[jlbraun]

...would you? If so,

...how would it read? Then think about

...could your rewrite stand the test of another 200 years, yet still be as simple as the founding fathers' words?

This is something I've been thinking about for some time, I'm interested in the responses.

[loki.fish]

I think it's written fine. The only change to make it simpler for those VERY VERY slow people would be to capitalize all the letters with like 3 spaces in between, as to mimic spelling it out for the not so intelligent people in this country.

[kirby]

It's not written "fine". There's this whole militia clause that confuses things. All laws are open to interpretation, but I feel the militia clause causes the most grief. Compare this to the first ammendment which covers several topics, but the seem separate. I'm not a constitutional scholar, I'm sure there was some context to explain the militia clause, but it confuses things today.

[nwgunslinger]

I kind of like the wording in the WA constitution.

The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state shall not be impaired.

[k_dawg]

I would add:

"Any attempt/plan/discussion to infringe/control/regulate/limit/prevent/tax/license the ownership/purchase/transportation/carry of any firearm, or man-portable weapon.. shall result in an immediate unappealable death sentence, able to be executed by any citizen, at any time, at any place, by any manner."

[WT]

As written it is somewhat confusing, with the militia clause and all.

I'd like to see an English teacher diagram the amendment.

My version,

"The People shall have the right to bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and their countrymen."

[Erebus]

I'm with nwgunslinger but I would add "his property" to the list. If someone is stealing my TV out of my living room I shouldn't have to let him go because he didn't directly threaten me. That to me is implied by the 'himself" part of the statement but I would like to be more specific for those that would like to say that it doesn't allow you to use force to defend your property.

[Camp David]

As written it is somewhat confusing, with the militia clause and all.

If you research the term "militia" you will have no problem fully understanding it... I think the Amendment is fine as is; no change whatsover... The change is needed in American Public Schools: teaching Americans to read.

[Bruce H]

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Any worthless human who tries can be shot on sight as an example.

[cosine]

As written it is somewhat confusing, with the militia clause and all.

I'd like to see an English teacher diagram the amendment.

My version,

"The People shall have the right to bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and their countrymen."

This is like the positive way of stating rights. "You have the right to do this, you have the right to do that," etc. This sort of gives rise to the feeling that the government grants rights. It does not not. For that reasons, I much prefer wording such as "will not be infringed, shall not be impaired," etc. Wordings like that signify that the rights in questions are inherent in one's existance, and that the government better "back off" from fooling with them.

Am I explaining myself clearly?

[Lupinus]

It's message is fine and by standards of the time is written fine. However, with modern interpritation it is not fine at all. So something like this could be nice and more clear-

"The right of the citizen, being necessary for the security of self and state, to bare firearms, of any type, shall in no way be infringed or regulated."

There you go. It gets rid of the milita part that confuses some people and opens it for debate and replaces it clear cut to individuals, and also says can't be infrindged. It is simple and not open to interpritation of anti gunners.

Also firearms keeps it from being to broad. IMO the second gives you the right to those only, it doesn't give you the right to say....a scud missle or a SAM.

[jlbraun]

Remember, in 200 years, we're going to have limited offensive nanotech, genetically modified soldiers, and information / computer warfare. Our military may have significant members that are synthetic /artificial intelligences, some of which are semi-autonomous and amoral yet controlled by humans. The soldiers may be genetically or surgically enhanced such that their very bodies qualify as ranged small arms. Are those modifications covered by the 2nd amendment? How would the 2A apply to weaponized computer programs and viruses? Considering that semi-autonomous armed robots are filtering down to the squad level, what happens when each soldier is issued semi-intelligent firearms or sentry bots? Are those covered?

I fear that as technology grows farther away from muskets and smoothbore cannon, people are going to use that distance to regulate the RKBA into oblivion.

Therefore, my wording is:

"Arms secure citizenbeings within the state as well as the state itself from tyranny. As such the right to bring force of arms to bear on those who would harm a being is the most fundamental inherent right that being has. Therefore, Congress shall not restrict the inalienable right of being to own or use any non-sentient armament (material or immaterial) capable of being transported and operated by a single being."

[mp510]

Being of necesity to the well being of the state and Populice, the People's right to have access, carry, and use any form of small Arms for all lawful purposes shall not be impeded, by any governmental entity.

[fletcher]

I wouldn't rewrite anything, but I would love to erase the idiots that can't read it.

[lamazza]

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.
What is so hard to understand about this?

[xd9fan]

whats the problem here??

[engineer151515]

Current

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.

My choice

The right of the law abiding individual to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

[KIDGLOCK]

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGEDThat seems pretty simple ,to the point . I get it, it means "shall not be infringed". which means "shall not be infringed" . Hasnt changed , never will, .

The real question IS how far are you willing to go ??

[RangerHAAF]

I would write:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the individual and collective right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

[ArmedBear]

The Federal Government guarantees the right of every individual American to own, keep at his/her residence or place of business, and to bear on his/her person for the purpose of lawful self-defense, any deadly weapon he/she deems appropriate, including any personal weapon currently used by any of the armed forces of the United States, or any law enforcement agency in the United States. No government, at any level, in the United States shall infringe on this right, nor shall this right be taxed in any way, nor shall any license be required for any such weapon or bearer of any such weapon.

[Molon Labe]

Boston T. Party (http://www.javelinpress.com/) has come up with a "re-write" for the Second Amendment:

Neither Congress, nor the President, nor any State shall deny, infringe, regulate, or tax the absolute right of the people, in both their individual and collective militia capacities, to own, carry, and use weapons. Any congressional act, executive order, or State legislative act which would, under any guise or pretense, deny, infringe, regulate, or tax this cornerstone right is null and void at moment of passage, and may lawfully be, without risk of prosecution, ignored, or, if deemed necessary, forcibly resisted. Copyright Javelin Press. http://www.javelinpress.com/
I like it... :cool:

[Maxwell]

Boston T. Party has come up with a "re-write" for the Second Amendment:

What about protecting manufacturers or importers of weapons? :scrutiny:
Bah, lets just ignore it and write bans anyway!


I think the wording of 2a was not the problem. Trouble was that at the first "good idea" for an infringement, people were supposed to jump up and make a big commotion about it.

They didnt.

Years pass, new infringements pass, and not enough citizens have put this at the top of their agenda.
So it stays.

You have write anything you want into a consitution or law. If its not enforced or guarded by the people, it dosnt mean anything.

[Tory]

An armed citizen being the natural defender of liberty, autonomy, family and self, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon by any federal, state or municipal authority.

[Dragoon44]

" The need for tinfoil for self proclaimed militia being obvious, the right to keep and wear tinfoil hats shall not be infringed. Further the right of citizens to keep and bear arms for their own protection and the protection of fellow citizens shall not be infringed by any federal, state,county, or city government."

[shermacman]

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 add: What part of "Shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

[Dmack_901]

I would rewrite it to be more clear but have the same meaning. From 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.To maybe:The right of the people to keep effective militia shall not be infringed.
The right of the people to keep, and bear arms shall not be infringed.

[Helmetcase]

A buddy of mine makes an analogy:

An informed electorate being crucial to a free nation, the right of the people to learn to read shall not be infringed.

The damn thing is fine. If we educate enough citizens and learn 'em to not buy into the Brady Bunch's baloney, we'll have fewer things like the ole Presser v. Illinois problem.

[sturmruger]

WI State Constitution Section 25

The people have the right to keep and bear arms for
security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.

I really like how the WI Consitution reads. I think it makes it painfully obivious that gun are for more then just hunting.

[hm]

...who, especially in Bush's America, is a big supporter of the 2nd Amendment.

This borrows a bit from the 4th Amendment.

The ability of citizens to protect their persons, houses, papers, effects, and fellow man from violence or otherwise infamous acts by individuals, groups, foreign forces or government, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of individuals to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

I like this wording because it clearly communicates the purpose I believe the 2nd should fulfill:

1) Ability to protect one's self against egregious criminal harm perpetrated by anyone.
2) Ability to protect and defend the Constitution (and, thus, one's self and nation) against a foreign invasion or an overzealous and unchecked government who has thrown the Constitution and democracy out the window.

[Maxwell]

The people have the right to keep and bear arms for
security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.

The same WI without legal ccw?
Seems it wasnt clear enough.

[bigun15]

The right of the people to keep and bear arms without a license shall not be infringed. Any politician infringing on this right will be deemed a traitor to the country.

[TrapperReady]

The same WI without legal ccw?
Seems it wasnt clear enough.


Yep, that Wisconsin.

However, the amendment to the state constitution came well over 100 years after a law prohibiting concealed carry. Unfortunately, the current governor and the majority of Democrats in the Assembly have been able to block passage of a law permitting CCW.

Cases such as Hamdan and Fisher have directly challenged the constitutionality of the 133 year old prohibition. Due to an overly narrow ruling in Hamdan, that case only "opened up" CCW on your own property and business. Perhaps Fisher will take it the rest of the way.

Doyle and his ilk will be kicking and screaming all along the way. :cuss:

[Vitamin G]

"Let God sort 'em out"

[ArmedAmerican]

I like the Oregon version:

"The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defense of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power."
--Section 27, Oregon State Constitution

As I am fond of pointing out to "collective right" people, this makes no use of the word "militia"! :D

Armed American
State of Orygun
-------------------------------------------
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
Samuel Adams

[White Horseradish]

Actually, we could do with a really simple rewrite.

"A well-functioning milita is necessary to the well-being of a free state. The right of the people to own and carry arms shall not be infringed. "

[ctdonath]

The 2nd Amendment is perfect the way it is.

The problem is people who refuse to accept the plain meaning thereof.
No amount of rewording will convince them.

[stevelyn]

Trouble was that at the first "good idea" for an infringment, the people were supposed to jump up and make a big commotion of it.

They didn't.

Of course not. The first infringment was directed at newly freed slaves and people of color in an effort to prevent them from fully exercising their rights of citizenship. Everyone know that it wasn't going to be enforced against white Americans. That's why they didn't jump up. And it wasn't for a long time.

Now we're reaping the consequences of earlier society because those original laws started the dominoes falling. NYC's Sullivan law was nothing more than a disguised effort to prevent imigrants arming themselves.:mad:

[tellner]

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes shall not be infringed."

I can't agree with the "in defense of property" part. Risk to life and health is worth killing someone over. Risk to inanimate things is not.

[Hawkmoon]

I would omit the militia clause. The main body is fine as written.

[Zen21Tao]

Simple and sweet:

New 2nd A: "The individual American citizens right to own and bear any damn number or type of armament he wants shall not be infringed, impaired, regulated or in any way shape or form limited*"

*"This Amendement is an absolute necesasary for security of all other amendments thus any limitations imposed on this amendment would thereby nullify all other cherished amendments"

[hugh damright]

...

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of each State's free government and sovereignty,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by Congress.

[DRZinn]

I think I'd be happiest without any Second Amendment, but with a populace which simply wouldn't put up with any infringement of any of their rights.

Failing that, I'd knock off the first clause and insert a couple words:

"The right of the people, individually or collectively, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by any government or private entity."

[Bobarino]

my version:

A well armed citizenry, being necessary for the security of a free state, the security of self, each other, and peoperty, the absolute right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be, in any way, infringed.


howzat?

Bobby

[scout26]

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


Short, sweet, to the point and not open to discussion.

Them: "We need you to get a FOID Card."
ME: "Infringment."

Them: "CCW is not allowed in Illinois."
ME: "Infringment."

Them: "No 50 BMG's or so-called Assualt Weapons."
Me: "Infringment."

and so on, and so on, and so on.

[half elf]

My biggest problem with the 2A is the lack of reasoning skill taught in "Government Indorination/Education" today. Most of my childrens teachers can not write a coherent paragraph on a topic without using spellcheck, and google. My children get about 16hr per week of re-education training from me to counteract the brainscrubbing they are given. :cuss:

[chetth]

I'm fond of the PA version:
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

But I have tried my had at the same thing:

A modified first: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, or the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Or, using the same language as the first amendment,

A modified second: Congress shall make no law respecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

[armedandsafe]

Remember that the amendment was written to say something very specific. Unfortunately, there was puncuation added by a printer in some of the original publications and that version was what got passed around to the various States. Had those pesky commas not been inserted by the printer, the amendment would have been better understood and less arguable today.

Original:

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.

was modified to:

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.

Pops

[hugh damright]

Had those pesky commas not been inserted by the printer

The National Archives website says that "The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form", and the Second Amendment reads:

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.

and there's a note at the bottom:

Note: The capitalization and punctuation in this version is from the enrolled original of the Joint Resolution of Congress proposing the Bill of Rights, which is on permanent display in the Rotunda of the National Archives Building, Washington, D.C.

http://www.archives.gov/national-arc...ranscript.html

[MagnumCaliber357]

There is nothing wrong with the second amedment and it should not be changed, what we should work on changinf s the way people interpert the second amendment incorrectly. Imagine id the First amenement were interperted incorrectly.......

[armedandsafe]

I'll have to go back through my research, because I can't remember if it was Madison or Monroe who complained in a letter to Congress that his handwritten proposal, which he submitted to be proposed as the Fourth Amendment had been changed when presented as the "enrolled" version.

Pops

[longeyes]

The "security of a free state?" What if the State is the problem? What if the State isn't really free but only says it is? What about the right of the free individual to keep and bear arms for his own defense, the defense of a legitimate and representative government, and in defiance of a tyrannical State?

[gezzer]

The rights of the citizen to keep & bear arms (current style) SHALL NOT BE INFINGED under penalty of death for treasonous politicos and their contributors.

[Mississippi_Militia]

It should be rewritten.........

Every citizen militia being defined as every single citizen between the ages 17-100000000 yrs. of age shall never be disarmed for any reason.The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed

[Zundfolge]

It doesn't matter how you rewrite it, those that wish to disarm us have had more than 2 centuries to change the meanings of each of the individual words used in the original to destroy its meaning.

[hugh damright]

The "security of a free state?" What if the State is the problem?

A "free State" is a body of people with free government. I don't think that free government is the problem.

[longeyes]

A "free State" is a body of people with free government. I don't think that free government is the problem.

No kidding.

But you've noticed that every totalitarian state in the world calls itself "free," somebody's "republic," the "people's [fill in the blank]," etc., haven't you? I don't like the idea of defining individual rights in terms of the state. Any state.

[Just_a_dude_with_a_gun]

All I really need to do to rewrite the 2nd Amendment, is be elected to office as democrat.

[Johnny Guest]

Friends, fellow THR members, shooting buddies - -

I find it hard to believe that so many of you would even CONSIDER rewriting Amendment II. If you take upon yourselves the perrogative to "improve" it, you grant to all the antis and gun control enthusiasts the opportunity to do the same. I, for one, am NOT ready to allow them to do any such thing. Believing basically in the doctrine of "Fair for One, Fair for All," I can't see how anything whatever is gained by such conjecture.

Hey - - Talk it up all you want, write what you wish. I just hope the constitutionl revisionists don't get hold of this thread. "See? See there? Even the gun nuts can't agree on what that bothersome ol' Second Amendment means. Let's HELP them rewrite it!"

:rolleyes:
Johnny

[Kamicosmos]

I wouldn't change it at all.


I'd like to see an English teacher diagram the amendment.

Here ya go:

http://www.geocities.com/gene_moutoux/amend2.gif

and the explaination of the diagraming, along with the other Amendments, is here: http://www.geocities.com/gene_moutoux/diagramamend2.htm

[hoppinglark]

Just take the old 2nd Amendment and translate it into modern English

A well supplied and outfitted Militia being essential to the safety and protection of the local community, and thus the state. The right of private citizens to keep and bear arms and ammunition in their homes, vehicles, and on their persons, shall not be infringed or prohibited.

[Jeff]

Helmetcase wrote:

A buddy of mine makes an analogy:

An informed electorate being crucial to a free nation, the right of the people to learn to read shall not be infringed.

The damn thing is fine. If we educate enough citizens and learn 'em to not buy into the Brady Bunch's baloney, we'll have fewer things like the ole Presser v. Illinois problem.

A most flawless analogy and a fine remark in conclusion.