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
Just what did the Second Amendment amend any way? Article One Section 8 right after To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia .Note the "Bill of Rights" are articles in amendment of and in addition to the Original Constitution !It's to bad that most of you still do not understand that. Oh and most of you use the alternative facts that our form of government is a democracy which in fact we are not !!
(1)
(0)
GySgt Douglas Dare
It is a Republic! Your correct and the AMENDMENT gave WE THE PEOPLE the RIGHT to defend ourselves, property and our STATE!
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I'm going to put this out there, and yes it will not be popular. Also, before anyone wants to flame my ass over it, yes, I'm a liberal, Progressive, tree hugging, wanna-be-hippie, Socialist, snowflake. Feel better? Good, so we can dispense with that segment of our program (yes, I'm also a sarcastic SOB).
I actually like it to be even shorter "The right of the people to defend themselves, their property and their Nation, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." However, that said, what is 'infringed'? Since most of us understand; or should, that no right is unrestricted, why is the 2nd so often argued that it should be? We accept that civilian use and ownership of automatic weapons is very restricted, yet that would be considered an 'infringement', correct? After all if I want and feel a need to have a SAW as personal protection, why not? Yeah, we know why not! So, this is the unpopular part, get ready; why is the argument that infringed is the same as unrestricted? And why can't we discuss it? After all, the reason we are a nation and have our Constitution; which we all have sworn an oath to defend, is because some very smart, righteous, men talked about and envisioned a nation with government that responded to it's people. People with very different backgrounds, educations, beliefs and convictions. And as a result of those discussions, arguments, debates, we have today, arguably, the greatest nation on the planet. I believe it should, and actually must, be discussed in terms of what do we ALL really want from it. I personally want gun owners to be responsible in their ownership and at this point, don't believe some are. Which has led to this being a subject of discussion. What needs to be done about it?
I actually like it to be even shorter "The right of the people to defend themselves, their property and their Nation, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." However, that said, what is 'infringed'? Since most of us understand; or should, that no right is unrestricted, why is the 2nd so often argued that it should be? We accept that civilian use and ownership of automatic weapons is very restricted, yet that would be considered an 'infringement', correct? After all if I want and feel a need to have a SAW as personal protection, why not? Yeah, we know why not! So, this is the unpopular part, get ready; why is the argument that infringed is the same as unrestricted? And why can't we discuss it? After all, the reason we are a nation and have our Constitution; which we all have sworn an oath to defend, is because some very smart, righteous, men talked about and envisioned a nation with government that responded to it's people. People with very different backgrounds, educations, beliefs and convictions. And as a result of those discussions, arguments, debates, we have today, arguably, the greatest nation on the planet. I believe it should, and actually must, be discussed in terms of what do we ALL really want from it. I personally want gun owners to be responsible in their ownership and at this point, don't believe some are. Which has led to this being a subject of discussion. What needs to be done about it?
(1)
(0)
SPC Don Wynn
MSgt Darren VanDerwilt - However, as I pointed out, if you remove that phrase, you remove the source of argument that militia is no longer needed. I am fine with leaving it as is, I'm just offering an opinion that could reduce mindless arguments.
(1)
(0)
MSgt Darren VanDerwilt
SPC Don Wynn - Yep, I get it now. You're right. The regulated militia part has been used to undermine the intent of the 2A.
(0)
(0)
Sgt William Collins
MSgt Darren VanDerwilt - Because the idea that the "militia" was replaced by a standing army or the National Guard reflects a misunderstanding of what the right is for in the first place. The right to keep and bear arms is an inherent right of man to defend himself. His opponent may be other men or it may be government itself, as represented by the armed forces or the reserves. Yes indeed, it does contemplate fighting our own soldiers if need be. And to those who say this is impossible, let me point out that American citizens have access to approximately 300,000,000 firearms in the hands of millions of people, many of them trained and combat-experienced. It's not the rout one might expect, in fact I wouldn't bet on the approximately 1.5 million troops available at any given time.
(1)
(0)
Sgt William Collins
SPC Don Wynn - Well, fine, but if you organize a constitutional convention, the constitution's means to change an amendment, you throw open the entire amendment to modification or abolition. Given the other forces that might appear at such a convention, it's better to leave it in its imperfect form than lose it altogether.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
As others have said, I think a lot of it comes down to the fact that we don't talk & write the same as 200 years ago, so some things can get a bit muddled in the process. I don't like the idea of re-writing it, though, as I could see parts (the 2nd quite easily) getting edited and changing the legal basis behind it
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Sadly, there are a great many folks, politicians and citizens alike, that completely DO NOT understand that 2nd Amendment statement quoted above. It seems quite clear to me. In 1968 I took an oath and to the best of my knowledge that oath had no expiration clause. When I was debriefed upon my EST it was made perfectly clear to me that knowledge I had gained as a result of having a Top Secret ENTNAC clearance I was bound for live to keep and and all TS information silent and consider all TS classified documents and information to remain so for my entire life. I have and will continue to do so. Same principal as the Constitution of These Great United States. I could wonder off on a completely related/unrelated tangent but that is for another post another day.
(1)
(0)
Suspended Profile
PFC Tom Cater - If the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to protect the citizens from the federal government - then we really need a substantial upgrade!!! How about we up the god given right to firepower - to include heavy caliber high capacity machine guns, urban assault rifles, heavily armed military aircraft, gravity bombs, smart bombs, rockets, claymore mines, artillery, mortars, bazookas, grenades, rockets, armed and armored vehicles, tanks, and small atomic demolition munitions? Nothing less than a full complement of weapons is going to help in defending us against militarized government. And, oh by the way, how about a government aid program to either lend / lease / donate weapons to our states and our citizens - similar to the international military aid programs now in place to help us? Warmest Regards, Sandy :)
CPT Jack Durish
CPT Jack Durish
Suspended Profile
So I there goes my fantasy of being rescued by the TXANG? Warmest Regards, Sandy :)
CW3 Harvey K.
I would not expect a despotic government to be fought by conventional warfare. Nobody wins a war by fighting the enemy on his terms, where he has the greater strength. Victory will be gained by forcing the enemy to fight on your terms, where you have the strength, and he is weak.
Perhaps the model that would be followed would be that of Michael Collins, the "urban guerrilla". He and "the 12 apostles" overcame the troops, tanks, artillery, planes, and ships of the British Empire and established the Irish Free State after 700 years of fruitless struggle in conventional warfare.
Perhaps the model that would be followed would be that of Michael Collins, the "urban guerrilla". He and "the 12 apostles" overcame the troops, tanks, artillery, planes, and ships of the British Empire and established the Irish Free State after 700 years of fruitless struggle in conventional warfare.
(0)
(0)
Suspended Profile
Perhaps the better model is not to go to war - merely vote and establish trade relations. Warmest Regards, Sandy :)
Lt Col Mark Avery
1LT Sandy Annala - Yes, winning with ballots beats having to fight with bullets. But with that given, one of the key assumptions behind why the Second Amendment was essential does indeed include overthrowing a despotic government, one that fails to uphold the Constitution. We don't need a change to the Second Amendment for what you described to be included; it already is included. What we need is to remove the conflict in public law with "...shall not be infringed." Many of the weapons, including crew-served weapons, were owned by private citizens. Although today's advanced weaponry is often more expensive to operate and maintain than most private citizens can afford, it shouldn't be illegal to do so.
The reason we will survive as a country should that despotic regime ever take over the government is that they aren't the only ones who swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic. There are a lot more of us, both active and retired, than there are or ever will be of them. It doesn't matter what weapons the government has purchased if the military operating them will use them only against enemies.
The reason we will survive as a country should that despotic regime ever take over the government is that they aren't the only ones who swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic. There are a lot more of us, both active and retired, than there are or ever will be of them. It doesn't matter what weapons the government has purchased if the military operating them will use them only against enemies.
(3)
(0)
1
1
0
The Constitution, being lthe living document that it is (like an SOP) is fine the way it is, but can always use some improvements and updates.
(1)
(0)
SSgt Christopher Brose
SPC Don Wynn - No, they were absolutely correct in that ruling, because that IS the original meaning of the 2nd Amendment. No "interpreting" was necessary.
(0)
(0)
SPC Don Wynn
SSgt Christopher Brose - Well, except for the fact that until Heller and McDonald, there were all kinds of laws and municipal codes that restricted gun ownership! A lot of it based on the interpretation due to the militia clause. Or at least, used the militia clause as reasoning for restricting ownership. Prior to Heller, there were federal courts and judges who approved these laws due to the militia clause. It was only the SCOTUS who actually ruled that the 2A is an individual right, and should be applied in all jurisdictions. period. My point being, interpretation is needed and it is within the SCOTUS reason for being. Don't like how they interpret something? Bring it back to the SCOTUS in a different format and asked for judgement. That's how it works. Otherwise, don't like how they ruled? Too bad, not going to change unless it's brought back.
(0)
(0)
SSgt Christopher Brose
SPC Don Wynn - I agree with you that all those things happened. I disagree that everything in the Constitution needs to be "interpreted" by SCOTUS. In the Constitution, whenever "People" are mentioned, it always refers to all eligible individuals. There is never an instance when a right belonging to the "People" actually means a government-approved subset of people, or that the right in question is subject to government approval. That is the ANTITHESIS of what was meant when the Framers wrote those rights into the Constitution.
What that means is that when states and municipalities passed gun control laws, they were doing so in violation of the Constitution. The liberals who passed that legislation, and the liberals who supported it from the bench, simply didn't care that it violated the plain language of 2A. To them, the plain language of 2A was not an obstacle to gun control that needed to be amended in order to make their gun control laws permissible by the Constitution, it was something that could be "reinterpreted" because the Constitution is a "living document."
So now we have a mess of wildly different gun laws throughout the country despite the fact the right to keep and bear arms is an enumerated right in the Constitution, and therefore supersedes the authority of any state or municipality. Now, we need SCOTUS to overturn all that crap by reestablishing and reinforcing the plain language of the Consitution.
What that means is that when states and municipalities passed gun control laws, they were doing so in violation of the Constitution. The liberals who passed that legislation, and the liberals who supported it from the bench, simply didn't care that it violated the plain language of 2A. To them, the plain language of 2A was not an obstacle to gun control that needed to be amended in order to make their gun control laws permissible by the Constitution, it was something that could be "reinterpreted" because the Constitution is a "living document."
So now we have a mess of wildly different gun laws throughout the country despite the fact the right to keep and bear arms is an enumerated right in the Constitution, and therefore supersedes the authority of any state or municipality. Now, we need SCOTUS to overturn all that crap by reestablishing and reinforcing the plain language of the Consitution.
(0)
(0)
SPC Don Wynn
SSgt Christopher Brose - I didn't say 'everything'. And those laws and codes were not ALL by liberals, quite a few were put in place by conservatives as well. It isn't just liberals who want to 'interpret' things their way, there are plenty of 'conservatives' who can wear it also. And of course 'people' means the entire body of the electorate - US!
Well, historically, that 'plain' language was not so plain. The meaning of militia has changed over time. At the beginning, militia was correctly understood to mean armed citizens who were not members of the Continental Army. However, once reserves and para-military forces were developed that meaning was lost and militia took to mean reserve Armed Forces and the para-military forces. Agree with it or not, call it whatever you want, that was what happened.
And we're not going to agree about the 'plain' language and what needs to be done by SCOTUS. Especially keep and bear arms and infringed. You want them, fine. You want to carry them in public, get a CCW, fine. Open carry is ridiculous, we're not friggin' Somalia.
Well, historically, that 'plain' language was not so plain. The meaning of militia has changed over time. At the beginning, militia was correctly understood to mean armed citizens who were not members of the Continental Army. However, once reserves and para-military forces were developed that meaning was lost and militia took to mean reserve Armed Forces and the para-military forces. Agree with it or not, call it whatever you want, that was what happened.
And we're not going to agree about the 'plain' language and what needs to be done by SCOTUS. Especially keep and bear arms and infringed. You want them, fine. You want to carry them in public, get a CCW, fine. Open carry is ridiculous, we're not friggin' Somalia.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
The constitution is plainly worded for everyone to understand when you read it, therefore there is no legal reason for any changes what so ever it a document that is not meant for changes what so ever.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Anyone who understands syntax can read the passage just fine without any ambiguity. Perhaps there's more of an argument here for improving education before modifying founding documents to make it easier for the lazy and or ignorant dregs.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
But, we've been working so hard since Carter's establishment of the Department of Education at reaching the Lowest Common Denominator with Education, you know, so everyone wins, and is ignorant.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
The Second Amendment has been around longer than any of us discussing this issue and has withstood the tests of time. The solution is a simple one, keep the Second Amendment as is and get rid of those idiotic far left liberal Democrats, at the Polls, who want to literally take our guns from us. Over my bullet ridden body!
We have a President who loves the Military, loves veterans, loves disabled veterans and loves the Second Amendment. Support the President as he supports us with the right to keep and bear arms.
We have a President who loves the Military, loves veterans, loves disabled veterans and loves the Second Amendment. Support the President as he supports us with the right to keep and bear arms.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google