If you could rewrite the 2nd Amendment, how would you word it?

Status
Not open for further replies.
We the People of the United States, hold these truths to be self-evident, that all citizens are created equal, that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are to choose whatever caliber, muzzle velocity, and magazine capacity we desire in our firearms.
 
How about this, "Hey government, KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF OF MY ARMS"
Click to expand...
This is good.

But something needs to be added like this "Arms meaning not only muskets, but all arms. Including but not limited to arms of the past, modern day military rifles, and laser/photon or whatever arms may be developed in the future."

I say this because any time I talk to an anti-gun person they tell me something like this "Well they only meant muskets. How would they know that we would have firearms like this?"
 
I say this because any time I talk to an anti-gun person they tell me something like this "Well they only meant muskets. How would they know that we would have firearms like this?"
Click to expand...

Give them the classic, "the first amendment only applies to quill pens and hand cranked printing presses. How would they know that we would have cell phones and the internet"
 
2A Revision???

It has been around a long time. It is not the wording that needs revision it is some of the meat heads in DC.
 
Ben86 wrote "The right of the people to purchase, own and carry firearms in defense of country, person and property shall not be interfered with by any federal, state or local government entity contained within any of the fifty states of the United States of America."

Lose the "fifty" and replace it with "several" as was used in other locations in the constitution. This way if we add or lose states it will still apply.
 
The right of individual persons or groups of persons to purchase, own, possess, carry openly or concealed, and sell modern individual style arms for lawful purposes of defense of self, state, and country and hunting are inalienable and shall never be questioned(, except in cases of probable cause suspicion or conviction of dangerous felonies, infamous felonious or high crimes against the state or federal government. Due process protections prohibit pre-purchase infringements of this right, except in determining whehter a person is a violent felon). The wrongful questioning of persons shall be punishable as felonious infringement of a persons' inalienable rights.

The parenthesis are "for consideration" - I'm not entirely sold on prohibiting folks who have served their time from owning firearms.
 
Howz dis?

Youz guyz can pack u pieces anytime anywhere but if you mess up we gonna bust your heads --- dig???:neener:
 
Ragnar, I like yours its very exact and all encompassing. I'd like to see them get around that legal language.

The second amendment was written a very long time ago when flint lock rifles were the norm. Since then, arms technology has improved a great deal. A line has to be drawn somewhere. People are always going to complain about where the line is drawn.
Click to expand...

So, because our guns are way cooler we deserve new restrictions? Lame.

Lose the "fifty" and replace it with "several" as was used in other locations in the constitution. This way if we add or lose states it will still apply.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it should be replaced with all, just in case we get an extra state or two in the next few hundreds years.

We should also include something that specifically states that our 2nd Amendment rights cannot be taken away without due process. I know this is already generally included in the Bill of Rights, but I think it needs to be further linked to the 2nd A just to spell it out to the point of painful obviousness.
 
MTMilitiaman said:
I think it is fine just the way it is. I wouldn't change a thing. It's pretty simple, the only confusion is that which is injected to fit someone's narrow political agenda, and that is probably going to happen regardless.
Click to expand...

True. Hard to rewrite this without needing lawyer-types to try & close up the loopholes.
 
I think 2A is just fine the way it is, however just to clarify things for the liberal politicos perhaps this could help. Instead of:

"A well regulated militia", how about "a well armed citizen"
 
Too detailed. Might work today, but 200 years from now, it would be obsolete. I think the founders realized this and wrote the amendments in simple terms. Opens them up to interpretation, but allows them to remain relevant even 200+ years later.
 
The citizens of The United States of America have the right to keep and bear arms as well as the right to self defense regardless of location and anyone who apposses shall face a firing squad.........I like it anyways.
 
A better definition of "A well regulated militia" added to the BoR and not just the US code.

Strike everything that says "Citizens shall not." The purpose was to keep limit the Federal Government, not the citizens.

To play the devil's advocate here

The second amendment was written a very long time ago when flint lock rifles were the norm. Since then, arms technology has improved a great deal. A line has to be drawn somewhere. People are always going to complain about where the line is drawn.
Click to expand...

Okay, I'll play. The lines drawn should be; The Federal Government may not have ANY weapon, Transport or technology that is not available to the Organized Militias of the several states. The Federal Government may NOT employ ANY weapon, technology, or transport that at least 66% of the several states employ. (cuts down on price gouging). I'm not sure how I'd feel about some states having nukes or F-22s, but, it's a right sight less frightening than only the Feds having them.

If you feel a line needs to be drawn, draw one. The odds of a collective group of well armed states standing up to the Federal Government are considerably higher than that of a group of well armed citizens. The Federal government shouldn't be allowed to employ any weapon that the state does not in use of it's own defense.

I would draw that line at "any weapon that is or can be issued as part of a personal issued weapon or weapon system of the organized militia, similar or comparable in size, nature, or outcome, may not be restricted for private use." "similar or comparable is define as equal to or lesser than, similar in design and outcome, comparable in design or outcome."

28th Amendment;

Henceforth it shall be illegal for any government to pass any law restricting or prohibiting any rights set forth in Amendments of The Constitution of the United States of America.
 
The American people have the right to own and carry all manner of weapons on their person. Period. Any Politician, or other persons, attempting to alter in any way, this right bestowed upon the people, shall be stoned, caned, beaten, or hanged.. IN PUBLIC, according to the desires of the American People. Political Corruption, and the infringement of the rights of the American people, shall be dealt with harshly.

The ONLY American citizens NOT allowed to own or carry weapons will be as follows:
Politicians during the term of their elected office.
THIS IS HENCEFORTH FEDERAL LAW SPANNING THE NATION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND IT SHALL NOT BE ALTERED IN ANY WAY. THIS LAW IS NOT SUBJECT TO CHANGE FOR CITY, COUNTY, STATE, OR FEDERAL JURISDICTIONS. IT IS FEDERAL LAW AND NOT TO BE CHANGED IN ANY WAY.

Yea, I think it's redundant, but if there's any mistaking the meaning there, we can cast a vote on how to punish the jaggamo who screws with our rights.
 
Great thread. I think about this quite often. What if the phrase "A well regulated militia" were replaced with "A well armed citizenry"? Or how about getting rid of the first two clauses so that it just said: "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Oh, but it HAS NOT stood the test of time. It took over 200 years to get a SCOTUS decisiion saying gun ownership is an individual right.
Click to expand...

And all it takes is one of the five "good" justices dieing or retiring while a Democrat is in office and that ruling will be overturned first chance they get. Keep in mind that the four justices that dissented in Heller also dissented from McDonald saying that Heller had been improperly decided.
 
Dunno 'bout changing. Better to teach folks how to read and understand English as it was used at the time of the writing. That would probably help with understanding of the rest of the Bill of Rights.

Pardon my cynical attitude...
 
Execution is a little harsh for a polite society. I would include that any citizen or agent of local, state, or federal government that conspires or acts to deny any other citizen of their rights under this amendment, shall be deported within 24 hours along with their immediate family. All real property owned by the violator or their immediate family shall be liquidated to offset the cost of all citizens right to free ammunition for accuracy training at state sponsored firing ranges.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
RKBA Constitutional Provisions / Conceal Carry by State
Replies
7
Views
568
Aguila Blanca
A
S
  • Locked
Does your State's Bill of Rights 'allow' gun control?
2
Replies
43
Views
2K
Mark Tyson
M
T
  • Locked
Rewriting the Law
Replies
7
Views
876
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
S
  • Locked
Local Sheriff/ 2nd Amendment
Replies
1
Views
486
JWarren
J
hso
  • Locked
Repealing the 2nd Amendment
Replies
12
Views
835
Standing Wolf
S
Back
Top