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
2
2
0
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?
(2)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
Sgt Jimmy Dee
The question regarding the word arms is a fair one. As far as I'm concerned, general prohibitions of possession of inanimate materials are un-American. It seems to me that the only things that should be generally prohibited are biologicals; i.e., things that might spread if they "get out of the bottle." Although that means that possession and use of alcohol, tobacco, drugs, &c could not be prohibited, it does mean that transfer of such could be regulated and taxed. Regarding the question of arms: yes, citizens may have RPGs and automatic weapons and phosphorus shells and ray guns which haven't been invented yet; I don't see how you can arbitrarily draw a line and say, "you cant have these."
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
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!
(2)
(0)
SrA Merwin Hayes
The English language hasn't changed much at all, just the phrasing and the punctuation.
(0)
(0)
SSG Norbert Johnson
Phrasing and punctuation is part of the language structure. As much a part as the meaning is changed by the inflection as well as the emphasis given to the subject by the placement in the sentence or paragraph. When words are made to be ambiguous due to the concept of "Living Language semantics," Meanings as well as understandings become skewed and in fact the language itself has morphed rather than remained constant. The process of Morphing is in and of itself Change! So I stand by my position that English Language has indeed changed since the Constitution was written. No offense to your understanding. Please comment on the following definition of terms... Inalienable and Unalienable.. Mason vs Adams
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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...
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
Ping in to destroy it utterly. Just leave well enough alone.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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".
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
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.
(2)
(0)
LTC Charles Spangler
Right, it could be like the opening of the Arc of the Covenant in the Indiana Jones movie. Best leave it alone!
(2)
(0)
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google