My version of how the second amendment.

I wrote this several years ago when I working one Sunday at the lab (it was a slow day).

Congress, nor any state, nor any political sub division within a state shall make no law that in any way, abridges, restricts, infringes or denies the absolute right of the individual who is not lawfully incarcerated, who is of 18 years or older in age, to acquire lawfully, keep and carry either openly or concealed about their person, arms or components of arms and ammunition, in any all and all areas of the nation, for the defense of the individual, property and the defense of the state.

No Individual who is not lawfully incarcerated, who is of 18 years or older in age, shall never be required to seek any permission, permit or license, from any authority, to acquire lawfully, keep and carry either openly or concealed, arms or components of arms and ammunition in any all and all areas of the nation, for the defense of the individual, property and the defense of the state.

Congress, nor any state or any political sub division of a state shall make no law that requires arms or components of arms and ammunition, or record of any lawful sale thereof, to be registered or recorded with any agency.

Congress, nor any state nor any political sub division of a state shall make no law that imposes any special or selective, tax or regulation on any individual, corporation or other entity engaged in the manufacturing, distribution and sale of arms or components of arms and ammunition.

No individual, corporation or other entity engaged in the manufacturing, distribution and sale of arms or components of arms and ammunition shall not be liable for the misuse of arms or components of arms and ammunition, used by another individual in any act.

There is a simpler way to say that:

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

If there was any honesty in government that would be all that is needed. Violators (as in legislators or officials that violate that right) should be incarcerated. That would serve to deter tampering with our rights.

I understand what you are saying, but being a scientist, I wanted to get it as clear as possible and not leave the anti gun folks any wiggle room at all. You know those kind of people, you give them a nanometer and they will take a kilometer!

gunslinger493 said:

I wanted to get it as clear as possible and not leave the anti gun folks any wiggle room at all.

Click to expand...

The second amendment is completely clear as written. The problem and misunderstanding lies in the fact that many today are uneducated in history, and anti-gun hoplophobes use that to their advantage.

The "militia" was, and still is, the general population.

True, when second amendment was written, everybody knew what the militia was and did. What the founders could not have foreseen was the passage of time and dumming down of the population. My version, I believe would stand the test of time by making it perfectly clear to anyone of any education and political leaning.

gunslinger493 said:

True, when second amendment was written, everybody knew what the militia was and did. What the founders could not have foreseen was the passage of time and dumming down of the population. My version, I believe would stand the test of time by making it perfectly clear to anyone of any education and political leaning.

Click to expand...

actually they had seen this possibility coming through the central bank and the like, they fought hard too keep a system in place that would prevent such problems but overtime the system was gradually flipped. This country was designed to be a republic an was corrupted into a democracy (the word democracy isn't even in the constitution). i'll leave the research to you because there is a lot to learn.

Constructive criticism, not insulting: There are some grammatical issues with wording of your text. There are several double negatives that would essentially negate the intent of some of the passages. Example:

"No Individual who..., shall never be required..." No individual shall never be required means that all individual SHALL be required to at least at some point in the future.

The "nor" qualifiers is also incorrect. Essentially you are excluding from the list when you say nor. The lines should read "Congres, any state, or any further subdivision of government within a state shall not..."

Using the term "political" is less accurate than using the term government. Politics is not always and exclusively associated with governments.

Also keep in mind as you think about this. Laws do not grant rights. They remove rights. So any law written either expressly takes rights away or it prevents the taking away of rights. IT would be useful to express that in the statement. IE, "As it is the natural right of all US citizens to keep...."

Minor critiques. Not intended to offend, just trying to be constructive. I tend to do similar things when I get bored.

That is a much better statement: "Congress, any state, or any further subdivision of government within a state shall not..."

I chose the the term political subdivision because it was used in the assault weapons ban back in 1994.

I will play with it some more this weekend, thanks for critic!

If you want Scalia's view point on 2A, you should read and study this --

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

He has done a pretty good job of researching everything, every word.

In his mind, 2A pertains only to your own home or your own land. It does not pertain to public property.

He is quite happy relegating the power to the states and cities to make whatever laws and ordinances they want, as long as they do not try to infringe on your home or your land. Sad but true.

And even more sad is that 4 of the justices do not believe anyone has any 2A rights because these 4 are stuck on the militia clause and former USSC rulings like the 1894 Miller ruling by the USSC.

gunslinger493 said:

That is a much better statement: "Congress, any state, or any further subdivision of government within a state shall not..."

I chose the the term political subdivision because it was used in the assault weapons ban back in 1994.

I will play with it some more this weekend, thanks for critic!

Click to expand...

Scalia points out that this is a fantasy however --

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

mobiushky said:

Constructive criticism, not insulting: There are some grammatical issues with wording of your text. There are several double negatives that would essentially negate the intent of some of the passages. Example:

"No Individual who..., shall never be required..." No individual shall never be required means that all individual SHALL be required to at least at some point in the future.

The "nor" qualifiers is also incorrect. Essentially you are excluding from the list when you say nor. The lines should read "Congres, any state, or any further subdivision of government within a state shall not..."

Using the term "political" is less accurate than using the term government. Politics is not always and exclusively associated with governments.

Also keep in mind as you think about this. Laws do not grant rights. They remove rights. So any law written either expressly takes rights away or it prevents the taking away of rights. IT would be useful to express that in the statement. IE, "As it is the natural right of all US citizens to keep...."

Minor critiques. Not intended to offend, just trying to be constructive. I tend to do similar things when I get bored.

Click to expand...

Well, besides the nit picking grammar issues, there are major legal issues as well. Here is reality --

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

unreconstructed1 said:

The second amendment is completely clear as written. The problem and misunderstanding lies in the fact that many today are uneducated in history, and anti-gun hoplophobes use that to their advantage.

The "militia" was, and still is, the general population.

Click to expand...

If it really was "completely clear" as you imagine then there would not be hundreds of years of controversy about it:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/bardwell/supreme_cases.html

So dream on.

That is what I was trying to do when I wrote this. I wanted to put it in the clearest terms possible so that there would be no misunderstanding now or in the future. I do admit that I was wrong on laws granting rights and I will rewrite it to reflect this.

"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."

"A well regulated militia..." 'militia' is/was able bodied white males 16-45 years of age.
"well regulated" is/was taking the time to be a good marksman and maintain your firearm in good working order. Thus, in order to maintain a free state all able bodied white males must be prepared to use their firearms on a moments notice.

"the right of the people..." as referring back to the precise definition of the term militia, the people is referred to specifically. In times of peace the militia is just that...the people.

"to keep and bear arms...." to own at home and to bear at times of need.

"shall not be infringed." no law, no government interference, no restriction for any and all arms.

If you want to change words I would suggest.

"A well armed citizenry is necessary for a free and independent people, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Wasn't it Thomas Jefferson that said; "No Free Man shall be denied the use of firearms?"
-Bruce

Shoobee said:

If it really was "completely clear" as you imagine then there would not be hundreds of years of controversy about it...

Click to expand...

Of course there would still be controversy.
If the general populace keeping and bearing arms is truly necessary to the security of a free state, it stands to reason that those who wish to control the state and wrest the just powers from the hands of the citizens need to remove this barrier to their plans.
The desire to create a state of dependent and servile subjects is thwarted when the citizenry possess and maintain the means to ensure their own shared security and freedom.
I doubt that the history of attempted misconstruction and misdirection regarding the clear meaning and supporting historical evidence of the purpose and scope of the 2A can be attributed in very large scale to any simple or innocent misunderstanding.
The surrounding controversy is not attributable to any lack of clarity – it was quite clear when it was written and is no less so 230+ years later. The controversy is only generated by those who wish to control others.

ATM said:

it was quite clear when it was written and is no less so 230+ years later. The controversy is only generated by those who wish to control others.

Click to expand...

Allow me to elaborate by adding a video from Penn & Teller. The end is chopped for whatever reason, but I'm sure you will get the gist of it.
http://youtu.be/_YY5Rj4cQ50
-Bruce

gogodawgs said:

"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...

Nice shot tex, better luck next 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."

If you're going to quote, particularly the U.S. Constitution, please make sure your CAPS, and commas are all in the right place.

"A well regulated militia..." 'militia' is/was able bodied white males 16-45 years of age.
"well regulated" is/was taking the time to be a good marksman and maintain your firearm in good working order. Thus, in order to maintain a free state all able bodied white males must be prepared to use their firearms on a moments notice.

"the right of the people..." as referring back to the precise definition of the term militia, the people is referred to specifically. In times of peace the militia is just that...the people.

"to keep and bear arms...." to own at home and to bear at times of need.

Click to expand...

Wrong. The Militia is under the control of the Federal Government. Please, read the Federalist, it is all there, black-and-white.

"shall not be infringed." no law, no government interference, no restriction for any and all arms.

Click to expand...

Infringed, is a matter of degrees, not absolute; that is, unless you're an Absolutist, then run with it.

If you want to change words I would suggest.

"A well armed citizenry is necessary for a free and independent people, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Click to expand...

Please, don't change it any more, the U.S. Constitution is already a linguistic train-wreck out the gate, it doesn't need anyone's help.

Is someone prepared to offer me the Etymology of Keep and Bear Arms? The first question that comes to mind is: Is the so-called Right, to Keep and Bear, a Private, or Public matter? If it is Private, then your Right does not extend outside of your home. If it is Public, then it extends out into the Public realm.

Personally, Bear Arms is a matter of self-defense.--it does reach out into the Public realm; then again, does it?

Interesting 2A reading written in 8 parts: http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin16.htm

Beretta92FSLady said:

Wrong. The Militia is under the control of the Federal Government. Please, read the Federalist, it is all there, black-and-white.

Click to expand...

"10 USC 311"

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

This is CURRENT U.S. federal law, it's right here, black-and-white