Posted on Feb 1, 2017
MSgt George Cater
151K
3.25K
1.43K
275
275
0
57533011
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."
Avatar feed
Responses: 492
CPL James Mitchell
2
2
0
The Constitution and the Ammendments should be left to stand as they are. They are precise and clear, and honor God.
(2)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
TSgt Lars Eilenfeld
2
2
0
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.
(2)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
CSM Curt Tipton
2
2
0
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."
(2)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
A1C Stanley Kolakowski
2
2
0
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.
(2)
Comment
(0)
PO3 J.W. Nelson
PO3 J.W. Nelson
>1 y
Agreed, I really don't think that the general public has come to the realization that once opened for "amendments" or changes, politicians in the House and Senate have free rein to add or take away whatever they so desire and the general public will have absolutely no control over it ! That's why we do not ever need to allow any sitting congress to open the Constitution for changes !!
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
MSG John Wirts
2
2
0
Edited >1 y ago
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!
(2)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
CPT Special Forces Officer
2
2
0
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.
(2)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
CPO Charles Helms
2
2
0
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!!
(2)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SSG Roger Ayscue
2
2
0
ABSOLUTELY NOT
The militia is every able bodied male citizen...and it should stay that way
(2)
Comment
(0)
MSG John Wirts
MSG John Wirts
>1 y
Today that would have to include able bodied females too, or the left would deny their right to own, carry a firearm.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca
2
2
0
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.
(2)
Comment
(0)
SPC Don Wynn
SPC Don Wynn
7 y
Unfortunately that is very true on both counts!!
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
PFC Darrell Mcphetridge
2
2
0
What is the confusing part you're talking about? It's pretty plain English and easy to understand.
(2)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close