If our founding fathers had written the 2A "better"...

[Skribs]

I didnt think the 2A specifically referred to the NG, but rather that the NG was a modern version of the militias of the time.

 

[Alaska444]

The 2A is written perfectly fine and perfectly clear. Any short perusal of the writings of those who penned the 2A makes it clear that the power of the militia was the people of the nation and their right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The people are the militia as Yamamoto correctly understood in advising against invading America where there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.

No, the 2A is written just fine. The political correct weirdos would twist anything stated to their own agenda and because we no longer have a very literate population, they believe what these folks tell them. In reality, the power no longer resides with the people because most of the people don't want that responsibility any longer. That is where the problem lies, not with what they wrote over 200 years ago.

 

[gunnutery]

I find that the wording seemed to work for the last 220 +/- years. With the exception of 1934, 1968, 1986, 1994 and now, no one's really talked about us NOT having the right to arms. Look at the 1800s. No one tried to take away our arms or rights to them during the first century and beyond. 1934 was really the first attack on our freedom because the prohibition laws created gangsters who started running round using full autos against anyone that stood in their path. Notice that it wasn't the laws that stopped them though, it was full auto guns used in ambushes.

I think our society has just gotten dumber and dumber and can't look beyond the words written to the quotes said by the framers outside of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, which explained the 2A in detail.

 

[BobTheTomato]

I don't see how writing it better would help. The Constitution says only gold and silver will be legal tender but look at the federal reserve note in your wallet. It says legal tender for all debts.

 

[Caliper_Mi]

How about:

"The Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

 

[ETXhiker]

While the wording of the 2nd Amendment may be economical, the writings of the founders show beyond any doubt, that the amendment was intended to guarantee that the people always had the power to resist tyranny, by force of arms. Any debate of that is pure sophistry.

 

[joeschmoe]

Why don't you read the Constitution, there is a lot more than just the 2nd Amendment:

"the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions"
Article I, section 8

 

[4thHorseman]

If our founding fathers had written the 2A "better"...

They probably did not think that nanny government handout idiots would be in the majority. Science has progressed in such a state that Darwin's theory of the stupid ones are eaten by lions or fall off cliffs no longer applies. This allows stupid people to breed with other stupid people until you have a society full of ignorant Democrats running the country.
Who would of guessed?

 

[barnbwt]

I know our founding fathers had no idea that there would be such hoplophobia in modern society, so they could not have known that the 2A would be misinterpreted by so many as necessitating a government-controlled military

On the contrary
If the writers had the foresight to predict modern weaponry's protection under the 2nd (and they did have foresight of more powerful, capable weapons) they could easily foresee the dangers of a public grown so dependent upon a bloated government it could no longer concieve of defending itself. They knew arms of various sorts were historically kept from the masses by other tyrannical governments, they knew that this was done with the citizens' blessing in the name of safety.

As to why the 2nd doesn't expound on its full meaning? Well, for one thing, the paper was only so big (don't laugh, statements written by hand are always purposely terse and written to fit the sheet they are on. That's why software licenses are so damn long now) and for two, they had to come up with language that would be agreed upon by dozens of surly, opinionated men in a hot room. The less verbage to debate, the better. They also wanted it to be broadly applicable, too, so that specific circumstances wouldn't render the article irrelevant (i.e. "the right to bear flintlocks shall not be infringed" wouldn't do much for us nowadays)

TCB

PS, I have a thread on a "bill of rights" for gunowners that's trying to come up with a list of activities or ideas that "we the gunowners" feel are implicitly protected by the 2nd. Total threadjack, but it's kinda relevant since folks came up with some good points there

 

[Alaska444]

Here is an interesting read on quotes from the founding fathers on the RKBA.

http://www.godseesyou.com/2nd_amendment_quotes.html

The militia was the people who were to be armed and we were to have no standing army. The quotes are very clear that the power was to remain in the hands of the people and no attempt to disarm them should occur.

Several stated that the people should have superior arms to any armies to keep the power among the people themselves.

It is clear that this is an individual right and it is to prevent a tyrannical government. The founders understood the hearts of men well.

 

[joeschmoe]

They probably did not think that nanny government handout idiots would be in the majority. Science has progressed in such a state that Darwin's theory of the stupid ones are eaten by lions or fall off cliffs no longer applies. This allows stupid people to breed with other stupid people until you have a society full of ignorant Democrats running the country.
Who would of guessed?

Actually some did fear that could happen:

George Washington, Circular to the States

8 June 1783Writings 26:484--89
When we consider the magnitude of the prize we contended for, the doubtful nature of the contest, and the favorable manner in which it has terminated, we shall find the greatest possible reason for gratitude and rejoicing; this is a theme that will afford infinite delight to every benevolent and liberal mind, whether the event in contemplation, be considered as the source of present enjoyment or the parent of future happiness; and we shall have equal occasion to felicitate ourselves on the lot which Providence has assigned us, whether we view it in a natural, a political or moral point of light.

The Citizens of America, placed in the most enviable condition, as the sole Lords and Proprietors of a vast Tract of Continent, comprehending all the various soils and climates of the World, and abounding with all the necessaries and conveniencies of life, are now by the late satisfactory pacification, acknowledged to be possessed of absolute freedom and Independency; They are, from this period, to be considered as the Actors on a most conspicuous Theatre, which seems to be peculiarly designated by Providence for the display of human greatness and felicity; Here, they are not only surrounded with every thing which can contribute to the completion of private and domestic enjoyment, but Heaven has crowned all its other blessings, by giving a fairer oppertunity for political happiness, than any other Nation has ever been favored with. Nothing can illustrate these observations more forcibly, than a recollection of the happy conjuncture of times and circumstances, under which our Republic assumed its rank among the Nations; The foundation of our Empire was not laid in the gloomy age of Ignorance and Superstition, but at an Epocha when the rights of mankind were better understood and more clearly defined, than at any former period, the researches of the human mind, after social happiness, have been carried to a great extent, the Treasures of knowledge, acquired by the labours of Philosophers, Sages and Legislatures, through a long succession of years, are laid open for our use, and their collected wisdom may be happily applied in the Establishment of our forms of Government; the free cultivation of Letters, the unbounded extension of Commerce, the progressive refinement of Manners, the growing liberality of sentiment, and above all, the pure and benign light of Revelation, have had a meliorating influence on mankind and increased the blessings of Society. At this auspicious period, the United States came into existence as a Nation, and if their Citizens should not be completely free and happy, the fault will be intirely their own.

Such is our situation, and such are our prospects: but notwithstanding the cup of blessing is thus reached out to us, notwithstanding happiness is ours, if we have a disposition to seize the occasion and make it our own; yet, it appears to me there is an option still left to the United States of America, that it is in their choice, and depends upon their conduct, whether they will be respectable and prosperous, or contemptable and miserable as a Nation; This is the time of their political probation, this is the moment when the eyes of the whole World are turned upon them, this is the moment to establish or ruin their national Character forever, this is the favorable moment to give such a tone to our Federal Government, as will enable it to answer the ends of its institution, or this may be the ill-fated moment for relaxing the powers of the Union, annihilating the cement of the Confederation, and exposing us to become the sport of European politics, which may play one State against another to prevent their growing importance, and to serve their own interested purposes. For, according to the system of Policy the States shall adopt at this moment, they will stand or fall, and by their confirmation or lapse, it is yet to be decided, whether the Revolution must ultimately be considered as a blessing or a curse: a blessing or a curse, not to the present age alone, for with our fate will the destiny of unborn Millions be involved.

With this conviction of the importance of the present Crisis, silence in me would be a crime; I will therefore speak to your Excellency, the language of freedom and of sincerity, without disguise; I am aware, however, that those who differ from me in political sentiment, may perhaps remark, I am stepping out of the proper line of my duty, and they may possibly ascribe to arrogance or ostentation, what I know is alone the result of the purest intention, but the rectitude of my own heart, which disdains such unworthy motives, the part I have hitherto acted in life, the determination I have formed, of not taking any share in public business hereafter, the ardent desire I feel, and shall continue to manifest, of quietly enjoying in private life, after all the toils of War, the benefits of a wise and liberal Government, will, I flatter myself, sooner or later convince my Countrymen, that I could have no sinister views in delivering with so little reserve, the opinions contained in this Address.

There are four things, which I humbly conceive, are essential to the well being, I may even venture to say, to the existence of the United States as an Independent Power:

1st. An indissoluble Union of the States under one Federal Head.

2dly. A Sacred regard to Public Justice.

3dly. The adoption of a proper Peace Establishment, and

4thly. The prevalence of that pacific and friendly Disposition, among the People of the United States, which will induce them to forget their local prejudices and policies, to make those mutual concessions which are requisite to the general prosperity, and in some instances, to sacrifice their individual advantages to the interest of the Community.

These are the Pillars on which the glorious Fabrick of our Independency and National Character must be supported; Liberty is the Basis, and whoever would dare to sap the foundation, or overturn the Structure, under whatever specious pretexts he may attempt it, will merit the bitterest execration, and the severest punishment which can be inflicted by his injured Country.

On the three first Articles I will make a few observations, leaving the last to the good sense and serious consideration of those immediately concerned.

Under the first head, altho' it may not be necessary or proper for me in this place to enter into a particular disquisition of the principles of the Union, and to take up the great question which has been frequently agitated, whether it be expedient and requisite for the States to delegate a larger proportion of Power to Congress, or not, Yet it will be a part of my duty, and that of every true Patriot, to assert without reserve, and to insist upon the following positions, That unless the States will suffer Congress to exercise those prerogatives, they are undoubtedly invested with by the Constitution, every thing must very rapidly tend to Anarchy and confusion, That it is indispensable to the happiness of the individual States, that there should be lodged somewhere, a Supreme Power to regulate and govern the general concerns of the Confederated Republic, without which the Union cannot be of long duration. That there must be a faithfull and pointed compliance on the part of every State, with the late proposals and demands of Congress, or the most fatal consequences will ensue, That whatever measures have a tendency to dissolve the Union, or contribute to violate or lessen the Sovereign Authority, ought to be considered as hostile to the Liberty and Independency of America, and the Authors of them treated accordingly, and lastly, that unless we can be enabled by the concurrence of the States, to participate of the fruits of the Revolution, and enjoy the essential benefits of Civil Society, under a form of Government so free and uncorrupted, so happily guarded against the danger of oppression, as has been devised and adopted by the Articles of Confederation, it will be a subject of regret, that so much blood and treasure have been lavished for no purpose, that so many sufferings have been encountered without a compensation, and that so many sacrifices have been made in vain. Many other considerations might here be adduced to prove, that without an entire conformity to the Spirit of the Union, we cannot exist as an Independent Power; it will be sufficient for my purpose to mention but one or two which seem to me of the greatest importance. It is only in our united Character as an Empire, that our Independence is acknowledged, that our power can be regarded, or our Credit supported among Foreign Nations. The Treaties of the European Powers with the United States of America, will have no validity on a dissolution of the Union. We shall be left nearly in a state of Nature, or we may find by our own unhappy experience, that there is a natural and necessary progression, from the extreme of anarchy to the extreme of Tyranny; and that arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of Liberty abused to licentiousness.

 

[goon]

The wording seems pretty clear to me.

And if the population of this nation as a whole does not like it that way, there is a proper way to alter the Constitution.
This crap of trying to hamstring it with executive orders and legislation, that's what I have the problem with.
If the people of this country - the People - should decide that I should be limited to bolt action rifles with no magazine over ten rounds, and amended the Constitution to say that, I'd comply. I wouldn't like it, I would complain about it, but I would comply - because the authority to govern in our system comes from will of the governed.

That's the issue here.
It's not even about the guns to me anymore (although guns are near and dear to me personally). It's about the authority to govern, and Obama and company seem to think that the authority flows down from them, when in fact it actually flows up to them from the people.

 

[goon]

The wording seems pretty clear to me.

And if the population of this nation as a whole does not like it that way, there is a proper way to alter the Constitution.
This crap of trying to hamstring it with executive orders and legislation, that's what I have the problem with.
If the people of this country - the People - should decide that I should be limited to bolt action rifles with no magazine over ten rounds, and amended the Constitution to say that, I'd comply. I wouldn't like it, I would complain about it, but I would comply - because the authority to govern in our system comes from will of the governed.

That's the issue here.
It's not even about the guns to me anymore (although guns are near and dear to me personally). It's about the authority to govern, and Obama and company seem to think that the authority flows down from them, when in fact it actually flows up to them from the people.

 

[303tom]

I think it is written just fine, this is what our`s here in MO. say`s..........Section 23. That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned;

 

[U-235]

The part before the comma is what has caused the confusion and disagreements. Remove that section and you are left with: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This is very clear with almost no room for interpretation.

 

[beatledog7]

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.

It was common practice in the 18th century to sprinkle commas about freely, so let's ignore the commas entirely for the moment except the one that must be there and would be there if these words were written today by today's standard punctuation rules. Then it would read:

"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."

In other words, because a militia (a people's army) is what guarantees freedom, the people's right to possess and carry arms is off limits to government. The first clause is prefatory, the second operative. That means that no matter what the prefatory (subordinate) means, the operative (independent) is unaffected by it. So, the much argued "well regulated Militia" phrase can amplify and explain the operative "shall not" phrase, but it cannot alter its stand-alone meaning. It doesn't matter if the prefatory phrase is removed altogether or expanded into a 100-word monster; the only part that is required to direct action is the operative phrase.

But what if 2A had been about education instead of firearms? What if it read:

"A well educated populous, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to choose how their children are taught, shall not be infringed."

How would we read that? Would anti home schoolers or pro teachers' union types pick nits about what a "well educated populous" is in their effort to force all children into public indoctrination day camps? Yeah, they would, even though it's perfectly clear what "the right of the people to choose how their children are taught" means.

It's beyond rational to even argue what "infringed" or "shall not" mean, but the antis have gone that route as well. We might as well argue what a STOP sign means.

Back to commas. What if we remove the one in the middle, between "State" and "the":

"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."

Now we get something that can be read as follows:

Because the people must be free to keep and bear arms in order for the State to remain free [prefatory], a well regulated militia shall not be infringed [operative].

What does that mean? It shifts the thing that shall not be infringed from the people's RKBA to militia operations. The effect is the same, as each state or locality is off limits to the federal government and those militias can therefore choose to organize, operate and arm the people in whatever way they see fit. That doesn't mean that the several States are in any way placed in charge of militias; it means that each State gets to decide for itself whether it will have a State-run militia or not. So far, no State has elected to totally disarm its populous.

Bottom line--there's nothing wrong with the way 2A was written. No matter how you parse it, the effect that the Founders intended remains--firearms of all kinds remain in the hands of the people. The only thing wrong is the way antis try to mis-represent it.

 

[radiotom]

I throw this out there whenever it seems apropos ... this may not be what our Founders wrote, but if they could see us now I think they'd agree it's what we need:

"It is the unquestionable natural right of all free people to own and carry weapons to protect and provide for themselves, their families, and others, to defend the safety of people and property, and preserve common law and order. This right shall not be abridged, denied, or infringed by any act of government, to include regulation, record keeping or registration, narrow definition, taxation, or any other act which has the intent or effect of limiting or impeding this right of free people."

Well written and addresses the problems and I agree with you. But, they would still butcher it exactly as they are now.

 

[BigG]

Much of the general public today is so far below normal in intelligence it hurts to think about it.

 

[Skribs]

The problem is that if someone is given the choice between accepting the description provided by an anti or doing the research suggested by a pro-gun individual, then human laziness will prevail. Any text outside the document itself is mere commentary, its the next that gets ratified that matters.

 

[M-Cameron]

If our founding fathers had written the 2A "better"...

implying they got it wrong the first time..?


"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 dont know about you, but to me, this is pretty clear cut.

just because some 2-bit politicians dont know how to read English, doesnt mean the founding fathers screwed up the 2A.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

implying they got it wrong the first time..?


"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 dont know about you, but to me, this is pretty clear cut.

just because some 2-bit politicians dont know how to read English, doesnt mean the founding fathers screwed up the 2A.

Make no mistake here...every "2-bit politician" out there knows very well how to read English, and they ALL have an understanding of what is meant by this Amendment.

Therefore, the power hungry ones fear it and want to do away with it.

 

[harrygunner]

The wording is fine. The real issue is enforcement.

Those drawn to politics chafe at the power the Second Amendment affirms. The founders placed that Amendment in the Constitution to codify the people's power to keep politicians in line.

Questioning the wording of the Second Amendment is a similar mistake legislators make by constantly introducing redundant gun related laws. In both cases, the intent is clear and meeting transgressions with more written words does not fix the problem. By their nature, politicians will pick at it, hoping to weaken it, similar to the way criminals sees laws as an affront to their anti-social desires.

In the end, the Constitution is just a piece of paper. The substance lies in the people's insistence on its enforcement.

 

[9thchild]

To the OP, you should read the federalist papers. Specifically the Hamilton authored essays arguing against the inclusion of a bill of rights (can't remember the number(s)).

ETA: Federalist No. 84

 

[goon]

9th Child - I am familiar with Federalist Letter No. 84 - with Hamilton arguing against a bill of rights specifically because people may be led to believe that the only rights they have are those enumerated, when they in fact have every concievable right as long as they don't harm anyone else or their rights.

Unfortunately, Hamilton was right.
But fortunately, so were the Antifederalists. Were it not for the Bill of Rights, which was created at their insistence to get the Constitution ratified, we'd have been reduced to defending ourselves with pitchforks decades ago.

 

[MacTech]

Maine puts it a little more bluntly;

Article I, Section 16 of the State of Maine Constitution states that “Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned."