Posted on Feb 1, 2017
Should the 2d Amendment be amended to remove the confusing first phrase?
150K
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
3
3
0
3
3
0
3
3
0
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.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
i think its pretty clear right now. it matters not how its worded, Democrats will always try to take our right away,
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
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.
(3)
(0)
SPC Randy Torgerson
SP5 Christine Conley - You would be surprised at how many weapons liberals own. Remember, liberals believe you should do what they say, not what they do.
(3)
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
SPC Randy Torgerson - Most political and Hollywood elite don't carry, but their bodyguards do. But, if the shooting starts, they may find out there are more of us than bodyguards by several millions.
(2)
(0)
PO1 Michael Garrett
SP5 Christine Conley - While there are Democrats who do own guns (and lots of), I have yet to find a true Liberal who does. I am not sure of your age but I grew up in a time where Democrats and Republicans could shout at each other all day and think the other side was the epitome of lunacy. Yet at the end of the day, they would all go out and drink together. They also served side-by-side in WWII. Today, both parties are hyper- partisan and I no longer see the compromise or the shared experiences of war. One side had been taken over by fanatics hell-bent on establishing world socialism. The other side is beginning to fracture as a portion of the party no longer trusts the establishment.
We are not as united by our shared interests as we where when Reagan was in office. The events of 9/11, brought the country together briefly. Yet those events have faded into our rearview mirror much like Desert Shield/Storm. Indeed, both events are sometimes used as talking points on late night television. Do we truly understand the significance of those events in our recent history?
Our country does not have a sense of history. We have never understood our place in the world. We have had a long enough history to have forgotten just how close we were to losing the Revolutionary war and losing it again in the War of 1812. Had the British decided to strike George Washington's army at Valley Forge, the war would have been over that year. No independence, no United States. Everyone who fought against the Crown would have been branded Rebels and Traitors. And the US flag would be the equivalent of today's Rebel flag of the Confederacy.
This brings me back to the original topic. Our 2nd Amendment is perfectly clear. The citizens OWN the right to keep and bear arms-NO EXCEPTIONS. Our government does not have the right to interfere or interpret IN ANY WAY with our Bill of Rights.
Yet, many today have lost that sense of history and see the Constitution as obsolete and in need of modernization. They view our history in terms of class struggle-a pure socialist construct of the latter 19th century, that has been disproven many times.
So how do we respond to this? We debate the nature of the Constitution with idiots and the insane-as if we are going to convince them to change their thoughts. The fanatic will never be convinced as they will only see the righteousness of their cause.
We are not as united by our shared interests as we where when Reagan was in office. The events of 9/11, brought the country together briefly. Yet those events have faded into our rearview mirror much like Desert Shield/Storm. Indeed, both events are sometimes used as talking points on late night television. Do we truly understand the significance of those events in our recent history?
Our country does not have a sense of history. We have never understood our place in the world. We have had a long enough history to have forgotten just how close we were to losing the Revolutionary war and losing it again in the War of 1812. Had the British decided to strike George Washington's army at Valley Forge, the war would have been over that year. No independence, no United States. Everyone who fought against the Crown would have been branded Rebels and Traitors. And the US flag would be the equivalent of today's Rebel flag of the Confederacy.
This brings me back to the original topic. Our 2nd Amendment is perfectly clear. The citizens OWN the right to keep and bear arms-NO EXCEPTIONS. Our government does not have the right to interfere or interpret IN ANY WAY with our Bill of Rights.
Yet, many today have lost that sense of history and see the Constitution as obsolete and in need of modernization. They view our history in terms of class struggle-a pure socialist construct of the latter 19th century, that has been disproven many times.
So how do we respond to this? We debate the nature of the Constitution with idiots and the insane-as if we are going to convince them to change their thoughts. The fanatic will never be convinced as they will only see the righteousness of their cause.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
A couple more Supreme Court nominees like Gorsuch, and this will be a moot question.
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
2
2
0
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google