How would you have written the 2nd Amendment?

imported post

I see lots of flack and bashing about how the Framers worded the 2nd Amendment.

So I got to thinking about how I would word it.

This is what I came up with, I am not an attorney, nor do I want to be one.

The right of a citizen in good standing, to own, posses, carry either openly or concealed, and use a weapon, including but not limited to firearms, knives, and other weapons commonly available, for legal purposes, including but not limited to, challenge of the tyranny of the government, hunting, and self defense, shall not be challenged by, or regulated by the government.

imported post

"The right of citizens to be secure in their persons from unlawful presumptions upon their liberty and security is absolute, and they shall be justified in obtaining, possessing, and bearing effective means of defense. To this end, the right of the people to be armed shall be held inviolate."

or something like that... Just a thought.

-ljp

imported post

I would have made a very clear distinction between the persons right for private ownership, and the states right to have a militia.

imported post

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Each person has a right to the ownership and use of arms to defend: Nation, State, property, progeny, associates, and self.

imported post

Here's my version:

It's my business how many, how large, how automatic or semi-automatic, how many bullets, where I got it, where the guns and bullets are at; it's nothing that corrupt politicians need to worry about. You cannot have my gun, touch it, want it,forcefully takeit, or dream about it. It is mine. You cannot have it even when my hands are dead and cold.

Bottom line: Government-bug off!

imported post

Don't mess with the people's guns. They have a right to freely acquire, keep , dispose of , carry and use them. The people can also use guns in militias for the defense of liberty:celebrate

imported post

I guess you guys just don't get it. Citizen = slave and slaves have no protection other than what the master wants to give them. People does not equal citizen. If you believe you were born a citizen you better think again. The 14th Amendment states: All persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are United States citizens. What does subject to the jurisdiction thereof mean? Do you even know what the term person means? Tell me how anyone is born a citizen? I was born a man on the land. Citizenship is a choice and if you chose to be citizen then you chose to be subject. Subjects do not have constitutionally protected rights, only civil rights bestowed upon them by there master. Wake up people!!

If you chose to be citizen you have contracted as slave. It's all about contract.

imported post

option A:

"A well regulated militia(1), being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed



footnote 1: for a better understanding of what "the militia" is please refer to teh general militia act of 1792"

Option B:

a well regulated militia, comprised of all male citizens of these States, being necessary to the security and continued liberty of a free State, teh right , of the people ( all the people, not just senators, actors, and anti-gun advocates) to keep and bear arms ( and by arms, we are reffering to all arms currently available, and all that could become available) shall not be infringed ( and by infringement, we mean banning, regulation, licensincg etc.)



Option C:

" The citizenry is the militia. they are to be able to keep arms for their defense, and te defense of their liberty. you wanna take teir guns, do so bullets first. Molon Labe"

imported post

iamfreeru2 wrote:

I guess you guys just don't get it. Citizen = slave and slaves have no protection other than what the master wants to give them.

Click to expand...

That is NOT the etymology nor the meaning of the word citizen, except of course perhaps to Socliasts and Communists.

Citizen is an antonym to both alien and to subject. A subject is closer to slave; but a citizen is not a slave by a long shot.

imported post

thorkyl wrote:

SNIP I see lots of flack and bashing about how the Framers worded the 2nd Amendment.

Click to expand...

The problem isn'thow its worded.

The problem iswith pro-gunners who respond to the anti-'s attacks by criticizing thewording.

Behind that is the fact that no matter how it was worded, the anti-s would pick at it and the government would find justifications to get around it.

Its the motive of the anti's and the people in government that is the problem.

imported post

I think Skeptic's version is pretty darn good.

Honestly though, I think the second amendment iswritten pretty well as it is.

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.

Click to expand...

[/quote][/quote]

Almost all of the confusion comes from misinterpretation of the words "regulate" ,"militia","bear", "people", and "infringed"either by not looking atcommon use of the terms at the time of the constitution or simply not understanding them.Another problemmany have is asa misunderstanding of grammer and sentence structure. Citizen is pretty much right in his assessment.

But if I were to annotate it to avoid all confusion I would say:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, as awell armed populace in a well functioningmilitia isnecessary to the security of a free state.In no wayshould this be construed to deny the use of arms for defense of persons or property. Anyarm which isentrusted to an individual employed by the professionalmilitaryshall be considereda protected arm, but this shall not be construed as a limitation in the use of other arms not employed by the professional military. Arms may not be taxed, registered, or licensed and no restrictions on the types of arms or limitations on the carrying of arms are permissible. This list shall not be construed to permit other ingfringements on the right to bear arms.

And I'm sureeven thatwouldn't be good enough.

imported post

Given our 20/20 hindsight, I would have worded the 2A:

"The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by any governmental unit."

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

Given our 20/20 hindsight, I would have worded the 2A:

"The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by any governmental unit."

Click to expand...

That is pretty good.

imported post

Pennsylvania's RKBA statement is very good and how I would prefer it to be for the country.

imported post

Skeptic wrote:

iamfreeru2 wrote:

I guess you guys just don't get it. Citizen = slave and slaves have no protection other than what the master wants to give them.

Click to expand...

That is NOT the etymology nor the meaning of the word citizen, except of course perhaps to Socliasts and Communists. 

Citizen is an antonym to both alien and to subject.  A subject is closer to slave; but a citizen is not a slave by a long shot.

Click to expand...

Like I said you don't get it. Maybe one day you will. I hope it is not too late. Have a nice day.

imported post

iamfreeru2 wrote:

Skeptic wrote:

iamfreeru2 wrote:

I guess you guys just don't get it. Citizen = slave and slaves have no protection other than what the master wants to give them.

Click to expand...

That is NOT the etymology nor the meaning of the word citizen, except of course perhaps to Socliasts and Communists.

Citizen is an antonym to both alien and to subject. A subject is closer to slave; but a citizen is not a slave by a long shot.

Click to expand...

Like I said you don't get it. Maybe one day you will. I hope it is not too late. Have a nice day.

Click to expand...

Why, because I actually understand the meaning of the language we are speaking and don't just make it up to suit my agenda?

imported post

The right and ability of any person to acquire, possess or carry arms shall not be limited or restricted in any way.

imported post

The presumption here is not that of the Founding Fathers. They wrote the 2A to enumerate a pre-existing Right integral to all men and didn't limit the infringements to any entity.

imported post

thorkyl wrote:

I see lots of flack and bashing about how the Framers worded the 2nd Amendment.

So I got to thinking about how I would word it.

This is what I came up with, I am not an attorney, nor do I want to be one.

The right of a citizen in good standing, to own, posses, carry either openly or concealed, and use a weapon, including but not limited to firearms, knives, and other weapons commonly available, for legal purposes, including but not limited to, challenge of the tyranny of the government, hunting, and self defense, shall not be challenged by, or regulated by the government.

Click to expand...

Not bad. Problem is, in the 1790s, concealed carry had the stigma of being what untrustworthy or sinister types did. Until the late 1900s, a concealed weapon was prima facie that you were up to no good. Only relatively recently have the two modes of carry flip-flopped in terms of general acceptance; the current philosophy is "out of sight, out of mind" and a gun on the hip is considered an overt attempt to intimidate. So, if I were in 1790 writing the 2nd Amendment, I would probably have been shouted down had I advocated for protection of concealed carry.

With that in mind, here is my rendition of the Second Amendment:

Each person has theright and responsibility to protect himself and to aid in the protection of his community, Stateand Nation; therefore, Congress shall make no law restricting the right of the people to own, carry and use weapons of any kind. However, no person who objects to violence on moral or religious groundsmay be compelled by the Government to own or use weapons.

Click to expand...

This is, I feel, the clearest wording of the natural reading of the Second Amendment, including the "conscientious objector" clause that was eventually struck from the final draft. I re-included that last clause because of my language in the first one; though citizens have the responsibility that the right implies, it should not conflict with a person's right NOT to keep and bear arms, which is, I feel, also God-given as the right to free choice.

If this were the actual language of the 2A, I think gun control would go nowhere on the Federal level. It would however require a favorable interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and we didn't get that the first time around (read up on the Slaughterhouse Cases; SCOTUS basically read the original intent of the Privileges or Immunities Clause out of existence in interpreting it as applying only to the Fed Gov :banghead.

imported post

iamfreeru2 wrote:

I guess you guys just don't get it. Citizen = slave and slaves have no protection other than what the master wants to give them. People does not equal citizen. If you believe you were born a citizen you better think again. The 14th Amendment states: All persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are United States citizens. What does subject to the jurisdiction thereof mean? Do you even know what the term person means? Tell me how anyone is born a citizen? I was born a man on the land. Citizenship is a choice and if you chose to be citizen then you chose to be subject. Subjects do not have constitutionally protected rights, only civil rights bestowed upon them by there master. Wake up people!!

If you chose to be citizen you have contracted as slave. It's all about contract.

Click to expand...

First - Welcome to OCDO. Do you OC? Whaddya carry?

Being called a "Man" is supposed to man something other than just male. You were NOT born a man, you were born a drooling helpless male infant like me and it was someone else's responsibility to raise you, to feed you, provide for you, to teach you HOW to hopefully one day become a man of your own actions.I've known many adult males that I would not call a "Man" in my 43 years on earth.Time doesn't make you a man...your words and deeds do!

Being a "Citizen" is supposed to mean something too, other that just having been born here. And it did mean something before the IRS effectively made us all slaves to the government. Todaythe word "citizen" it has two meanings. The modern usagethat hascome to meananyoneborn in the USA. IMHO, that only makes youaRESIDENT. I've also met many peopleborn and riased here in America that I would not call "Citizen".Accordingly, being born in America shouldn't just make you a citizen...your words and deeds should!

http://bobcav.blogspot.com/2007/04/resident-or-citizen.html

Once upon a time,being a citizenmeant so muchmore thanbeing born and residing here in America and God willing, one day we will return to those values and ideals that made us once great.It's more than just living on this land under our Stars and Stripes and calling ourselves "American". It doesn't begin and end at the voting booth. It's taking PART in the government, voicing your words,both condemning and praising those in government that deserve it either way, standing watch OVER the governmentensuring it doesn't go astray. That's the problem, too many selfish people today curl up in their homes and do NOTHING but whine, whine, whine and the wonder why the country is where it is today. When was the last time you attended a town hall/town council meeting? Wrote your representatives on something you felt strongly about? Met your representatives?

Like it or not, we are a nation of laws that are proposed, discussed, legislated and then adjudicated. Don't like the laws? You don't have any right to break them, but here in America we CAN CHANGE THEM. Let your legislators know. Tell THEM, not us. Everyone lives under some form of law, be it the laws of God, the laws of manor the inescapable law of gravity. The laws of God and gravity we can't do much about, but the laws of man that affect our lives and our freedoms for the short time we're here ARE our responsibility. Being an American Citizen is a RESPONSIBILITY and it is hard work. Freedome isn't free by any stretch of the imagination.

I've traveled around the world and seen many things and I can assure you, we have it so much better than anyone else. Are we perfect? Hell no! But we are the best! We can be so much better and closer to the dream that was envisioned 232 years agoif people - CITIZENS - act responsibly, take a stand andhold government accountable TO THE PEOPLE.

Hope to see you here more often...this is fun!

Have a great weekend and God bless!