kelly made Dec 22 at 2018 8:20 AM

1SG James Kelly — Sat, 22 Dec 2018 08:20:57 -0500

No; if you are too stupid to understand it you should just sit in the conner and shut up.

Response by PO1 Kevin Dougherty made Dec 24 at 2018 12:08 AM

PO1 Kevin Dougherty — Mon, 24 Dec 2018 00:08:08 -0500

Leave it alone, it is clear and not confusing, unless you deliberately try to confuse the issue by ignoring rules of grammar and logic.

Response by Marlene Hessler made Dec 24 at 2018 11:42 AM

Marlene Hessler — Mon, 24 Dec 2018 11:42:09 -0500

We are in really challenging times. Our education system has a runaway problem with liberalism/socialism. It has often been purported that our Immigration Laws need change. There is nothing wrong with our Immigration Laws that enforcement wouldn problem is in our Legal System. We have a generation of JUDGES and LAWYERS that fully believe they have the right to decide WHICH LAWS TO ENFORCE. That's a deal breaker. Common sense is the least common of all the senses and it's rarely found in the legal profession. The same can be said of our 2nd Amendment. Opening the door to improvement, unfortunately, also opens it to those charlatans that call themselves attorneys and judges. Net result could be extremely negative for our country.

Response by SSG George Duncan made Dec 30 at 2018 5:00 PM

SSG George Duncan — Sun, 30 Dec 2018 17:00:42 -0500

do you have that much trust in the lawyers to not sku it even further?

Response by A1C Michael Beal made Dec 31 at 2018 1:06 PM

A1C Michael Beal — Mon, 31 Dec 2018 13:06:33 -0500

MSgt, I believe the best recourse is to have a clear, concise and unambiguous definition of the term "militia" which is fully supported by case law. Oh, wait, we already do... In DC vs Heller, the US Supreme Court clearly upheld that the "militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense." (Syllabus, Certiorari to the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf)

Heller also held on several points the individual right secured by the 2d Amendment but also held the rulings of Miller (US Supreme Court, 1939) were also true:
"Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those 'in common use at the time' finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

07-290.pdf)

Response by SGT Tony Wilson made Jan 3 at 2019 9:10 AM

SGT Tony Wilson — Thu, 03 Jan 2019 09:10:18 -0500

Absolutely not. The wording of the Amendments are purposely writen that way. For our protection. Leave it alone.

Response by SCPO Carl Wayne Boss made Jan 4 at 2019 4:14 AM

SCPO Carl Wayne Boss — Fri, 04 Jan 2019 04:14:04 -0500

There isn't a thing wrong with the 2nd Amendment. just as it is.

If people would study the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers and give the original documents and the Federalist & Anti-Federalist Paper due consideration, I believe most would Agree.
They need no change, only careful reading to be understood! "Careful" is the operative word here! So go Carefully read the Original Documents.........

Response by CW4 Leonard Glasser made Jan 5 at 2019 5:57 PM

CW4 Leonard Glasser — Sat, 05 Jan 2019 17:57:59 -0500

The Second Amendment is very clear but it's the people who read it with a 21st Century view that don't get it. Don't tamper with it, the SCOTUS has made it clear 'District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)', it was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

Response by SSG Robin Lawson made Jan 5 at 2019 8:31 PM

SSG Robin Lawson — Sat, 05 Jan 2019 20:31:31 -0500

First let's make things clear the second amendment was also put in place so the people could protect them selves from there on government. If you don't believe this look at countries were there population can't own guns and groups of people are killed. Also I've heard the argument that rifles and pistols can't beat planes and bombs but it seems to have worked in Afghanistan for years. We have stayed free because of this.

Response by 1SG Mark Colomb made Jan 5 at 2019 10:21 PM

1SG Mark Colomb — Sat, 05 Jan 2019 22:21:06 -0500

It is only confusing to those who do not study history.

The first phrase, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” is the founding fathers recognizing that the government needs an armed force to orotect itself. The second phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Is the Founders recognizing the people must have the ability to protect itself from the militia (under the control of the government).

Their experience was that England took away their guns and made it easier to control them.

Response by SFC Regina Boyd made Jan 6 at 2019 1:00 PM

SFC Regina Boyd — Sun, 06 Jan 2019 13:00:54 -0500

Contrary to most right-wing beliefs, This progressive-liberal-left-wing-progressive individual does not believe in getting rid of the Second Amendment. So please continue with your “bashing” and “fear-mongering.”

Response by CWO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 6 at 2019 2:36 PM

CWO2 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 06 Jan 2019 14:36:47 -0500

It's perfectly clear to the court responsible for interpreting it. . . Heller v. D.C. circa 2008.

Response by PO2 Louis Fattrusso made Jan 6 at 2019 11:30 PM

PO2 Louis Fattrusso — Sun, 06 Jan 2019 23:30:36 -0500

We would seriously regret opening the 2nd Amendment to any changes. Think of the political fighting and ultimate results

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 13 at 2019 1:26 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 13 Jan 2019 13:26:37 -0500

I'll tell you straight. The continuation, declaration of independence, and the amendments are written just fine. There is NO confusion with any of it. All it is, the left is just wanting to try and make it confusing so that they can change it and dominate people's thoughts. It has lasted and endured since 1776 and no confusion.

Response by CW4 Kenneth McGill made Jan 16 at 2019 7:40 AM

CW4 Kenneth McGill — Wed, 16 Jan 2019 07:40:58 -0500

What is the 1776 definition of Arms?

Response by SPC Mara Manzer (Spurgin) made Jan 16 at 2019 8:00 AM

SPC Mara Manzer (Spurgin) — Wed, 16 Jan 2019 08:00:49 -0500

Leave it alone. I personally have no difficulty understanding what it means.

Response by MSgt Horace Smith made Jan 18 at 2019 2:36 AM

MSgt Horace Smith — Fri, 18 Jan 2019 02:36:42 -0500

What many people either forget or never knew is that in Colonial times, the militia was every able bodied man capable of using a firearm. Thus the militia was "the people" as a whole. Any serious study of the Founding Father's writing from the time make it clear that they intended for everyone to have the right to own firearms.

Response by SPC Daniel Bowen made Jan 18 at 2019 9:42 AM

SPC Daniel Bowen — Fri, 18 Jan 2019 09:42:13 -0500

I am confident most of us here can agree to leave it as it stands. How the Amendments were written may be confusing to some, but there are finely driven explanations of each. It is unfortunate that many Americans do not have a thorough understanding of their constitutional rights. I have always been a supporter of teaching this in school (along with teaching students how to do their taxes). But the Second Amendment gives us the right to bear arms, i.e. ownership of arms. This discussion could be brought up to any of the other amendments simply because many folks do not understand the meaning or their own rights as a whole. It is sad that this is the case in many arguments involving our constitution.

Response by 1SG Kenneth Talkington Sr made Jan 18 at 2019 11:54 PM

1SG Kenneth Talkington Sr — Fri, 18 Jan 2019 23:54:47 -0500

To me it clear as can be. Our forefathers knew exactly what the were doing when the included statement in the Constitution. Leave it alone as written. Once the door is open to allow change then the people it was written to protect us will from will have a doorway to take away our guns.

Response by Sgt Neil Foster made Jan 20 at 2019 4:13 PM

Sgt Neil Foster — Sun, 20 Jan 2019 16:13:49 -0500

There is no need to do that. The definition of "Militia" is clearly laid out in 10 USC 311: Militia: composition and classes.

311 . Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are-
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Anti-gun fanatics are too dense to understand this

http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=militia&f=treesort&fq=true&num=5&hl=true

view.xhtml

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 20 at 2019 7:55 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 20 Jan 2019 19:55:21 -0500

Just as relevant now as it was then. Only those who wish to strip law abiding citizens of their rights have interpreted the words to fit their narrative. Leave it alone!

Response by Anthony Ragland made Jan 20 at 2019 9:31 PM

Anthony Ragland — Sun, 20 Jan 2019 21:31:31 -0500

The phrase "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," should not be removed because it identifies a purpose behind the establishment of the amendment. The majority of the time that the 2nd amendment is cited by pro-gun critics, this phrase is omitted for the purposes of promoting their agenda. In it's current context, the 2nd amendment was written to establish that the citizens are the country's first line of defense against foreign invaders. The guarantee that our citizens are armed is a huge deterrent to anyone who would be foolish enough to try to invade as, at the last report that I read, firearms in the hands of private citizens outnumber the firearms of the police & military by 4 to 1. Although militias organized by individual states have mostly been replaced by the National Guard, which receives military training and falls under the control of the state's governor, the 2nd amendment is still very relevant as it's written.

Response by PO1 Robert George made Jan 21 at 2019 2:47 PM

PO1 Robert George — Mon, 21 Jan 2019 14:47:06 -0500

1. Founding Fathers made Amendments to the Constitution difficult for a reason;
2. You do not want to open that Pandora's Box;
3. What other Amendments or parts of the Constitution do you think needs 'correction'?;
4. Them fellers back then were pretty damn smart, weren't they?

Response by PO1 Robert Wikert made Jan 21 at 2019 4:03 PM

PO1 Robert Wikert — Mon, 21 Jan 2019 16:03:28 -0500

What's confusing about that?

Response by SPC Travis Grizzard made Jan 26 at 2019 4:08 PM

SPC Travis Grizzard — Sat, 26 Jan 2019 16:08:32 -0500

I believe the Second Amendment was written properly in the first place. Our Founders had it right. Why?
1. The Second Amendment is a restriction on the government, to prevent the government's ability to abuse their power.
2. The Second Amendment was passed to, in part, protect us from being disarmed if a select militia was formed, since the Founders feared that those in power would use the presence of a select militia as an excuse to disarm the people.
3. The regular troops were to be regulated, (kept functioning properly, and not used by a tyrant to take and hold power), and the armed people were to regulate the militia.
4. Militia duties include both military and law enforcement duties, per the body of the Constitution.
5. To claim the Second Amendment is for the purpose of forming militias, is to claim it's redundant, and thus unnecessary. (Article I, Section 8, Paragraphs 13 &14.)

In my opinion, Tech Coxe said it best in 1788 & 1789, during the discussion of the Amendments.

"The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but where, I trust in God, it will always remain, in the hands of the people."

"Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

Response by PO1 William Van Syckle made Feb 7 at 2019 2:18 PM

PO1 William Van Syckle — Thu, 07 Feb 2019 14:18:27 -0500

I am trying to figure out what is confusing about it. I see nothing wrong with the 2nd Amendment. I don’t know, maybe it takes common sense to understand it. But, that’s my opinion.....

Response by SGT Stephen Jaffe made Feb 24 at 2019 6:44 PM

SGT Stephen Jaffe — Sun, 24 Feb 2019 18:44:25 -0500

Interesting comments on here. The government can try to 'ban' firearms, but they would not be able to find all of them to confiscate. Besides, who is going to go seize them ? Guns are available to anyone who has the money to buy them. I've heard that even the Vietnamese are shipping 1960s era M16s to the US. I guess they have to do something with all the equipment we left over there. Its all about the money. It always is.

Response by SPC Gary Welch made Feb 24 at 2019 10:56 PM

SPC Gary Welch — Sun, 24 Feb 2019 22:56:46 -0500

Two word answer hell no

Response by SCPO Donald Johnson made Feb 25 at 2019 12:44 AM

SCPO Donald Johnson — Mon, 25 Feb 2019 00:44:02 -0500

The 2nd is only confusing if you are unfamiliar with it's intent. Our fore fathers feared a central government. The 2nd was to ensure that the government did not overstep it's bounds (subject for another discussion). The 2nd put the teeth behind the 1st.

Regards a "regulated militia", they do exist. I believe it's 22 states that have them. Some are paper tigers, others are made up real people. Today they are called State Defense Forces, not to be confused with the National Guard. They are often used as the backbone of state emergency agencies. And the federal government can NOT call them into federal service, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force (There are even Naval units.)

From another point of view any attempt to disarm the citizenry is also an attempt to disarm the states.

BTW: That other old saw about out founding fathers not anticipating the development of automatic weapons, lock up the "Puckle Gun." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun Not very functional but it was only the first.

State defense force - Wikipedia

State defense forces (SDF; also known as state military, state guards, state militias, or state military reserves) in the United States are military units that operate under the sole authority of a state government. State defense forces are authorized by state and federal law and are under the command of the governor of each state.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 10 at 2019 1:22 PM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 10 Mar 2019 13:22:38 -0400

If we ever open the constitution to try and amend it, we risk losing it. The anti-gun crowd would spend billions to repeal it. The supreme court has ruled it is our individual right.

Response by PO3 Rik Cederstrom made Mar 10 at 2019 10:53 PM

PO3 Rik Cederstrom — Sun, 10 Mar 2019 22:53:16 -0400

The introductory qualification is clear for those who pay attention. There is a responsibility of gun owners to contribute to the maintenance of a free people. It isn't just our "right" to run around carrying a gun. The training and protocols for carry and use would always apply to a liberty loving citizen

Response by PO3 Rik Cederstrom made Mar 10 at 2019 10:53 PM

PO3 Rik Cederstrom — Sun, 10 Mar 2019 22:53:43 -0400

Response by PO2 Christopher Foss made Mar 17 at 2019 5:07 PM

PO2 Christopher Foss — Sun, 17 Mar 2019 17:07:28 -0400

I believe that the issue is not the Second Amendment per say, but rather the inane notion that if we simply make enough laws, it will solve the problem. What needs to happen is that we need to enforce the laws we have.

That said, if you really want a suggestion for enforcement, try this:
http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2010/

"So, the question is: How to prevent the purchase of firearms by those society deems forbidden to do so, while preserving the privacy of lawful gun owners and preventing any sort of listing activity?

I propose a battery-powered scanner containing an algorithm and capable of reading bar-coded and encrypted digits. This scanner would decrypt and read the bar-code, use the contained data to work the algorithm and -- depending on what the result was -- illuminate one of three lights.

If the result is one of a series of numbers -- for fun, let's say it's a Fibonacci number -- then a red light is displayed on the reader.

Any other number, and the green light comes on.

If the encryption is bad, the encrypted numbers are wrong, or the bar-code is simply not capable of being read, then a yellow light.

When you apply for your drivers license or State identification card, you are checked for a criminal history or psychiatric adjudications. If you have one, your DL or ID gets the code for a red light.

Everyone else -- and I mean EVERYONE else -- gets the code for a green light.

Since these battery-operated card readers will have only the tech necessary to read, decrypt, and compare numbers -- no antennae, no data ports, no memory, no means whatsoever of storing or transmitting information -- you should be able to sell them for ten dollars at Wal-Mart and make enough of a profit to defray the costs of adding the bar-codes IDs.

You want to buy a gun, you walk into a gun-store, swipe your card, green light means you buy what you want and carry it whenever and however you want.

That means open carry, concealed carry, SBR's, NFA's, AOW's, in-State, out-of-State, whatever you want, wherever you want, however you want.

Red light means that you don't.

Simple as that."

The LawDog Files

Response by SSG Ray Elliott made Mar 23 at 2019 8:13 AM

SSG Ray Elliott — Sat, 23 Mar 2019 08:13:33 -0400

I have no problem with letting the 2nd amendment stand as is. It's already been proven in the courts that congress, and state governments can in fact make limits to what a private citizen can and can't own in regards to arms. There are already bans against private citizens owning any number of weapons, you can't own a fully automatic weapon, or a rocket launcher, or grenades, etc. I do support nationwide back ground checks, limits on the number of rounds newly manufactured guns and magazines can hold. Does a Private citizen really need a Magazine with a capacity of over 20 rounds for personal protection, or any other legal purpose? This is such a hot button issue that any discussion, or compromise is automatically shut down, regardless of which side proposes it.

Response by PO3 Terry Miller made Mar 26 at 2019 10:52 AM

PO3 Terry Miller — Tue, 26 Mar 2019 10:52:34 -0400

I fear opening that can of worms. I think it should be left as it is. Even well meaning people will want to make unnecessary changes. The Supreme Court ruled in favor and set precedent. They rely more on precedent than almost anything so unless we have a solid majority of liberals on the Court it isn't going to change.

Response by MCPO Oslo Wilhunky made Mar 27 at 2019 11:21 AM

MCPO Oslo Wilhunky — Wed, 27 Mar 2019 11:21:49 -0400

The amendment was written in language that was very clear and unambiguous for the time. Even if the language were changed to reflect today's vernacular, it would not matter a jot or tittle, they will not be satisfied until every firearm is safely in the hands of those they deem worthy.

Response by LTC James Washington made Mar 30 at 2019 2:53 PM

LTC James Washington — Sat, 30 Mar 2019 14:53:25 -0400

Not only NO but HELL NO!

Response by MSgt Raymond Hickey made May 4 at 2019 1:37 PM

MSgt Raymond Hickey — Sat, 04 May 2019 13:37:05 -0400

Why change it??? I find it clear, concise and completely understandable. Instead of changing the language, try understanding the underlying meanings as written. Making something easier for fools to understand doesn't make it better or clearer.

Response by PFC Scott O'Connor made May 11 at 2019 1:23 AM

PFC Scott O'Connor — Sat, 11 May 2019 01:23:11 -0400

Our problem in general, is reading comprehension, not the words written. It is best left as is. "Well regulated" at the time of writing meant "self disciplined" effectively.

Response by CPL Gerald Fredrick made May 14 at 2019 11:02 AM

CPL Gerald Fredrick — Tue, 14 May 2019 11:02:42 -0400

Its not the responsible gun owner that's the problem. It is those who are irresponsible and mentally depraved that jepordise the rest

Response by PO2 Russell Houston made May 14 at 2019 11:34 PM

PO2 Russell Houston — Tue, 14 May 2019 23:34:38 -0400

What is not clear? The constitution makes it clear that this was a right bestowed upon you by you creator. You don not have constitutional right,s that is the biggest mistake made. You have inalienable right bestowed by your creator and the constitution only puts restrictions on your government

Response by SFC Brian Gillum made May 27 at 2019 3:59 AM

SFC Brian Gillum — Mon, 27 May 2019 03:59:26 -0400

How is the phrasing confusing? “A well-regulated militia,” - so far pretty straight forward: The militia (the portion of the citizens who are physically and mentally capable of defending their home, municipality, county, state and nation, but are not serving in an organized military force) having laws and rules that govern their ability to possess, bear and if necessary, use such weapons and tactics as they know or have been trained in; “being necessary for the security of a free state,”: again, sounds pretty straight forward. If the citizens of a particular governmental jurisdiction wish to retain the rights, freedoms, liberties and other perquisites that come with being a citizen, they have a civic duty to defend themselves, their homes and the lives and homes of their fellow citizens against those who would wish to strip those rights and privileges from them.

The National Guard May have it’s historical roots tied into the colonial and subsequently the state militias but once the federal government took over the militias and has the authority to mobilize those people, they are no longer the militia as it is defined historically.

The militia has always been a group of citizens who organize to work in a paramilitary fashion as a defense force for their community (generally city/township or county) and will supplement the forces of the individual state to ensure its security and the preservation of the rights and privileges of citizenship in that state.

Response by PFC Stephen Trynosky made May 31 at 2019 10:27 PM

PFC Stephen Trynosky — Fri, 31 May 2019 22:27:45 -0400

I've always made it a point to opponents of the "people" who constantly harp on militia to just go back, find even a 19th century dictionary and look up the meaning of militia. It's very clear!

Response by SPC Brian Stephens made Jun 1 at 2019 11:44 PM

SPC Brian Stephens — Sat, 01 Jun 2019 23:44:35 -0400

No. The phrase is perfect. But it must be taught as to when this was written, why, and what a militia was back in the day.

Response by 1LT Richard Salazar made Aug 26 at 2019 12:36 PM

1LT Richard Salazar — Mon, 26 Aug 2019 12:36:15 -0400

What confusing phrase? If you actually read it, it's clear as it is.

Response by SPC Michael Duricko, Ph.D made Oct 5 at 2019 8:41 PM

SPC Michael Duricko, Ph.D — Sat, 05 Oct 2019 20:41:47 -0400

The Second Amendment has been around longer than any of us discussing this issue and has withstood the tests of time. The solution is a simple one, keep the Second Amendment as is and get rid of those idiotic far left liberal Democrats, at the Polls, who want to literally take our guns from us. Over my bullet ridden body!
We have a President who loves the Military, loves veterans, loves disabled veterans and loves the Second Amendment. Support the President as he supports us with the right to keep and bear arms.

Response by SGT Joseph Gunderson made Dec 7 at 2020 8:36 PM

SGT Joseph Gunderson — Mon, 07 Dec 2020 20:36:48 -0500

Anyone who understands syntax can read the passage just fine without any ambiguity. Perhaps there's more of an argument here for improving education before modifying founding documents to make it easier for the lazy and or ignorant dregs.

Response by SSG Byron Hewett made Sep 13 at 2022 2:42 PM

SSG Byron Hewett — Tue, 13 Sep 2022 14:42:34 -0400

The constitution is plainly worded for everyone to understand when you read it, therefore there is no legal reason for any changes what so ever it a document that is not meant for changes what so ever.