This Would Work...


PDA






Werewolf
June 18, 2005, 07:00 PM
A Revised writing of the 2nd Amendment:

To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; therefore the right of the individual citizen, male or female, of these United States to keep and bear arms of any type on or about himself, in his domicile, while traveling, working or in any other matter so engaged shall not be infringed in any way, means or manner by the Federal goverenment or the government of any of the several or individual states or governments subordinate to the Federal government or those of the states.

I think that covers all the bases. How about y'all?

NOTE: Italicized section quoted from Richard Henry Lee - primary author of the bill of rights.

It is too bad that the founding fathers so believed in RKBA and never imagining that RKBA could ever be questioned that they wrote the 2nd in a way that has over the past 200+ years been perverted into our present state of infringed affairs.

If you enjoyed reading about "This Would Work..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Vernal45
June 18, 2005, 07:23 PM
Sounds good to me. But, IMO, the 2nd already says that. At least your version would shut the anti's/liberal gun grabbers up.

Standing Wolf
June 18, 2005, 07:58 PM
No matter how it's worded, you could count on the leftist extremist judges to find a way to pervert it.

Jammer Six
June 18, 2005, 08:02 PM
I think that it's so poorly written that one, it infringes on at least two basic principles of modern American life, simply because you wrote it with one and only one goal in mind. Therefore, you are ignoring other basic tenants that many of us value.

And two, any lawyer or law student could pick it apart in seconds, because it isn't elegant. It isn't general. It isn't basic.

It isn't well written.

Our second admendment is VERY well written.

I would raise a campaign against your version, and because our constitution is so well written, I would win.

Kamicosmos
June 18, 2005, 08:32 PM
There was a lot of controversy about the BoR. Most of the writers didn't want to include specific items like RKBA because they knew that it would then be open for intereptation later. But, the other side of the argument was that if you didn't point out some specifics, there would be no defense to a group outlawing freedom of speech or RKBAs, since it wasn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Double-Edged sword...

The Federalists Papers is a very good book to read, it goes over the various Amendments and the Constitution and the BoRs, and what the writers actually intended them to mean. It was sent out so people could read the arguments before voting on the ratification of the Constitution and it's amendments.

Novel concept that...having issue-educated voters, let alone issue-educated politicians...

Alex45ACP
June 18, 2005, 08:38 PM
It doesn't need to be rewritten.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

It's not that hard to understand, but they'll always find a way to try to invalidate it.

:cuss: :fire: :banghead:

Werewolf
June 18, 2005, 09:29 PM
I think that it's so poorly written that one, it infringes on at least two basic principles of modern American life, simply because you wrote it with one and only one goal in mind. Therefore, you are ignoring other basic tenants that many of us value. And what other basic tenants might those be? Please be more specific. I invite your critique...And two, any lawyer or law student could pick it apart in seconds, because it isn't elegant. It isn't general. It isn't basic.Please feel free - pick it apart because to be honest I have no clue what the hell you are talking about. It is very easy to criticize - it is harder to criticize well.

As to the 2nd being well written - I disagree. The founders weren't GODS. Hell they weren't even close to being perfect and they blew it with the wording of the 2nd. In it's current incarnation that darned militia clause really screws things up in a lot of people's eyes.

We only think we know what it means. To us the shall not be infringed part is pretty simple but face it:

WE ARE IN THE MINORITY!

And you know what... what we think about the 2nd is getting less and less relevant as time goes on. Mainstream America could care less about the 2nd - it ranks right up there in importance with the 3rd (how many of you know what the 3rd protects/prohibits) for most Americans.

If it is so well written and easy to understand then why are there volumes written trying to explain what it means, what right it protects?

Why has the 2nd Amendment become the 2nd most if not the most controversial amendment of them all?

Why is the supreme court so very reluctant to take on a case that will once and for all define the 2nd amendment and what exactly it protects?

Inquiring minds want to know...

bjbarron
June 18, 2005, 09:37 PM
This alternative (http://johnlocke.thisnation.net/constit/statecon.htm) amendment to the 2nd was proposed during the constitutional ratification process in 1776. I believe by the Pennsylvania delegation (among others)...it's purpose to clarify the amendment that some people forsaw problems with even back then. It was not adopted, but PA put the gist of it into their state constitution

"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers."

This suggests to me that someone was trying to spell out the 2nd for future generations more clearly. That the wording was not changed also suggests to me that the final wording as adopted was seen as a briefer statement of the above or as something negotiable. Contrast the proposed amendment with the actual wording of the 2nd amendment as ratified.

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."

I would bet that anyone who read this in the late 1700s in America would have said..."of course, the whole point is for everyone to have military grade weapons so we don't need or have to fear a standing army. Duh!"

Jammer Six
June 18, 2005, 11:18 PM
It is very easy to criticize - it is harder to criticize well.
Yes, it is. For that very reason, I invite you to get your facts in order before you begin criticizing an amendment that has stood the test of time.

Certainly understand more than you do before you present your views to someone outside the gun community- not only will they cut you to pieces, but you'll make us all look bad as you lay there bleeding all over some liberal's living room.

WE ARE IN THE MINORITY!
No, we're not.

Stop yelling, or talk to someone else. Someone younger. I have grandchildren who like to yell. Try them. I'm pretty sure my children have outgrown it by now.

Political Science 097: given an American population, X percent of whom vote, and Y percent of whom don't vote, politically speaking, it doesn't matter whether X or Y is the majority. It only matters what the the majority among those who vote is.

Political Science 098, Research: It's better to do your research before you state your views.

Political Science 099: Because you're not prepared, I'll help you.

The laws of America reflect the will of our politicians. Our politicians, more or less, reflect the views of those who elected them.

Therefore, our laws reflect, more or less, the basic will of the voters. It can vary, but that's the theory.

Furthermore, abrupt change is bad, politically speaking. Abrupt change leads to rebellion, but most change, if accomplished slowly, over a period of decades, permits populations, law enforcement and courts first to become aware of the new state of law, and then to adopt the new policy as fact.

Now, after our short introduction to American political science, I assume we agree that it's the will of the voters that counts, and that any majority you're attempting to discuss is the majority of the voters. Other majorities (moral, racial, right handed, etc.) don't matter. It's the voters that count where policy (a big word, with specific meanings, but it's the right word here) is concerned.

Basically, over a period of years, administrations, and court decisions, the idea is that it is that will, the will of the voters, that will be expressed.

Therefore, if your claim were true, we would be loosing ground, consistently, over a period of years, and our losses would be reflected as ever more restrictive weapon and carry laws, degenerating, after some number of decades, into a nightmare such as is present today in California and New York City.

Furthermore, we should be able to work backwards, and examine the trend in recent years and decades, and determine the will of the majority of voters by determining what, if any, trend there is in the change of a given set of law.

We're almost there. We're basically prepared for some facts. Basically, but if you've been reading carefully, you should be ready.

There used to be a website, that was called "Radical Gun Nuttery", (nothing like a nice, neutral title to calm everyone down and establish meaningful, constructive debate) that showed an interesting map, mapping the changes in state concealed carry laws from 1987 to 2004.

The states are divided into four categories, based on their laws regarding issuing concealed weapons permits, “No Issue”, meaning a state that will not issue a concealed weapons permit to anyone outside of law enforcement, “May Issue”, meaning a state that may issue a permit if an applicant shows good cause, “Shall Issue”, meaning a state that must issue a permit unless it can demonstrate lawful reasons not to, and “Unrestricted”, meaning a state in which anyone can carry a concealed or open weapon without any kind of permit.

The site showed that in 1986, there was one “Unrestricted” state (Vermont), eight “Shall Issue” states, twenty-two “May Issue” states, and nineteen “No Issue” states.
On a side note, this has given rise to the term “Vermont style carry”, which appears to mean unrestricted, no permit open or concealed carry of any type of weapon. Vermont style carry is a major goal of pro-gun advocates, and was most recently achieved by Alaska.

Nineteen, did you catch that?

The site went on to show that in 2004, the situation had changed dramatically, with there now being 2 “Unrestricted” states, (Vermont and Alaska), no less than 35 “Shall Issue” states, (up from eight, a 437% increase,) nine “May Issue” states, (down from twenty two, a change of 13, with all the changes becoming “Shall Issue”), and only four “No Issue” states, down from nineteen, a change of fifteen, with fourteen becoming “Shall Issue” and one going all the way to “Unrestricted”.

In other words, the progression of the law shows rather dramatically that not only are we a resounding majority in the only population that counts, voters, but that majority is having a very marked effect on our state laws.

We are making gains, and the gains are significant.

So stop yelling. The sky is not falling. We are the majority, and the changes in law reflect that majority.

Whatever you do, don't present your views at the top of your lungs to an Alaska liberal, who will still be smarting from the loss of all legal control of firearms in that state.

They will know, as I do, that your facts are, simply put, wrong.

Don't criticize our precious amendment until, at a minimum, you have your facts straight, and are aware of more than the state of the law on your block, in your county, in your lifetime.

It is, I've heard, very easy to criticizes, but hard to criticize well.

ctdonath
June 19, 2005, 10:16 AM
Playing devil's advocate, let's shred it:

To preserve liberty,

"...we need to be free from guns, from fear, from anyone being able to oppose our agenda and tell us 'NO!' forcefully."

it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms,

Pretty much everyone has two.

Oh, you mean weapons? Well, let's get into a very long, obfuscated, and ignorant argument about what "arms" are "essential". We can't possibly let EVERYONE have them, ya know, felons & the insane, domestic abusers, anyone with alcohol in the house, ... you can't possibly mean "whole body of the people", right?

And you refer only to the "whole body", not individuals. See, the collective community has police and soldiers, so they're the only ones who can be armed. Cops have guns, so the whole body of the people always possesses arms.

and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them;

"Use", of course, meaning "turn them in." You couldn't possibly mean "aim at target and pull trigger", so we won't go there.

therefore the right of the individual citizen, male or female,

Transgendered? Neutered?

of these United States

But what about the millions of immigrants? especially illegal ones?

to keep and bear arms of any type

Nukes? what are you nuts?

on or about himself, in his domicile, while traveling, working or in any other matter so engaged shall not be infringed in any way,

Oh, so anyone can just wander around with an M16 and blow away anyone for looking at 'em cross-eyed?

Reasonable restrictions are not infringement, as SCOTUS has declared. You can have whatever you want, just so long as you submit to a 10-year waiting period, pay the $20,000 transfer tax, submit to monthly inspections, register you and your dependents, join the National Guard, inform the police anytime you move (no, we really mean pick up the cell phone and tell them when you're going to work or the grocery store - every time), etc. It's all reasonable ya know, so it's not "infringement".

means or manner by the Federal goverenment or the government of any of the several or individual states or governments subordinate to the Federal government or those of the states.

Of course, this shall all be handled by the jurisdiction of the United Nations. Thanks for submitting to world government.

The 2nd Amendment is fine as is. It is plainly worded. Those who would not accept plain wording will not be persuaded by more words.

rick_reno
June 19, 2005, 10:40 AM
The current one works for me. No need for a rewrite.

Art Eatman
June 19, 2005, 02:18 PM
Argue as you wish, but omit the personal derogatory adjectives. It wouldn't hurt my feelings if some folks went back and did some editing for courtesy's sake.

Art

taliv
June 19, 2005, 03:08 PM
jammer, is it then your contention that the GCA '34 and '68 and the clinton gun bans were consistent with the 2A as it is written?

Is it your contention that the patriot act represents the will of the people?

I do not accept for a moment that the will of the people is being done by our Federal government.

I do not accept the statement that the 2A has "stood the test of time". Clearly, it has not. It is totally irrelevant today and offers no boundary or constraint whatsoever on congress, which was its intended purpose.

Further, you offer as support a trend towards CCW laws in 17 of the past 230 years. CCW != 2A. CCW is a very small part, and as the 2A is clearly oriented towards militia, concealment and handguns are arguably not protected, meaning your example is moot.

The point is that the federal government has been piling on more restrictions and infringments consistently for the past 100 years, which means the 2A is not doing its job.


standingwolf, I like it, but I think the "to preserve liberty" should be a little more explicit. e.g. be clear we're allowed to bear arms for individual defense against man or beast, and to keep arms for the next revolution.

however, i like the PA one that bjbarron posted even better. it is a bit more elegant.... less preachy

beerslurpy
June 19, 2005, 03:34 PM
Hey mang, it took the socialists 70 years to get us here, it might take a while to dig back out of the hole. Bush has said he loves Clarence Thomas and wants more of him on the court. If he keeps this one promise we will be very far ahead of where we were before his presidency.

CCW is important because it lays the groundwork for increased acceptance of weapons in society. The sheep have nothing to oppose because they dont see the weapons, but the safe ownership and carry statistics pile up year after year.

CCW is a policy that leads to open carry, and open carry especially is a policy that leads to comfort around firearms and acceptance that using them in self defense is a reasonable thing to do.

Dont get disappointed because it is taking longer than 10 years to turn things around. We are steadily making progress and we will continue to make progress as long as you guys stick with the cause and keep things moving. CCW is an important part of making our viewpoint the viewpoint of the majority longterm.

gc70
June 19, 2005, 05:01 PM
jammer, is it then your contention that the GCA '34 and '68 and the clinton gun bans were consistent with the 2A as it is written?The NFA, GCA, and AWB were either upheld by the courts or not struck down.

Is it your contention that the patriot act represents the will of the people?The people did not rise up in 2002 or 2004 to vote out members of Congress who voted for the PATRIOT Act. However, Congress is now backtracking on a few of the more objectionable sections of the Act.

I do not accept for a moment that the will of the people is being done by our Federal government.Then expect the Democrats to gain seats in Congress in the 2006 elections and more Congressional seats and the Presidency in the 2008 elections.

In short, reality sometimes sucks.

The tide appears to have turned in the last 10 years and gun owners are making progess. It took a long time to get where we are and it will take a long time and continuous effort to move toward where we would like to be.

taliv
June 19, 2005, 05:52 PM
The NFA, GCA, and AWB were either upheld by the courts or not struck down.

thanks, that is exactly my point.

a) the 2A isn't doing what it's supposed to
b) the COURTS are not representatives of the people and the fed gov as a whole, because of the courts actions has not represented the will of the people in this matter. the courts have also upheld all the provisions of the patriot act.

Congress is now backtracking on a few of the more objectionable sections of the Act.

no, they're not. they're backtracking on the least objectionable section of the act, which is library records, there's nothing to indicate they'll get success on that. is that the will of the people? i'd love to see a poll on that.


In short, reality sometimes sucks.

heh, can't argue with you on that one!

Jammer Six
June 19, 2005, 06:28 PM
I do not accept for a moment that the will of the people is being done by our Federal government.
Oh, good, someone WAS listening.

ctdonath
June 19, 2005, 06:43 PM
a) the 2A isn't doing what it's supposed toNo, the COURTS aren't doing what they're supposed to; they don't like the rule so they just ignore it. If they aren't going to obey a simple one, making it more complicated won't help - it will just give them more loopholes.

taliv
June 19, 2005, 07:13 PM
ctdonath

congress passed the laws in question in direct contradiction to the 2A.
the executive branch has vigorously enforced those, violating our rights.

so it's not fair to blame this on just one branch of governement, as the courts only interpret laws and the constitution and as i said before, the courts do not represent the will of the people; they are lawyers, not representatives. THEREFORE, jammer's argument leaves a lot to be desired.


i'm not advocating making it more complicated. i'm only advocating making it clearer so that the intention is unequivocal.

Preacherman
June 19, 2005, 07:25 PM
Just re-word the 2A to read: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall be neither regulated nor infringed". End of problem.

Jammer Six
June 20, 2005, 12:49 AM
Just re-word the 2A to read: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall be neither regulated nor infringed". End of problem.
You left out the word "this".

thereisnospoon
June 20, 2005, 02:11 PM
I love the Debates on THR that actually involve two or three differing opinions. I like to sit back and watch the words fly, it is really educating.

That being said; I really hate it when someone offers a critique, then when they are challanged do not even reply or go OT.

jammersix; please respond in regards to your information on CCW ...I am very interested how you can defend your argument with regards to say the Ban on Imports that was put into effect in the late 80s (I think our "friend" Bush 41 signed that into Law, but if not, I'm sure someone will correct me.).

I felt like your statement about "Someone was listening" was an attempt to avoid dealing with werewolfs challenge...please clarify.

Again, I love the debate and I'm not attacking individuals here I just want some clarification.

My take, by the way, is that the 2A is perfect as written. Very simple and clear, however, we have allowed it to be attacked and twisted.

Jammer Six
June 20, 2005, 06:10 PM
jammersix; please respond in regards to your information on CCW ...I am very interested how you can defend your argument with regards to say the Ban on Imports that was put into effect in the late 80s (I think our "friend" Bush 41 signed that into Law, but if not, I'm sure someone will correct me.).
Policy doesn't steer a straight course. It goes in fits and starts, depending on who wins the current election, who's sitting on the appellate benches, and what the current temperature of the voters is.

When you bring up the ban, you also have to bring up the fact that it's gone, now, and there's no way it's coming back during this congress.

That is exactly my point- the current law doesn't reflect the will of any one voter, or for that matter any single interest group.

It reflects the best compromise we can make, because our system of government holds both the process and compromise to be more important than any single outcome, any single individual, or any single interest group, with the possible exception of national defense. Whatever comes out in the law books isn't as important to us as HOW it comes out in the law books, and that is always the same. It comes to us through case law, or through both houses of congress and the President, or over the President's objection with an override.

That process isn't designed to generate perfect law, perfectly fair law, or even correct law.

It's designed to generate law that is always a compromise, and to protect the rights of the minority.

Furthermore, it's designed to be extremely flexible, and to change as the times change, as the voters change. Slowly, to be sure, but that's a good thing. And it does change. You can't own a slave anywhere in the U.S. anymore, and at one time, human chattels did indeed have the protection of law.

That flexibility translates directly into stability, and that has, so far, proven to be the case. For that flexibility to be present, there must be room for interpretation and re-interpretation, as the voters change and as the ages change.

Our precious second amendment is written with exactly that flexibility, and it is for that reason that it is cast in language that was current when it was written, it is for that reason that it must be constantly re-interpreted, and that is a GOOD thing, because it is for that reason that it has stood the test of time, and is still with us. (Prohibition, anyone? Oh, wait, that amendment went away...)

You won't see what the will of the voters is until you look at the trend, over time. A long time. Decades, not years.

And over time, the ban went away, and it isn't coming back on a federal level any time soon.

Over time, the will of the voters becomes a relentless grinder, ever patient, that will, eventually, chew up and spit out all but the most robust law, and the law that survives will be under constant scrutiny, and under attack EVERY SINGLE DAY.

I wouldn't have it any other way.

I felt like your statement about "Someone was listening" was an attempt to avoid dealing with werewolfs challenge...please clarify.
No. There are at least two mistakes in your statement, and taken as a whole, it fails to hold my attention.

PaulV
June 21, 2005, 06:04 PM
Our precious second amendment is written with exactly that flexibility, and it is for that reason that it is cast in language that was current when it was written, it is for that reason that it must be constantly re-interpreted,

No. The Bill of Rights is not open for re-interpretation. Flexibility is written into the Constitution through the ammendment process which is very difficult for a reason. There are those who wish to use the courts and legislative branch to alter the meaning of the document to their interpretation. By circumventing the ammendment process, whether they are a majority or not, they are unjustly subverting guaranteed liberties.

Jammer Six
June 21, 2005, 06:50 PM
No. The Bill of Rights is not open for re-interpretation.
Good luck with that. :rolleyes:

If you enjoyed reading about "This Would Work..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!