Should the 2d Amendment be amended to remove the confusing first phrase?

I have no problem with letting the 2nd amendment stand as is. It's already been proven in the courts that congress, and state governments can in fact make limits to what a private citizen can and can't own in regards to arms. There are already bans against private citizens owning any number of weapons, you can't own a fully automatic weapon, or a rocket launcher, or grenades, etc. I do support nationwide back ground checks, limits on the number of rounds newly manufactured guns and magazines can hold. Does a Private citizen really need a Magazine with a capacity of over 20 rounds for personal protection, or any other legal purpose? This is such a hot button issue that any discussion, or compromise is automatically shut down, regardless of which side proposes it.

I believe that the issue is not the Second Amendment per say, but rather the inane notion that if we simply make enough laws, it will solve the problem. What needs to happen is that we need to enforce the laws we have.

That said, if you really want a suggestion for enforcement, try this:
http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2010/

"So, the question is: How to prevent the purchase of firearms by those society deems forbidden to do so, while preserving the privacy of lawful gun owners and preventing any sort of listing activity?

I propose a battery-powered scanner containing an algorithm and capable of reading bar-coded and encrypted digits. This scanner would decrypt and read the bar-code, use the contained data to work the algorithm and -- depending on what the result was -- illuminate one of three lights.

If the result is one of a series of numbers -- for fun, let's say it's a Fibonacci number -- then a red light is displayed on the reader.

Any other number, and the green light comes on.

If the encryption is bad, the encrypted numbers are wrong, or the bar-code is simply not capable of being read, then a yellow light.

When you apply for your drivers license or State identification card, you are checked for a criminal history or psychiatric adjudications. If you have one, your DL or ID gets the code for a red light.

Everyone else -- and I mean EVERYONE else -- gets the code for a green light.

Since these battery-operated card readers will have only the tech necessary to read, decrypt, and compare numbers -- no antennae, no data ports, no memory, no means whatsoever of storing or transmitting information -- you should be able to sell them for ten dollars at Wal-Mart and make enough of a profit to defray the costs of adding the bar-codes IDs.

You want to buy a gun, you walk into a gun-store, swipe your card, green light means you buy what you want and carry it whenever and however you want.

That means open carry, concealed carry, SBR's, NFA's, AOW's, in-State, out-of-State, whatever you want, wherever you want, however you want.

Red light means that you don't.

Simple as that."

The introductory qualification is clear for those who pay attention. There is a responsibility of gun owners to contribute to the maintenance of a free people. It isn't just our "right" to run around carrying a gun. The training and protocols for carry and use would always apply to a liberty loving citizen

The introductory qualification is clear for those who pay attention. There is a responsibility of gun owners to contribute to the maintenance of a free people. It isn't just our "right" to run around carrying a gun. The training and protocols for carry and use would always apply to a liberty loving citizen

If we ever open the constitution to try and amend it, we risk losing it. The anti-gun crowd would spend billions to repeal it. The supreme court has ruled it is our individual right.

The 2nd is only confusing if you are unfamiliar with it's intent. Our fore fathers feared a central government. The 2nd was to ensure that the government did not overstep it's bounds (subject for another discussion). The 2nd put the teeth behind the 1st.

Regards a "regulated militia", they do exist. I believe it's 22 states that have them. Some are paper tigers, others are made up real people. Today they are called State Defense Forces, not to be confused with the National Guard. They are often used as the backbone of state emergency agencies. And the federal government can NOT call them into federal service, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force (There are even Naval units.)

From another point of view any attempt to disarm the citizenry is also an attempt to disarm the states.

BTW: That other old saw about out founding fathers not anticipating the development of automatic weapons, lock up the "Puckle Gun." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun Not very functional but it was only the first.

Two word answer hell no

Interesting comments on here. The government can try to 'ban' firearms, but they would not be able to find all of them to confiscate. Besides, who is going to go seize them ? Guns are available to anyone who has the money to buy them. I've heard that even the Vietnamese are shipping 1960s era M16s to the US. I guess they have to do something with all the equipment we left over there. Its all about the money. It always is.

I am trying to figure out what is confusing about it. I see nothing wrong with the 2nd Amendment. I don’t know, maybe it takes common sense to understand it. But, that’s my opinion.....

I believe the Second Amendment was written properly in the first place. Our Founders had it right. Why?
1. The Second Amendment is a restriction on the government, to prevent the government's ability to abuse their power.
2. The Second Amendment was passed to, in part, protect us from being disarmed if a select militia was formed, since the Founders feared that those in power would use the presence of a select militia as an excuse to disarm the people.
3. The regular troops were to be regulated, (kept functioning properly, and not used by a tyrant to take and hold power), and the armed people were to regulate the militia.
4. Militia duties include both military and law enforcement duties, per the body of the Constitution.
5. To claim the Second Amendment is for the purpose of forming militias, is to claim it's redundant, and thus unnecessary. (Article I, Section 8, Paragraphs 13 &14.)

In my opinion, Tech Coxe said it best in 1788 & 1789, during the discussion of the Amendments.

"The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but where, I trust in God, it will always remain, in the hands of the people."

"Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."