How would you change the Second Amendment ?

Napoleonrules and DValdron,

I may have committed a grave sin by referencing the sources I did. But you by not commenting on the implied question in the first part of my post regarding the Supreme Court's ruling regarding the duty of the police have choose to ignore something for which you may have no answer. If the police have no duty to protect you, who's duty is it? By what means is that duty accomplished?

Does this count as a reference to original sources by academics https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013 (I know the FBI is not a academic institution but they are were academics go to get their data).
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Napoleonrules and DValdron,

I may have committed a grave sin by referencing the sources I did. But you by not commenting on the implied question in the first part of my post regarding the Supreme Court's ruling regarding the duty of the police have choose to ignore something for which you may have no answer. If the police have no duty to protect you, who's duty is it? By what means is that duty accomplished?

Does this count as a reference to original sources by academics https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013 (I know the FBI is not a academic institution but they are were academics go to get their data).
I had a look at the court case. It was that the police did not have a duty to provide "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" but a duty to not impair those things.
It's about the meaning of a specific clause.
 
Because the Founders knew that if only the government had the use of force of arms then there would be no true freedom.

Bullshit. What the founders knew very well was that if you have people pay for their own equipment and training and call them up only in time of need, then you save the government a lot of costs.

The rest is just dewy-eyed nonsense invented hundred years later on.
 
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.

You do know that Washington personally led the army to put down the Whiskey Rebellion right? He was a Founding Father and he led the army for the very reason- he wanted to make it clear that the people were now represented in state and Federal governments and that refusal to obey laws one does not like under the guise of "no taxation without representation" or the ideals of the US Revolution was not going to fly. Washington, if alive today, would not only hate the Tea Party, he'd be publicly outraged and b**ch slapping people!
 
The ad hominem is strong in this thread.

OP: I wouldn't change a thing unless I could replace it with a completely different second amendment with completely different scope and effect.
 
Let's dispel the myth of Switzerland as "pro-gun" right here and right now and never hear of it again, ok? The myth- "everyone in Switzerland owns a gun!" Switzerland issues all citizens a gun and ammo, yes. That gun and ammo are not to be used AT ALL unless the GOVERNMENT declares that Switzerland is being invaded. The GOVERNMENT comes to your home and checks every year that the ammo and gun have not been tampered or used. I would say the pro-gun lobby in the USA would never mention Switzerland if the Democrats in Congress said "Ok, yes, let's pass a bill to make gun ownership in the USA exactly like that of Switzerland". Swiss gun ownership is actually quite rare, in fact 29% of Swiss homes have a firearm of some kind versus 43% in the US.

You have you Army Gun at home in Switzerland but no ammo.


Storage of military-issued ammunition

Ready ammunition of the Swiss Army. Soldiers equipped with the Sig 550 assault rifle used to be issued 50 rounds of ammunition in a sealed can, to be opened only upon alert and for use while en route to join their unit. This practice was stopped in 2007.[10]
Prior to 2007 members of the Swiss Militia were supplied with 50 rounds of ammunition for their military weapon in a sealed ammo box that was regularly audited by the government. This was so that, in the case of an emergency, the militia could respond quickly. However, since 2007 this practice has been discontinued. Only 2,000 specialist militia members (who protect airports and other sites of particular sensitivity) are permitted to keep their military-issued ammunition at home. The rest of the militia get their ammunition from their military armory in the event of an emergency.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland#Army-issued_arms_and_ammunition_collection
 
Last edited:
In Ireland before American independence the Penal laws banned all Catholics for owning firearms. That was most of the population at the time.
I think part of the reason for the right to bear arms was not wanting some thing like the Penal laws to happen in the US.

Catholics barred from holding firearms or serving in the armed forces (rescinded by Militia Act of 1793)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_Laws_(Ireland)
 
In Ireland before American independence the Penal laws banned all Catholics for owning firearms. That was most of the population at the time.
I think part of the reason for the right to bear arms was not wanting some thing like the Penal laws to happen in the US.

Catholics barred from holding firearms or serving in the armed forces (rescinded by Militia Act of 1793)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_Laws_(Ireland)

I have no proof, but I would bet good money that you're right that something along the lines of the Penal laws in Ireland did in fact enter the minds of at least some of the Founding Fathers. Some probably didn't give a flying spaghetti monster about the Catholics in Ireland specifically but probably did worry there would be different groups in different states specifically attacked by laws.

The 13 original states were not very progressive before the US Revolution remember. At the time of the US Constitution Rhode Island didn't naturalize Jews or give them the vote, and another three also did not allow Jews to vote prior to the US Revolution and five states did not allow Catholics to vote prior to the USR. So it really wasn't a matter of the US Constitution spelling out what every one already wanted, it was a matter of making things better for the most part. Even though the US Constitution did not apply to the states other than what it specifically barred the states from doing and the Bill of Rights did not apply at all to the states; it was meant to be a role model for the states.
 

jahenders

Banned
So, you would impose new rules while having ZERO impact on the 10s of millions of current guns?

I would just get rid of it, its completely unnecessary in the 21st century

In the 18th century, in a largely rural nation, before any kind of police force, and one that had only just fought a civil war against "tyranny", I can get why there was a strong argument for bearing arms.
There is now really no need for a "right to bear arms", its just far too problematic. This doesn't mean people should be banned from owning firearms, just that they should be a hell of a lot harder to get.
 

jahenders

Banned
I'll assume this is largely a troll, but answer anyways:

1) This was written in the late 1700s -- we certainly didn't have a standing army then and the militia was often simply an assembly of armed men

2) Again, at the time the document was written, the notion that the people might have to defend themselves from the excesses of government (in that recent case, the British crown) was fresh in mind.

3) Police DO exist and people get killed anyway EVERY DAY. Police exist, but are not everywhere. Sometimes there's no one between you and the bad guy.

4) Your argument is illogical. The argument you attack is that it's essentially an arms race -- criminals are GOING to have guns, so you need a gun to defend yourself. No similar logic applies to drugs, rape, etc -- the fact that bad guys rape, doesn't mean you need to rape to be safe.

5) No impact

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?
 
if you wanted to limit the use of guns in America limiting ammo supply would be a useful first step.
In Ireland you need to have a gun licence to buy ammo and you need to sign for it and the amount you buy is noted.
Also you can only buy ammo for the you of gun you own.
 
The biggest contributor to gun violence which too many people miss is poverty. When there is poverty people are desperate to live another day and when they're desperate they use any means necessary which leads to deaths by you know whats.....

Gun control and poverty control should ALWAYS go together.
 
The problem is, as others have pointed out, that the Founding Fathers assumed a militia would be the primary form of defence.

When the War of 1812 demonstrated what an incredibly weak reed the militia was, it nullified half the point of the amendment, but no one ever fixed it.


I would suggest that there are two good times for changing the amendment - 1) the first is immediately after the War of 1812, when militia have proven unreliable, so you could modify it to something appropriate minus the militia (not a high probability, but there you are), or 2) after the ACW. Get some judge to say that taking guns away from southerners was unconstitutional, and you could get that amendment repealed really quickly - along with OTL's 13th and 14th amendments.

Honestly, I'd just repeal the sucker. I don't think it serves much, if any, practical use today. But that's not going to happen.


If your question was how could the FFs have worded it more clearly, I think that's irrelevant. They built the Amendment to deal with the world as they thought it should work. It doesn't work that way (militia being almost useless), and so any wording they came up with wouldn't apply in the world as it is.
 
My Version

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. So Fu*K off you pinko commie liberal gun control a**Holes.


There - That should clear it up.
 
Since no one wants to actually attempt a 2A rewrite, allow me....

"The absolute right of every American citizen to possess a firearm for the defense of themselves and their home shall not be denied or infringed"
 
I always think that having gun ownership spiralling out of control is pretty moronic in the first place. Many other countries have gun crime, but it's much less than the US. The reason criminals carry guns is because they know that the people they are trying to commit crimes against are likely carrying guns too, so they are just carrying and using guns for their own protection, so that they can commit their crimes without getting killed or injured.

And it's not about land borders, like someone wrote here. The US is not unique in having long land borders, so does China, Russia, Mongolia, India and numerous other countries. But gun crime is pretty low in these countries (slightly higher in Russia, but that's mainly mafia on mafia, not some crazed loony going and shooting everyone in a school).

The solution is really quite simple. Ban gun ownership - full stop. If someone uses a gun in self defence, then throw the book at them. And if criminals still resort to using guns, then when they're caught have a minimum sentence of life imprisonment in solitary or something similar as a deterrent (if not just the outright death penalty - even just for firing a gun in a crime, where no one is injured). Criminals aren't stupid, they will refrain from using guns if they know they are going to get locked up for life with no possibility of parole or get executed just for firing a gun. Problem sorted.

In any case, as per the OP, we should be looking at ways to write the second amendment. As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't need rewriting, as it's quite clear:

'A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed'

It's not about guns at all! It's about being able to show your naked arms in public. If it's not clear, it could be possible rephrased as follows so there is no longer any confusion:

'Each State is required to maintain a militia, so that the people can quite happily show their uncovered arms in a T-Shirt without any fear of their arms being chopped off by tyrannical politicians and trust-fund babies re-enacting Hostel'.

I fully support the Second Amendment, as I love baring my arms in summer.
 

Ian the Admin

Administrator
Donor
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. So Fu*K off you pinko commie liberal gun control a**Holes.


There - That should clear it up.

Out of all the people on this site, American gun fans are consistently the most unable to discuss their pet subject without frothing at the mouth.

So it's yet another kick for insults.
 
Top