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
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
You mean should we remove the whole reason the 2A was made? No, no we should not...
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
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.
(2)
(0)
CW3 Harvey K.
Interesting, how the Court seized upon that item #3. What would they have done if the two carefully selected, unsympathetic defendants in this bit of political/judicial theater had been caught with a full-auto unregistered weapon, like a BAR?
MILLER knocks the stuffing out of any "ban the assault rifle" idiocy, since the AR-15 family is a civilian version of the military M-16, sans the full-auto capability.
MILLER knocks the stuffing out of any "ban the assault rifle" idiocy, since the AR-15 family is a civilian version of the military M-16, sans the full-auto capability.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
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. :)
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
PO3 J.W. Nelson
I agree ! Just let troubles come to this great nation...............then you will see who the true patriots really are !!
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google