In order to find a compromise between gun toters and gun grabbers ( no disrespect to anyone ), how would you forge the Second Amendment ? In your own diction, how would you amend it ? What word choices would you use ( assuming you were one of the writers ) ?
How would you change the Second Amendment ?
- Thread starter Divergent54
- Start date
Going to say "status quo" before "scrap it entirely" people get in.
And yeah, this is a chat thread
And yeah, this is a chat thread
it would have been nice if the FF had put it a lot more clearly... either left out the part about the militia, or said that you had to belong to it to own firearms; basically, noted it as either an individual right or a collective one...
The problem is most people don't know the history of the colonies. The militia were a part of British colonies in america from the start. They represented all the males of the colonies and the Founders use of the word militia follows this. If you read the Federalist papers you see they meant that the whole body of the people were to be armed and at times could be called up by their states Governor for service. They were not a armed force of the State or Federal government but, a armed force of the people of each state that could be deputized in times of crisis. Because the Founders knew that if only the government had the use of force of arms then there would be no true freedom. That is why they made it a point to not allow the government the power to regulate the possession of firearms by the people.
that and they were too cheap and too suspicious to fund an army of useful size until the British taught us a valuable lesson about the uselessness of militia
Also toss in the militia duty was not only a right but a real duty in early American history due to wars with the French, Indians and of course in the Mid Atlantic and points south colonies and later states, to deal with any slave revolts (which did occur). And of course the fact that most Americans in the less settled areas depended on firearms to provide food and also sometimes to deal with the occasional aggressive predator and you pretty sum it up
But I do wish they had been a bit clearer on the whole thing ... does that comma matter? Are you supposed to be in a well regulated militia as part of that keep and bear arms right? Too bad we can't really ask them.
It would be nice if the Amendment had been clearer, but the problem with that is that it really is clear if you look at it grammatically and the Founders likely felt that way, hence the wording they used. The part about the Militia is just an explanation of the reasoning, the actual right lies with The People, and fortunately the Courts have ruled in favor of that.
Although lets be honest here we can discuss how it would be nice if it were clearer but even if it literally said "Everyone will always be allowed to own a gun" it wouldn't stop the authoritarians from trying to restrict people's access to guns.
Although lets be honest here we can discuss how it would be nice if it were clearer but even if it literally said "Everyone will always be allowed to own a gun" it wouldn't stop the authoritarians from trying to restrict people's access to guns.
Why include it? I don't think any other amendment had its reasoning explained like that.
Conditions should be added, e.g. no more than 3 rounds in a weapon in US states, interdiction to bear a weapon within public facilities such as schools, hospitals, and administrative buildings.
I would delete it. 200 years ago, it was a good idea. A government that went around disarming the populace en mass was a government up to no good. But 200 years ago a single madman armed with a gun couldn't walk into a room and massacre several dozen people, and meanwhile the increasing urbanization of the population means that there would be less and less of a reason for most Americans to own a gun....if it wasn't for all the criminals with guns. But now we have a murder rate that's way higher than it should be, just because there's no way to possibly get rid of all the guns on our streets.
historynutty
Banned
No change at all. I have no interest in compromise with the 'grabbers'. A Citizen has the (Constitutional and Natural) Right to own and use military quality small arms. Lets be explicit- the primary purpose of those arms is not hunting or resisting criminals (though both are very legit uses) but rather to keep the Citizens in a position to resist with force politicians aiming to become tyrants. A side benefit of a Nation in which most all adults are well familiar with arms and personally armed is that wannabe aggressors look elsewhere for easier loot and pillage.
In the 18th c, militia simply referred to the totality of able bodied men.
Well, at the time it was actually a very prudent decision, in my opinion. These founders had just fought a revolutionary war against Great Britain over what they felt was tyrannic government, and they feared that a tyrannic government could arise in the United States again. The Second Amendment was the ultimate fail-safe they could provide against such a scenario. It was quite frankly put into place with the express purpose of enabling another revolution should it be necessary. Those arms provided the people were not provided so as to enable people to defend themselves from robbers or thieves or murderers or anything like that. Those arms were provided to be used against the military power of the United States itself.
Considering the fact that a tyrannical dictatorship was established in France pretty soon after the French Revolution would seem to indicate that their argument had merit in that this was a risk that had to be taken seriously and preparations had to be put in place for it.
Had the founding fathers lived today, they probably would be arguing tirelessly that mere guns were no longer enough. That people need to own tanks and all sorts of military equipment developed since the enlightenment era.
Considering the fact that a tyrannical dictatorship was established in France pretty soon after the French Revolution would seem to indicate that their argument had merit in that this was a risk that had to be taken seriously and preparations had to be put in place for it.
Had the founding fathers lived today, they probably would be arguing tirelessly that mere guns were no longer enough. That people need to own tanks and all sorts of military equipment developed since the enlightenment era.
Napoleonrules
Banned
No two Founding Father's really ever 100% agreed on anything, I really wish people would stop talking as if the Founders all agreed on everything they put in the Constitution, and the Federalist Papers were mainly Madison and Hamilton; one can not say that Jefferson really ever agreed with Hamilton on anything. The Constitution is a best as we could get compromise on every issue that left everyone unhappy; it's not a perfect document.
jahenders
Banned
I'm glad you got that last point. Good, bad, or indifferent, there is NO FEASIBLE WAY to get all (or a large majority) of guns off of our streets and turn us into England or something. Therefore, the most that most gun control measures accomplish is to deter law abiding people from getting them, while doing NOTHING to deter criminals from getting them (they already being criminals anyway).
About the only ways one could come close to getting rid of most guns would either be:
1) Offer VERY LARGE bounties for guns -- i.e. 5-10 times what they're worth. Many people who have guns but rarely ever use them might turn them in. However, this would backfire (pun intended) because it would just increase the incentive for criminals to either steel guns or import them and, again, wouldn't get rid of the guns criminals use most in crime because their crime is worth more than the bounty.
2) Impose a no-holds-barred totalitarian regime that makes it a death penalty offense to have a gun, and then conducts unannounced door-to-door searches, ripping up houses and executing offenders on TV. I hope that's not seen as desirable.
About the only ways one could come close to getting rid of most guns would either be:
1) Offer VERY LARGE bounties for guns -- i.e. 5-10 times what they're worth. Many people who have guns but rarely ever use them might turn them in. However, this would backfire (pun intended) because it would just increase the incentive for criminals to either steel guns or import them and, again, wouldn't get rid of the guns criminals use most in crime because their crime is worth more than the bounty.
2) Impose a no-holds-barred totalitarian regime that makes it a death penalty offense to have a gun, and then conducts unannounced door-to-door searches, ripping up houses and executing offenders on TV. I hope that's not seen as desirable.
Napoleonrules
Banned
Some questions, mostly for conservatives-
1) Why do the American people have to have the right to defend the nation? We have a standing army, a National Guard, and many states have militias outside the National Guard system specifically to keep a state-level military inside state borders that can not be nationalized under the National Guard. Oh, and the NY city police force alone is larger and more sophisticated than most of the world's military. Can they not do a good enough job, are you SERIOUSLY insulting our men and women in the military? Shame on you! You'll get in the way and no you're not as good as the FICTIONAL boys in Red Dawn.
2) Why do you think you have the right to "defend" yourself from the very same government you live under? That's called that treason and is un-American. Unless you live in New Hampshire you don't have the right to overthrow the government if you think it's bad (their state constitution says you have that right). You have the right to move to Canada or vote for someone else.
3)Police exist. What do you think you can do against crime? Are you Batman? Even he doesn't use guns. Stop insulting our police officers, please. That's disrespectful.
4)Most important- If making guns illegal won't solve the problem of criminals having guns because they are criminals so we need to keep guns legal... ok, then having laws against drugs should be overturned for the same logic. Weed, heroin, meth and whatever are going to be used by criminals anyways so why have it illegal?! Responsible weed smokers shouldn't be punished, heck there's even responsible people holding jobs that use cocaine, meth, or heroin and noone really notices because they are "responsible" (until they overdose or become irresponsible). Heck, let's legalize murder and rape because law abiding citizens aren't committing those crimes, only criminals are and criminals will commit them whether it is illegal or not!
5) How is your life going to change if you are only limited to 3 or 4 guns, and you can only have rifles, handguns, and cannot have bazookas, uzi, or cop-killer bullets?! Will it really inconvenience your life?
1) Why do the American people have to have the right to defend the nation? We have a standing army, a National Guard, and many states have militias outside the National Guard system specifically to keep a state-level military inside state borders that can not be nationalized under the National Guard. Oh, and the NY city police force alone is larger and more sophisticated than most of the world's military. Can they not do a good enough job, are you SERIOUSLY insulting our men and women in the military? Shame on you! You'll get in the way and no you're not as good as the FICTIONAL boys in Red Dawn.
2) Why do you think you have the right to "defend" yourself from the very same government you live under? That's called that treason and is un-American. Unless you live in New Hampshire you don't have the right to overthrow the government if you think it's bad (their state constitution says you have that right). You have the right to move to Canada or vote for someone else.
3)Police exist. What do you think you can do against crime? Are you Batman? Even he doesn't use guns. Stop insulting our police officers, please. That's disrespectful.
4)Most important- If making guns illegal won't solve the problem of criminals having guns because they are criminals so we need to keep guns legal... ok, then having laws against drugs should be overturned for the same logic. Weed, heroin, meth and whatever are going to be used by criminals anyways so why have it illegal?! Responsible weed smokers shouldn't be punished, heck there's even responsible people holding jobs that use cocaine, meth, or heroin and noone really notices because they are "responsible" (until they overdose or become irresponsible). Heck, let's legalize murder and rape because law abiding citizens aren't committing those crimes, only criminals are and criminals will commit them whether it is illegal or not!
5) How is your life going to change if you are only limited to 3 or 4 guns, and you can only have rifles, handguns, and cannot have bazookas, uzi, or cop-killer bullets?! Will it really inconvenience your life?
They should call you Trollpoleon.
You have no idea how inconvenienced... What if I'm attacked by an uparmored allosaurus? Again, what if I'm attacked by an uparmored allosaurus? Then what?
I'll tell you what if I lived in a FREE country, I'll have my concealed carry bazooka in my pocket, do a quick roll, throw some pocket sand to distract, retrieve my CCB and punch a round right through that allosaurus's mid section. But thanks to bazooka grabber commies, Ima just get ate. Thanks commies.
EDIT
If you were being serious, then I apologize for my attempt at humor.
The vast majority of the land in the United States lies outside the jurisdiction of municipal police departments. Sheriffs and state-police are stretched further due to larger jurisdiction(often times they also patrol the cities) and not much larger budgets and personnel. Response times are much higher than the municipal police.