The need to change the 2nd

[Steve in Vermont]

And the rest of the Constitution?

With all this concern about the 2nd Amendment, what about the right to due process, a speedy trial, etc? The president just signed a bill allowing any US citizen suspected of terrorism to be held indefinitely...that's ANY US citizen.......w/o a hearing or trial. If our government can override this part of the constitution how safe is the 2nd Amendment?

 

[russp1]

The constitution is a very old document with wording and meaning that may be losing its relavancy to today's United States. It may be due for a major rewrite. But would you trust those currently in Washington to be the ones to rewrite it?

 

[Martya]

The constitution is a very old document with wording and meaning that may be losing its relavancy to today's United States. It may be due for a major rewrite.....

You are kidding, right? You forgot the in your post.

 

[russp1]

You are kidding, right? You forgot the in your post.

Not kidding at all. Amendments have had to be added to fix older amendments, phrases such as "a well regulated militia" leave the door open for interpretation and misinterpretation and the meaning of some amendments have been stretched to cover things the writers probably never considered. Then you have the legislature and president playing games with what the constitution does and doesn't allow them to do; yeah, a rewrite wouldn't be terrible IF there was a group that could be trusted to do it.

 

[NKJ nut]

Not kidding at all. Amendments have had to be added to fix older amendments, phrases such as "a well regulated militia" leave the door open for interpretation and misinterpretation and the meaning of some amendments have been stretched to cover things the writers probably never considered. Then you have the legislature and president playing games with what the constitution does and doesn't allow them to do; yeah, a rewrite wouldn't be terrible IF there was a group that could be trusted to do it.

But you figure you could re-write it where it couldn't be mis-interpreted by people with evil intent. Right? I think we better just leave the 2nd amendment alone and continue to fight our battles. At least now we have a battle to fight and far the 2A has protected our gun rights for well over 200 years. Any new amendment could just as well as not exclude civilian ownership of firearms all together. Then we would be left to rely on the goodness of people that i know are not to be trusted with such things.

 

[russp1]

But you figure you could re-write it where it couldn't be mis-interpreted by people with evil intent. Right? I think we better just leave the 2nd amendment alone and continue to fight our battles. At least now we have a battle to fight and far the 2A has protected our gun rights for well over 200 years. Any new amendment could just as well as not exclude civilian ownership of firearms all together. Then we would be left to rely on the goodness of people that i know are not to be trusted with such things.

The big qualifier each time I've said it could use a rewrite is that there needs to be people we could trust to do the job. That will never happen with the current, party heavy political system we have. So yes, for now we leave it alone and fight for the interpretation we feel is "right" while the other side fights for what they feel is "right" and then no matter who wins, the supreme court gets to decide if the winning interpretation is "constitutional" and possibly overturns the decision despite the will of the people or the politicians. Which gets back to why I feel it could use a rewrite.

 

[Chris Brines]

No need to touch the 2nd Amendment

Just a need to get these progressive liberals out of our driver seat. Guns have been a fact of life many centuries before we were put on this earth. It is impossible to defend yourself against armed criminals with anything but a gun.

These people in the drivers seat of our nation (God Help Us), are out of their flippin' minds and literally are fighting to instill legislation that may cut back on gun violence 30 or so years from now, but in the meantime it would be like leading lambs to a slaughter (or more like a holocaust if you ask me).

The most brilliant American that ever lived said that the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to defend against tyranny in government.

As far as I'm concerned that statement has just as much or even more meaning today than it did in 1776. Key word here is DEFEND. Guns are used for 2 different types of activities: OFFENSE and DEFENSE.

Those using guns for offensive purposes will be the only ones with guns if these phonies have their way. We will all be victims of unspeakable crimes if that scenario plays out, so what do we have to lose by maintaining our faith in the Constitution and Bill of Rights? NOTHING.

Always Take Hold of Things by the Smooth Handle
Thomas Jefferson

 

[Damn Yankee]

Here is a article I came across and I ask you to just read it and not comment on here so we don't get in trouble.

Wayne Lapiere of the NRA has said some strong things about this falls election

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201202100014

 

[Chris Brines]

Thomas Jefferson Worded it Perfectly

And we all know what quote I'm referring to. I highly doubt they will actually pull this off, at least not without creating a full out rev. there is just too much opposition. And when I say opposition I don't mean "what's written on paper", I mean PEOPLE who want their rights. As far as I'm concerned the stroke of that fateful pen was an act of treason and if I had any say in the matter it would be treated as just such. Furthermore the one who signed it is no more of a man than me or you. Who is any man or woman to say that he or she is above the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? A TRAITOR that's who. I really don't care what any piece of paper says I will die to protect my family and myself from armed thugs and just as much with tyrannical dictators. It's been done before here and the winners were hailed as heros. I'm not looking for any praise from anyone but I'd rather live with dangerous freedom than to feel "safe and secure" in slavery. You're dead either way, but at least your dignity remains with the former, and dignity is something that sends a message to future generations, not being a coward.

 

[machz1]

The constitution is a very old document with wording and meaning that may be losing its relavancy to today's United States. It may be due for a major rewrite. But would you trust those currently in Washington to be the ones to rewrite it?

Our constitution as written is "unbreakable" without an extreme effort from BOTH sides. this was done on purpose to protect us and it from a whimsical society. if we allowed a rewrite of any part of our beloved document even by those "trusted", as you say, this only reinforces to those wishing to change it that if theres something they dont like it can be changed again when the political winds blow in their direction. our 2nd should remain as written for all time with the same required process to change any part of the constitution.

 

[russp1]

Our constitution as written is "unbreakable" without an extreme effort from BOTH sides. this was done on purpose to protect us and it from a whimsical society. if we allowed a rewrite of any part of our beloved document even by those "trusted", as you say, this only reinforces to those wishing to change it that if theres something they dont like it can be changed again when the political winds blow in their direction. our 2nd should remain as written for all time with the same required process to change any part of the constitution.

While "unbreakable" in theory, when something in the constitution becomes unpopular with the party in power, executive orders and supreme court interpretations are used to change how the constitution is applied and enforced.

 

[Martya]

Part of this discussion is who to trust to re-write? Actually, it could be re-written to perfection. Now who do you trust to interpret it? Who without an agenda? No matter what is written, there will always be people who 'spin' it to their own advantage.

Some historical tidbits (to add to hobby-gunsmith's great post of 12/21):
"Well-regulated" intended to mean not only disciplined, but prepared to act. Some of the rules I recall that the members of the militia agreed to were: possession of a suitable rifle, a pouch able to hold and keep dry 10 round balls, patch material, and powder; a knife, hatchet, or tomahawk, tinder/flint to start a fire; and so on. These militia men had to be ready in a few minutes to not only assemble in a defensive manner to protect their town, including shooting at a threat, but also to take off and live off the land for an indeterminate length of time in defense of the country. They agreed to be ready for this, and have all the equipment necessary.


And one more tidbit, "The Constitution of most of our states assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." - Thomas Jefferson

I’m pretty sure he didn’t write the words to the constitution to mean one thing and then be quoted as saying something else. The 2nd Amendment and this quote are basically by the same man; they mean the same thing. In my opinion, ANY state or federal or local rule, law, guideline, statute, recommendation, or suggestion that says otherwise, is unconstitutional.

 

[Inspector-Callahan]

PA State..

The Pennsylvania state constitution got it right and simplified it. I'd be curious to know the origins about why/who made the PA state contitution more simplified. Makes you wonder if anyone back then was visionary enough to forsee how the US Constitution version could be misconstrued by the ignorant.

Section 21 . Right to Bear Arms
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

IC

 

[bwd]

We must NOT re-write the constitution. We must fight the fight.

 

[St7293]

I am opposed to changing the 2nd amendment because the current wording explains perfectly why the right of the people to bear arms must not be infringed. It says specifically that an armed citizenry is necessary for the security of a free State.

It is signficant that 2nd amendment speaks of the right to bear "arms" rather than of a much more limited right to gun ownership. The founding fathers clearly understood that the kinds of arms needed by citizen militias for protecting the security of a free State would change over time. Guns and rifles might be sufficient in the 18th century, but there is no way they suffice in the 21st. In order to function in the 21st century, armed citizens operating as militias also need at minimum such items as grenades, anti-tank guns, mortar, rockets, hand-held surface to air missiles etc.

Clearly, the government has succeeded in completely denying to its citizens access to the kinds of arms needed to ensure the security of the United States as defined in the 2nd amendment. Preserving the amendment with the original wording of the founding fathers, ensures that a legal basis remains for someday changing this sorry state of affairs.

 

[Beejabbers]

Welcome to the forum from NC. Your point is well taken.

 

[MrApathy]

2nd amendment doesnt need rewritten
read Declaration for causes and necesity of arms,Declaration of independence and
10 U.S.C. § 311 : US Code - Section 311: Militia: composition and classes

lots of good historical documents that put the 2nd amendment in its place which is not for hunting or sports.

 

[61woody]

Don't change it fight for it and keep those who would try to take it away out of office.
Here is a comment made about the 2nd amendment 70 years ago and I doubt he was refering to the U.S. military at the time.
Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto - “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.”

 

[nipster]

I realize this is an old post, but does the OP realize the Supreme Court cannot invalidate ANY constitutional amendment?

Only congress can create constitutional amendments, and then it has to be ratified by a certain percentage of states or it dies. Like the ERA passed in the 70's, but not ratified by enough states.

Leave it alone.

 

[jdayer]

Three things;

One, every guy between 17 and 45 is already in the militia 10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes | LII / Legal Information Institute .

Two, the economic law of "Demand and Supply" governs all markets. As long as there is a demand and resoucres to supply that demand a supply will exist. Want a cancer cure? You can buy one, won't work but you can buy it. Want recreational drugs? A prostitute? An illegal gun? The more laws made regulating firearms the closer we come to British occupation, Israeli style underground firearm factories.

Any politician advocating increased firearm regulation does not have even a basic understanding of economics, that includes Romney.

Third, this amendment was argued over by people way smarter than the people in Washington now. I don't trust anyone in Washington to do anything like this.