Rewriting the 2nd Amendment

[vito]

Interesting article on rewriting the 2nd Amendment. It is always amazing to me that despite the voluminous evidence of what the 2A meant to those who wrote it and included it in the Constitution, anti-gun people continue to try to make the ridiculous argument that it refers to the National Guard and is not an individual right. Of course it would be nice to have the 2A written in contemporary and unambiguous language, but to actually get this done would involve the repealing of the current 2A and then passing of the revised amendment. Liberals would love to do the first, but would never support the second action. Short but interesting article.

Rewriting The Second Amendment

[Alk8944]

Originally Posted by vito

Of course it would be nice to have the 2A written in contemporary and unambiguous language,....

Rewriting The Second Amendment

I fear you have fallen into the large group of persons who buy into this falsehood. There is absolutely no ambiguity to the Second Amendment except in the minds of those who desire to obfuscate and confuse the issue, and that is exactly what is intended! Unfortunately many members of our "Learned" Judiciary, who also have their own agenda which is aligned with the "Antis", are only too willing (eager) to propagate, promote and encourage this false belief!

Simply researching the meanings of: regulated, militia, right, people, and infringe with an open mind, and using the most logical definition, will lead to a perfect understanding of the true meaning of the Amendment. Unfortunately the "Antis" tend to be so morally bankrupt as to not care one whit about honesty, only their own agenda!

[Ascension]

Originally Posted by vito

Interesting article on rewriting the 2nd Amendment. It is always amazing to me that despite the voluminous evidence of what the 2A meant to those who wrote it and included it in the Constitution, anti-gun people continue to try to make the ridiculous argument that it refers to the National Guard and is not an individual right. Of course it would be nice to have the 2A written in contemporary and unambiguous language, but to actually get this done would involve the repealing of the current 2A and then passing of the revised amendment. Liberals would love to do the first, but would never support the second action. Short but interesting article.

Rewriting The Second Amendment

We need to really watch this BS!!
The 2nd amendment was written with a single intent. That intent( which is expressed in many of the Nations founders writings with absolute clarity) was never to all for "hunting" or the other things we are being told today it was.
Jefferson said it best with this

Thomas Jefferson
" On every question of construction, (let us)carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

[-db-]

I'm with Alk8944. The Amendment should stand as it is already written. No matter how well-intentioned and crafted a rewrite might be, there will always be those who would play the same clever games they do now regarding any new wording.

The bottom line is that when the document is viewed objectively and in context, there is no ambiguity whatsoever as to the intent of what it states.

[nawilson]

The Founders did intend the Second Amendment to protect the rights of the States to have militias, but they understood the term militia to mean something other than what the Army National Guard is today. To them, the militia was everyone. George Mason defines the militia as, "the whole people, except for a few public officials." In fact, this is the basis for the modern Selective Service. Everyone is already in the unorganized militia... the draft just moves them to the organized side.

Viewed from the larger perspective, it is pretty obvious that the Founders intended for everyone to be armed and ready to defend themselves, their communities, their States, and- when ordered into service by the President- their country. They had no concept of the largely Federally funded and organized National Guard.

The Militia Acts of 1792 codified the militia as every able bodied, free, white male between 18 and 45. They were expected to provide their own military style weapons, too.

[vito]

I don't disagree with the comments made to this thread, other than to state that it is important not just what the judiciary thinks something means, but what the general public thinks. Unfortunately the average citizen is truly a "low information voter" and if not fully committed to what we know is the correct meaning of the 2nd Amendment can be easily led astray by its detractors who are just anti-gun, anti-armed citizen. If the 2nd Amendment were written in a way that even the low information voter would have to acknowledge that it does enshrine the right of gun ownership to every citizen, those who hate the 2nd Amendment would have little public support.

But in reality all of this is just intellectual exercise. The 2nd Amendment is not going to be re-written, because as I stated earlier the only way to do this would be to repeal it as written now and pass a new Amendment regarding keeping and bearing arms. None of this will happen until and if we ever have another Constitutional Convention (which I do not think will ever actually happen) at which time the entire Constitution would be up for grabs.

The best thing that we who support the 2nd Amendment can do is to continue to try to educate as many people as possible about what the founding fathers intended and why it is good for the US to support this right. If too many Americans ever truly and passionately believe that private gun ownership is a bad thing then we will lose our rights regardless of the wording of the actual 2nd Amendment itself.

[nawilson]

Well put, Vito!

[moosedog]

Also, the left wingers will never give up twisting the true and obvious into their own meanings regardless of how anything is worded.

[nawilson]

Originally Posted by moosedog

Also, the left wingers will never give up twisting the true and obvious into their own meanings regardless of how anything is worded.

That depends on what the definition of "is" is...

[vonn]

Having seen what people can and will do to each other when they believe they are in the "right" I am a strong supporter of the 2d. We all need to educate ourselves and when faced by those who would weaken any of our rights present the facts as clearly and calmly as possible to them and hope that our presentation will help them understand and perhaps even swing them over to supporting the 2d. Have the strong emotion but keep it working for you and not against you. Sermon concluded.

[coltle6920]

As long as States are able to make arbitrary laws regarding firearms or magazine capacity there is no need to change the actual wording of the 2nd Amendment.I think we have to fear the law interpreters (Supreme Court) more so than the lawmakers.

Just think about how many restrictions have been placed on gunowners without changing the 2nd Amendment verbatim.

[Pinger5.56]

I think. like said above by nawilson, the militia was the people, what better way to stop the invasion again by another country, arm all your people.

[Cpl Ken]

2A cannot and does not refer to the National Guard; how can it? The National Guard did not exist at the time the 2A was written... Getting tired of hearing that argument.
This is the best explanation of the 2A I have seen...
The meaning of "Well-regulated" (Larry Cipriani)

The 2A isn't that hard; it is citizens securing their own liberty by possessing firearms.