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
1
1
0
No changes if they try and clean it up, something will be taken away. Our forefathers did a damn good job, Oh by the way most of them were in the Army
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Because of the wording of the First and Second Amendments neither can be amended. Congress shall make no law, and shall not be infringed were genius on the part of James Madison. He ensured those two rights could never be changed by Government. Amending the Constitution through the congressional process is making new law and infringing on rights. The only the First Amendment can be amended through A Constitutional Convention of the states (ConCon). They way the Second Amendment is worded not even a ConCon can amend it.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
It needs to be left "AS IS". This is the thread of the Constitution. Article I, Section 8 States
1: The Congress shall have Power ... to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties ... shall be uniform throughout the United States;
11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
13: To provide and maintain a Navy;
14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Note Clause 15, Congress (not the Senate or the President) has the power to call forth the Militia. The Militia of that day was "the whole people, except a few public officers" of the various States. Each State was to have its own militia.
“Mr. Chairman, a worthy member has asked who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country, and if we are not to be protected from the fate of the Germans, Prussians, &c., by our representation? I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor…” George Mason, Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 16, 1788
The “militia clause” is merely to accentuate and clarify the point being made in the words that follow. Removing it removes the need, and perhaps even the authority, of Congress to call forth the Militia.
1: The Congress shall have Power ... to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties ... shall be uniform throughout the United States;
11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
13: To provide and maintain a Navy;
14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Note Clause 15, Congress (not the Senate or the President) has the power to call forth the Militia. The Militia of that day was "the whole people, except a few public officers" of the various States. Each State was to have its own militia.
“Mr. Chairman, a worthy member has asked who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country, and if we are not to be protected from the fate of the Germans, Prussians, &c., by our representation? I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor…” George Mason, Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 16, 1788
The “militia clause” is merely to accentuate and clarify the point being made in the words that follow. Removing it removes the need, and perhaps even the authority, of Congress to call forth the Militia.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
You do not want to open the 2nd amendment messed with at all. If so we will all have our guns confiscated.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Absolutely do not open this amendment for any kind of changes !!! Leave it alone, it's worked for over 200 years and does not need to be "tweeked" or "changed" by any group for any reason !!
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
plus the bill of rights are the only amendments that can not be changed or amended by anyone. thats why they are call the bill of rights. cause if they could then the democrats who hate guns will change it so that the people cant have weapons of any kind except those that are allowed by government which is the point of the bill of rights.
(1)
(0)
MSgt George Cater
I agree that leaving it alone is the best course, however, it like any part of the Constitution can be altered by following the proper amendment process. It is a long drawn out process by design to ensure the Constitution doesn’t get screwed up by popular zeal or any one group of idiots. Sadly the rights guaranteed can also be abridged by often illegal court rulings and executive orders.
(0)
(0)
SGT(P) (Join to see)
Sry but in correct. The bill of rights is the only part of the constitution that can not be changed by congress or by the president or by the Supreme Court. That's the point of the bill of rights. It's to be steadfast that those rights are rights not privileges. Cause if they can be changed then the government would have changed them long ago so that the government could control the Ppl & not be challenged.
(1)
(0)
SGT(P) (Join to see)
And yes it's sad to see illegal rulings on things that are clearly difined as protected because of these rights.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
its not confusing. its very exact. just like the rest of the bill of rights. its not meant to be interupted just read as is.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
a well regulated militia meaning the people, being necessary to the security of a free state meaning necessary to keep our country free from anyone who would try to enslave or conquor it, the right of the people to keep & bear arms meaning the no matter what or who says the people can will keep their firearms or other weapons, shall not be infringed meaning can not be taken away by anyone or by any government. that wasnt hard to understand. there is a point why the constitution was written as it was when it was written. people were more educated than they are now. people have become dumber to everything.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
a well regulated militia meaning the people, being necessary to the security of a free state meaning necessary to keep our country free from anyone who would try to enslave or conquor it, the right of the people to keep & bear arms meaning the no matter what or who says the people can will keep their firearms or other weapons, shall not be infringed meaning can not be taken away by anyone or by any government. that wasnt hard to understand. there is a point why the constitution was written as it was when it was written. people were more educated than they are now. people have become dumber to everything.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
The 2nd amendment covers two different subjects. So no it should not be changed. The Constitution was not written for lawyers to interpret. It was written for the common man. The founding fathers were well educated and understood that the majority where not as well educated. They wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights in clear english so it would be the same to all!
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google