Posted on Feb 1, 2017
Should the 2d Amendment be amended to remove the confusing first phrase?
151K
3.25K
1.43K
275
275
0
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."
"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."
2nd Amendment
Constitution
Freedom
Militia
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 492
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
MSgt George Cater
I agree with you. I understand it intent perfectly. It was just a thought question to solicit RP opinions.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
Cpl Gabriel F.
Canada or any country or U.S.A. state that have unconstitutional regulations or laws in regard to firearms.
(1)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
Cpl Gabriel F. - I don't know about unconstitutional we have stupid laws like in California were only the criminals can have above a 10-shot magazine all because of the governor and his legislature overreacting to the Christmas party of 2015 when the terrorists received weapons and magazines from Nevada. Only in California! Now everybody who has an old magazine laying around the house now has a misdemeanor or a felony. Well the bad guys already have a misdemeanor and a felony and they don't care!
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
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
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
(2)
(0)
CW3 Harvey K.
Interesting article. Nowadays we see many who try to have "well regulated" travel over 200 years into the future where it gains the modern connotations of "lots of Government rules, regulations, and restrictions". It had no such connotation when the 2nd Amendment was written, nor for at least 8 decades before and after the Bill of Rights was submitted to the states for ratification.
Not only that, but they wish "well regulated" to leap from the "Militia clause" where it is employed to describe "Militia" and --- unique in the English language --- now modify either "the right of the people ..." or "Arms".
Not only that, but they wish "well regulated" to leap from the "Militia clause" where it is employed to describe "Militia" and --- unique in the English language --- now modify either "the right of the people ..." or "Arms".
(0)
(0)
Cpl Gabriel F.
The founders were very selective in the use as well as the choice of words. They had the ability and knowledge not only to envision the future but draw from history.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Once you open it up to being revised the changes would get out of meaningful hand.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
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.
(2)
(0)
CW3 Harvey K.
I would not put too much faith in the alleged "more guns, but fewer gun owners" syndrome.
The gun ownership estimate has been determined by survey, and shows a decreasing number of people reporting guns in their households. Compare that to the 15,000,000 CCWs that are now held by (some) "gun owners".
Do you accept that a decreasing number of REPORTS by surveyed respondents implies that decrease in gun ownership? What value should be given to that survey?
For my part, if I were ever to be questioned by a stranger with a clipboard, or a disembodied voice over a telephone, I would respond to such a question with a shocked "You mean REAL GUNS? ... OMG No, none!"
That is pretty much the way other members of my gun club would respond as well. In the past, we would have been honest, if naive. We are now more cynical, and don't do anything foolish, like announcing our vacation plans so that burglars will know of an empty home, nor let strangers know if that home contains a gun.
The gun ownership estimate has been determined by survey, and shows a decreasing number of people reporting guns in their households. Compare that to the 15,000,000 CCWs that are now held by (some) "gun owners".
Do you accept that a decreasing number of REPORTS by surveyed respondents implies that decrease in gun ownership? What value should be given to that survey?
For my part, if I were ever to be questioned by a stranger with a clipboard, or a disembodied voice over a telephone, I would respond to such a question with a shocked "You mean REAL GUNS? ... OMG No, none!"
That is pretty much the way other members of my gun club would respond as well. In the past, we would have been honest, if naive. We are now more cynical, and don't do anything foolish, like announcing our vacation plans so that burglars will know of an empty home, nor let strangers know if that home contains a gun.
(5)
(0)
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).
(2)
(0)
SPC Don Wynn
CW3 Harvey K. - It would be more the people, rising up in their righteous might and removing said government by force of will. Keep in mind, as long as the military is citizen soldiers, composed of right thinking individuals, no despotic officials can use it to suppress the citizenry. Would you ever have attacked a citizen? Or followed orders that would have put US citizens in harm's way?
(0)
(0)
GySgt Douglas Dare
You are incorrect. Think with a 18th century mind set. Our founding Fathers lived in the 1700's not the 21st century. A militia was WE THE PEOPLE coming together as a unit to defend our homes and rights from an over baring threat. They did not have a National Guard or Reserve. Not confusing when you understand the empowerment of WE THE PEOPLE!
(2)
(0)
SFC Gary Guyer
The NG/USAR is not a militia. They are govt entities. A militia is not a govt entity, but made up of freemen.
(3)
(0)
CWO2 Frank Slaby
National Guard and militia are comprised of "people," therefore "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The following is from SCOTUS United States vs. Miller 1939: "The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google