If you could rewrite the 2nd Amendment

[ignerntbend]

Webster: "Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States."

Mason: "Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."

Adams: "Be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless when necessary for the defence of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of their grievances: or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures."

Other than this, there are about 15 different draft versions of the 2A.

I would say they were more intelligent and perceptive about freedoms than the imbeciles (IQ score of 20-39) currently in office.

This is not real helpful. "who are the militia? they consist of the whole people" So it's a collective noun. The whole people. We want it to be an individual right don't we? Not some cumbayah "whole people" well regulated militia type non-sense. I know that I for one don't want to to show up a few times a month to drill in any well regulated militia to insure the safety of any damn free state.

 

[n8thegr8]

Guys, I want my gun rights as much as you want yours. A few years ago I was sitting in my uncle's living room with all my gun nut cousins. College educated gun nuts. Not a single one of them could recite the amendment by heart. It's just one sentence.
My own theory is that we remember the part we want to remember.
That's the whole point of the thread. How should we re-write it to make it say what we want it to say?

I think you're hung up on the "well regulated militia" part, which means a "well trained militia". The intent was that the people need to be able to be experienced with arms, and to be armed and ready to come to the defense of freedom.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

If I could change it, I wouldn't. The more words you add, the more opportunities there are to misconstrue, redefine, "interpret", or simply ignore. If you insist upon changing it, remove some words such as "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state".

Woody

 

[ignerntbend]

I think you're hung up on the "well regulated militia" part, which means a "well trained militia". The intent was that the people need to be able to be experienced with arms, and to be armed and ready to come to the defense of freedom.

Uh-Oh.
Did somebody say "intent"?

 

[ignerntbend]

If I could change it, I wouldn't. The more words you add, the more opportunities there are to misconstrue, redefine, "interpret", or simply ignore. If you insist upon changing it, remove some words such as "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state".

Woody

This is the correct answer

 

[WTJ]

Uh-Oh.
Did somebody say "intent"?

Way to bite the hook, dude. You didn't see the fishing expedition here?

 

[ignerntbend]

No idea. All I can see is that I'm all hung up on what the amendment says, as Nate pointed out. Now I'm being instructed in what it means. That's ok. Constitution living document type thing? Is that the hook I bit?

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

POST SCRIPT:

There is no need for the Constitution(the Second Amendment in particular) to tell government why it can't do something. It is sufficient that the Constitution simply says "No". Otherwise, it's been too easy for those in government to come up with suggestions or excuses why the need for the restriction on government no longer exists.

Woody

 

[WTJ]

This is not real helpful. "who are the militia? they consist of the whole people" So it's a collective noun. The whole people. We want it to be an individual right don't we? Not some cumbayah "whole people" well regulated militia type non-sense. I know that I for one don't want to to show up a few times a month to drill in any well regulated militia to insure the safety of any damn free state.

Yeah, I'd rather have a bunch of the current spawn hanging out with "field pieces" with ZERO training. Good call.

Part of the language was to avoid a standing military, and rely on Citizen Soldiers. In order to do that, a small core of full time, or 'professional' practitioners of the martial arts was needed. This was done through WW II. The US Army was ranked 17th in size/capability in 1939 with 190,000 soldiers and 14,000 professional officers. Hence the need for a militia. By 1945, the US Army had 8,300,000 personnel.

The PermaWar state the citizens have been conditioned to accept is where this 'militia' issue started off the rails. More Newspeak from the Libs changed the meaning (surprise) of the word.

 

[n8thegr8]

Way to bite the hook, dude. You didn't see the fishing expedition here?

yeah, my bad. I figured he was trolling, but I still had a small filament of hope for this forum, naive as it may be. Oh well, learned my lesson