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
If that statement is ever removed, I'll guarantee the gov't will come for our weapons. Hopefully I'll be long gone from this world if and when this comes to pass.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
CWO2 Frank Slaby
Liberals have a "problem" with the words "people" and "well regulated." For some reason; liberals do not believe American citizens are "people," and "well regulated" seems like a form of government regulations and control of who has what firearms. "Well regulated," in this case, means "trained and disciplined."
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
While the proposed verbiage may appease some, it deletes the opportunity for the people to call up the militia -- the militia being the "citizen army." Further, before we change something as important as our constitutional rights, we may want to educate ourselves and research the original intent and meaning, when written. To do anything less undermines the wisdom of our Founders. This is why Justices like Scalia and Gorsuch are so important to the continuing "experiment" of the American system of self-governing. Rights, as defined by our Founders, do not change or evolve with the societal pendulum, but movements toward that must necessarily be re-introduced to our original definitions and we must determine to keep in place, that which we as a people have been able to access to the betterment of the human condition.
(1)
(0)
CWO2 Frank Slaby
Read SCOTUS United States vs. Miller 1939. Here's one piece of it: "The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I believe this move to be a Trojan horse by the gov't to amend all our bill of rights so I say HELL NO
(1)
(0)
CPT Phil Bronner
In order to "amend" anything in the Constitution, that would require that Article V be followed. It would be very difficult to accomplish.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
The question we really should be asking ourselves is should we continue to dumb down our language to the lowest common denominator. For years our public schools have failed to educate our population in both the nuances of our language and the basic mechanics of our government. The US Constitution has become one of the most studied documents in history, scrutinized with a micro scope for over two hundred years, and there has not been one grammatical error found. The language of the Second Amendment is not confusing, rather it is quite specific.
So do we break it down to the teletubby level for those who have been spoon fed their whole lives or do we give our citizens the tools to understand our language for themselves?
So do we break it down to the teletubby level for those who have been spoon fed their whole lives or do we give our citizens the tools to understand our language for themselves?
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Any changes would open up the amendment to changes we don't want. NO CHANGES!!!!
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
It's already pretty clear in its existing form. And the Supreme Court has already ruled on it several years ago stating that it means what it says.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google