If you could rewrite the 2nd Amendment...

[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]

Just to throw a monkey wrench into things...

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 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...

 

[Maxwell]

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

What about protecting manufacturers or importers of weapons?
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]

KISS

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?