Posted on Feb 1, 2017
Should the 2d Amendment be amended to remove the confusing first phrase?
151K
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
0
0
0
I would say you decided to put so much ignorance and a lack of history into one statement
(0)
(0)
MSgt George Cater
Say again your last. It came through garbled and unclear. Care to elaborate?
I don’t want it changed. I have no problem with it and nothing I said indicated I do. It was a thought question.
SSG Matt LaFramboise
I assume like most of us, you’d just not tamper with it.
I don’t want it changed. I have no problem with it and nothing I said indicated I do. It was a thought question.
SSG Matt LaFramboise
I assume like most of us, you’d just not tamper with it.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Problem people have with the second amendment is a: those who don't know what a well regulated militia is. b: the difference in weapons that were available then compared to now. Now since bush did away with most of the Brady bill, insane people can walk into bass pro and buy if they don't have a felony. I'm a gun owner but I want more regulations not less. I'm willing to give up my sks if necessary.
(0)
(0)
MSgt George Cater
Your choice. Just do it in Arizona where the law must then sell it to the law abiding public.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
I think the problem is the meaning of "bearing arms." If arms means the weapons of war then no, we don't have that right under present law. As useful as guns can be for defense and possible resistance to a tyrannical government, we are not now bearing arms.
(0)
(0)
MSgt George Cater
Have to disagree with you there. The arms of the time were comparable to or better than the issue musket of the time. Many civilians had rifles that were much more accurate (tho slower rate of fire) than the military musket that also had a bayonet. A most literal interpretation would have us closer to Switzerland with each able bodied man (citizen) having his actual military grade rifle locked up in his home available for use.
(0)
(0)
Steven Dufour
Thanks. I think we do agree. What you are describing for Switzerland is, based on my impression anyway, what the Founders had in mind. I don't think the issue was pistols or dirks which were carried for personal protection.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
You bet, the Las Vegas shooter was a true patriot. What he needed was a few RPGs. When people are exercising their 2nd Amendment Rights, why involve the Police.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
The original 2nd Amendment reads, "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." In contemplation of this amendment, I once came up with revised version that I believe makes the 2nd less ambiguous, specifically, that the militia is dependent on the people being armed. The right to keep and bear arms is NOT dependent on the existence or use of the militia. The right exists with or without the militia, but without the right, the militia is useless. Hence my rewritten version of the 2nd Amendment as follows: "The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed that they may be well prepared to secure a free State." I make no claim as to a perfected amendment, but I believe this is the base intent of the 2nd Amendment, that the citizenry be armed to secure their freedom and freedoms.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
No place did I ever read GOD giving anyone the right to kill another. In fact I think it reads: "THOU SHALL NOT KILL".
(0)
(0)
CPT Phil Bronner
Actually....translated correctly, it reads "Thou shalt not commit murder." If you read the REST of the Old Testament, and the history of the Hebrew people...they were some butt kicking killing machines. Back in THOSE days, when a culutre took over another one..it wasn't unusual for put every living thing to death...men, women, children, and livestock. To erase all signs of a previous culture. That way....there would be no-one to hold a grudge, and come back later for retribution!
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
In ANY assembly involving amending the Constitution, I always demand that ALL of the "Bill of Rights" be off limits.
(0)
(0)
SrA Vern Cox
I would also point out basic 'Contract Law" when it comes to "a free state". The Constitution makes it clear that a state, upon entery" must have a Constitution of it's own and that Constitution is guaranteed to be a Republican form of government. When determining whether or not a State Constitution is a Republic in form, when they approve it, they approve ALL of it. Tennessee's Constitution has a "Declaration of Rights" which begins "That all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; for the advancement of those ends they have at all times, an unalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper." When the US accepted this Constitution it, by common law, accepts this premise as well.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
I say , let the Left keep on their tirade. When it comes to a head, we can have the discussion based on how the majority of the nation interprets the 2A.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google