How would you change the Second Amendment ?

Cook

Banned
...you pinko commie liberal gun control a**Holes.

Oh god, I'm a pinko commie liberal gun control arsehole; however will I tell my parents?
:eek:

Note: there should be another * in a**hole.

For the record, I am a deeply conservative arsehole.

Anyway, as the ACLU has always maintained (1), the 2nd amendment grants the states the right to maintain and regulate their own militias, it does not grant individuals the cart blanch right to posses whatever personal arms they so desire; the wording therefore should have been clearer from the start. It probably only requires the addition of a full stop instead of a comma.

(1) https://www.aclu.org/second-amendment
 
Last edited:
One point I think we are over looking is that the" Bill Of Rights " only listed rights the Founders wanted to be spelled out but did not limit our rights to only those listed. As they stated these rights were inalienable rights, rights endowed by the Creator and as such no matter what a Government might think about or do to curtail or abolish them they are still inherited rights of every man. So you can't change the right to arms by passing laws as we are born with this right and the Governments of man can't change that.
 
One point I think we are over looking is that the" Bill Of Rights " only listed rights the Founders wanted to be spelled out but did not limit our rights to only those listed. As they stated these rights were inalienable rights, rights endowed by the Creator and as such no matter what a Government might think about or do to curtail or abolish them they are still inherited rights of every man. So you can't change the right to arms by passing laws as we are born with this right and the Governments of man can't change that.

:confused: :confused: :confused:

I'm thinking perhaps the Bible and the Constitution has perhaps gotten confused in this posting. 1) the Bill of Rights are rights given to people under the control of the US government and not to anyone else (the Bill of Rights including the Second Amendment doesn't extend to a Tibetan in China for instance). 2) You can't change an amendment through passing a law because it's an amendment. But you can by passing a new amendment and therefore yes, a government of man can change that. 3) the Ten Commandments and the 613 laws of the Torah do not mention a right to bear arms, freedom of speech, association, or right of habeas corpus, neither do I believe Jesus or any major religion specified these rights except perhaps some form of habeas corpus in Jewish law (maybe). 4) Many of the Founding Fathers were at best Deists, at worst closeted atheists or outright agnostics. Washington and Jefferson most likely did not acknowledge the divinity of Christ. 5) Where in the Bill of Rights does it say those rights were given by the Lord, of any religion? 6) The Declaration of Independence is not a legally binding document on the US government and NO Supreme Court decision has ever rested on the wording of the DoI. 7) The US Constitution does not mention the Lord. The wording in the Preamble is clear that "We the People" are the source of what follows 8) "We the People" is a legal fallacy, the fact of the matter is that the individual states, prior to this sovereign states, were the source of the power that was given to the US Federal government, IN PERPETUITY (which is why states do NOT have the right of nullification). 9) Keep your god out of my state. 10) If your god wanted you to have a gun he'd have you born with one, but no you're not born with the right to have a gun even in the USA because all Constitutional protections are not in full effect for minors which is why you can't be a 5 year old with an uzi walking down the street.
 
In order to find a compromise…

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. Ever. In any capacity. In any situation. Under any manner of agreement.

Additions in bold.

…a lot more clearly…

A well balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.

Who has the right to food: ‘a well balanced breakfast’ or ‘the people’?

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.

Utter nonsense.

A government that went around disarming the populace en mass was a government up to no good.

Because as we all know, that stopped being a problem ~36 years ago. /s

…less and less of a reason for most Americans to own a gun….if it wasn’t for all the criminals with guns.

Guess where they generally get them. Hint: it’s not legally.

1) Why do the American people have to have the right to defend the nation?

Why do jews have the right to defend Israel? Why does anyone have the right to defend anything?

Can they not do a good enough job, are you SERIOUSLY insulting our men and women in the military? Shame on you!

Are you actually asking these questions seriously?

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.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Who is ’them’? The states. The people comprise the states. Thus, treason against the people may come from the government itself.

You have the right to move…

Please, PLEASE be joking.

3)Police exist.

And can do no wrong! Hooray!

What do you think you can do against crime?

I can shoot a guy who breaks into my house. And then he won’t be breaking into any more houses. And his friends will think twice about doing the same. Wow. Crime rate went down.

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!

Please be joking. Not about this statement out of context; about your use of this statement as an example of why not to have guns IN context.

Will it really inconvenience your life?

Rights are not a matter of convenience.

[subsequent post]

Could you please tell us if you were joking? I don’t want to be unjustly furious at you if you were.

Let’s dispel the myth of Switzerland as “pro-gun” right here and right now and never hear of it again, ok?

No, because it’s relevant.
 
Last edited:
@Napoleonrules: That's actually kinda exactly the opposite of the way the US Bill of Rights and Rights in General work.

Rights are not and never have been 'given' by States, Rights are inherent to all Humans and States have only ever attempted to curtail or outright deny people their rights. No State imbues one with the power to speak their mind, States have only ever attempt to prevent such actions.

Specifically relating to this thread, the Bill of Rights is not a document that gives people Rights, it is a list of some but not all of the rights the US Government cannot attempt to take away. This is why all of the Amendments are written in the Negative (except those explicitly relating to legal and judicial proceedings) and all specify things that cannot legally happen. The first Amendment for instance is;

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It does not say "People can say and believe whatever they want" it says "Congress cannot attempt to stop people from saying and believing whatever they want."

This may seem like a minor distinction however it is actually quite important.

All Rights are considered inherent to the Person to begin with. This is just a list of specific rights that the US Government is expressly forbidden from attempting to curtail.

This is also why the Ninth Amendment exists, to specifically state that this is not a list of all the rights that people have, and why the Ninth was used to guarantee the Right to Privacy, and has also been used to strike down laws against the Right to things like Abortion.
 
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.

I think the laws drugs are a factor in the amount of guns used in crime in the US.
 
@Napoleonrules: That's actually kinda exactly the opposite of the way the US Bill of Rights and Rights in General work.

Rights are not and never have been 'given' by States, Rights are inherent to all Humans and States have only ever attempted to curtail or outright deny people their rights. No State imbues one with the power to speak their mind, States have only ever attempt to prevent such actions.

Specifically relating to this thread, the Bill of Rights is not a document that gives people Rights, it is a list of some but not all of the rights the US Government cannot attempt to take away. This is why all of the Amendments are written in the Negative (except those explicitly relating to legal and judicial proceedings) and all specify things that cannot legally happen. The first Amendment for instance is;



It does not say "People can say and believe whatever they want" it says "Congress cannot attempt to stop people from saying and believing whatever they want."

This may seem like a minor distinction however it is actually quite important.

All Rights are considered inherent to the Person to begin with. This is just a list of specific rights that the US Government is expressly forbidden from attempting to curtail.

This is also why the Ninth Amendment exists, to specifically state that this is not a list of all the rights that people have, and why the Ninth was used to guarantee the Right to Privacy, and has also been used to strike down laws against the Right to things like Abortion.

It seems to me that conservatives fail to understand that history exists prior to the 1700s. Governments were not created by people to do nothing. They were created to control the population. Greece didn't invent government either. There is no reason to believe that Sumer believed that the people had rights encoded thousands of years later. Rights are not inherent to people nor are they inherited at birth or given by any god and it's nonsense to say any individual has an right beyond what a government will allow them to have. It is nonsense to believe that trying to overthrow the US government for ANY reason will not be treated as treason. Right wing crack
 
Right after a major shooting, like any normal country.....

Sorry that was a dig. But as a Scottish person really can't get America's obsession with guns. Uncle lives in Texas, has like a million guns. What possible need could he have for them.
 
Napoleanrules., If you've read the papers of the Founders you would know that they considered the rights recognized in the Constitution were not granted by the government but by their Creator. As they stated in the Federalist papers and their own writings it was because of this belief that they separated from their government, the English Crown. They knew that no right granted by man was inviolate, only those endowed by the Creator were. That is why they made sure to say so in their founding documents. If you doubt this just read their writings.
 
[FONT=&quot]

Here are a few quotes from our Founders on the right to bear arms which we all should consider in this discussion.


Alexander Hamilton said, “The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed," adding later, "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] Thomas Jefferson: “What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."[/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot] James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," said, “(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”[/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot] George Mason, author of the Virginia Bill of Rights, which served as inspiration for the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights, said, “To disarm the people -- that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them,” later saying, “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”[/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot] Richard Henry Lee said, “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”[/FONT]​
 
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.

All societies have poor people. All countries have their "bad neighborhoods" where poverty is highly concentrated, and where crime rates are elevated. When it comes to assault, robbery, rape, and so forth, there's not much of a difference between the rates found in bad neighborhoods from one country to another. But there is a big difference in the homicide rate: it's several times higher in the United States than in any other Western country, even when you control for neighborhood income. So poverty can't be the only explanation.

Now, it's certainly true that gang membership is highly correlated with poverty, and gangs commit a large share of homicides in the United States. But there are gangs in all Western countries, who do many of the same illegal things, like sell drugs - but gangs in most other Western countries don't kill as many people as their American counterparts do. Again, homicide is the one crime statistic where the U.S. is way ahead of the rest of Western civilization. The simplest explanation for that is that guns are much easier to obtain here. It's easier to kill with a gun than with a knife.

Having said this, American society crossed the Rubicon a long time ago in this respect. Even if it were politically possible to ban firearms now, there are so many guns out there that it'd take forever to actually get a meaningful number of them off the streets. The Fourth Amendment pretty much ensures that.
 
Last edited:
My suggestion:

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.

Changed to

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of each man to keep and bear arms, subject to reasonable limitations proscribed by both State and Federal government, shall be recognised."

This compromise should give the government scope to bring firearms ownership into a pattern more consistent with most other western nations, while reassuring tinfoilers that SCOTUS will be independently responsible for determining what regulations are "reasonable", and not some power-hungry 'tyrannical' Executive.
 
Again, homicide is the one crime statistic where the U.S. is way ahead of the rest of Western civilization. The simplest explanation for that is that guns are much easier to obtain here. It's easier to kill with a gun than with a knife.

There is zero correlation between gun ownership and gun death. There is zero correlation between homicide and gun ownership.

There is correlation between homicide and gun control, however.
 
I vote for kreepysam's version.

Actually, ideally I'd have listed amendment 2 as a right to vote that cannot be infringed, listed as the second amendment, and a right to bear arms with reasonable limitations would be listed as the third amendment.

But that's a whole other discussion.
 
Last edited:

jahenders

Banned
But then, of course, it's also a contributor to knife violence, club violence, and fist violence -- so naturally, control of those things should be linked to poverty control

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.
 
Well considering it says owning firearms as part of a well armed militia, and the States has a standing army, the militia part and the whole owning fire arms part to me seems completely redundant. But the NRA won't ever accept that, claiming it is a violation of their rights. Rights which are null and void if they would only read their own damned constitution.
 
Napoleanrules., If you've read the papers of the Founders you would know that they considered the rights recognized in the Constitution were not granted by the government but by their Creator. As they stated in the Federalist papers and their own writings it was because of this belief that they separated from their government, the English Crown. They knew that no right granted by man was inviolate, only those endowed by the Creator were. That is why they made sure to say so in their founding documents. If you doubt this just read their writings.

The Constitution does not mention any type of Creator. I've seen your comments on this and other threads show you to be a right-wing holy roller, so I have nothing to say to you, you won't debate, just throw out right-wing propaganda. And I first read the Federalist Papers when I was 10.
 
The USA believes otherwise, so your statement is irrelevant within the context of this conversation.



Rights are not needs.

The USA government does not believe nor recognize that the Lord or any supernatural being gave the rights in the Constitution. The Constitution gives Americans rights. That's how the system works. An Amendment can be passed and voted by the states and become an amendment that gives the right to all have cars, or can take away the right to have guns. An amendment can be made at any moment that can take away any right. Now that's the opposite of god-given.

The US Constitution does not give all rights and protections to you at birth and therefore again that's not how things work. You can't vote, own a gun, smoke, drink, drive, live on your own, leave school, make your own medical or legal decisions, testify in court, you lack mens rea to commit a crime, you can't face the death penalty or be arrested or thrown in prison, you lack standing to sue, you can't sign a contract. In legal definition of a person in the US court system- a corporation is a person, but a minor is not. Weird fact but very true. http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/P/Person.aspx
 
The Constitution gives Americans rights.

Not even remotely accurate. The rights are inherent. The Constitution protects the rights, as well as protects the people from the abuse thereof by each other and, specifically, the government.

An Amendment can be passed and voted by the states and... ...take away the right to have guns.

Yes, but...

post-28939-good-luck-gif-Lucius-Fox-Morga-gWxv.gif


The US Constitution does not give all rights and protections to you at birth

I know it’s not in the Constitution, but ’endowed’ doesn’t just refer to genitalia and ‘inalienable’ doesn’t mean they didn’t have to jump over a wall to get here.
 
Top