Posted on Feb 1, 2017
Should the 2d Amendment be amended to remove the confusing first phrase?
164K
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 9 y ago
Responses: 491
1
1
0
I don't think there is really any ambiguity at all. If people would stop to think about it for a half second they would realize the interpretation that the second amendment only applies only to the Militia or the Government is crazy. (Seriously, why would the government need to affirm its own "right" to bear arms?)
"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." If you were to drop the middle clause "Becuase apparently its just filler", does "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed." make any sense at all? Any perceived ambiguity is either someone deliberately misreading it in bad faith to push an agenda or have been listening to those people and not giving it even a first thought.
"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." If you were to drop the middle clause "Becuase apparently its just filler", does "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed." make any sense at all? Any perceived ambiguity is either someone deliberately misreading it in bad faith to push an agenda or have been listening to those people and not giving it even a first thought.
(1)
(0)
GySgt Craig Averill
No part of the Bill of Rights is just a filler, each word, phrase and punctuation was gone over with a fine tooth comb, in the Bill of Rights debates. The Delegation discussed and discussed until every one was satisfied.
When the Bill of Rights was being debated, every single person was the Militia and males between the ages of 15 and 50 were required to attend assemblies and drills.
The Revolution was fought by mostly the Common man, carpenters, farmers, blacksmiths, just regular men. Washington led a Continental Army that was nothing in size as compared to the volunteers, Ethan Allen never spent a day in the military, he and the Green Mountain Boys were a band of common folk Hell bent to keep the land out of the hand of the Brits.
No! the militia was the people and the people were the people, in other words whether you were in the militia or not, you had arms. AND the phrase "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," means if a tyrannical Government or a Corrupt Army wants to take what is ours, then that trained bunch of 15 to 50 year olds, along with all the people who are armed, will be the defense of the Free State. It says what it says for a reason.
The people are to be Armed and NO! the Militia is NOT the National Guard, states still have militias and they supply their own gear and their own arms and they train, not all the time, but they train. The National Guard is what morphed from the Constitution's Militia as found in Article 1 Section 8 clauses 15 and 16. The State pays for the training etc of the Guard, the state pays little or nothing any more for the Militias.
When the Bill of Rights was being debated, every single person was the Militia and males between the ages of 15 and 50 were required to attend assemblies and drills.
The Revolution was fought by mostly the Common man, carpenters, farmers, blacksmiths, just regular men. Washington led a Continental Army that was nothing in size as compared to the volunteers, Ethan Allen never spent a day in the military, he and the Green Mountain Boys were a band of common folk Hell bent to keep the land out of the hand of the Brits.
No! the militia was the people and the people were the people, in other words whether you were in the militia or not, you had arms. AND the phrase "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," means if a tyrannical Government or a Corrupt Army wants to take what is ours, then that trained bunch of 15 to 50 year olds, along with all the people who are armed, will be the defense of the Free State. It says what it says for a reason.
The people are to be Armed and NO! the Militia is NOT the National Guard, states still have militias and they supply their own gear and their own arms and they train, not all the time, but they train. The National Guard is what morphed from the Constitution's Militia as found in Article 1 Section 8 clauses 15 and 16. The State pays for the training etc of the Guard, the state pays little or nothing any more for the Militias.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
A lot of well thought out and informative responses here. Farmers, mechanics, engineers, ect. understand one very important lesson learned through experience! If it isn't broke don't try to FIX IT!!
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
The founding fathers had great vision in seeing not only what was in our past but future as well. The Electoral College? Wow. Can you imagine the country without that? That little thing in the constitution changes a country. The US Constitution is not a “living, breathing and out dated document. It is a never changing constitution that is the very basic foundation of our great country.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
The Second Amendment,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. Which word do you want to eliminate
Since it is the people or citizens of any given community that would make up the Militia
The Militia maintains the security of a free state
Without the ARMS The Militia would be nothing but a group of people that can learn to march in time and look pretty in there uniforms.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms, makes the rest of the Bill of Rights relevant
Since it is the people or citizens of any given community that would make up the Militia
The Militia maintains the security of a free state
Without the ARMS The Militia would be nothing but a group of people that can learn to march in time and look pretty in there uniforms.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms, makes the rest of the Bill of Rights relevant
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
The 2A wasn't about self-defense against thuggery & crime; it was/is about defending self from a tyrannical government. Any change in verbiage skews the true meaning at the heart of the Second Amendment.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Nope! If there is one thing I learned in the 58 years I have been alive and the 20 I spent in the Navy it is - "If it ain't broke; don't fix it"!
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I agree with the CPT. Whether you own or not, I do not. It is a right we fought and fight for. It worked for over two hundred years, Leave it alone.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google