Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 12/15/2001 4:06:42 AM EDT
and wiggle your way into the meeting hall where the Founding Fathers were debating the Bill of Rights, what changes would you advise them to make in the 2nd (actually, the 4th at the time, as there were 12 original amendments in the BoR)? I would tell them to add a few words for clarification: "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms in their homes or on their persons, shall not be infringed." This way, it would be next to impossible for antis to even exist, let alone use phony arguments like "National Guard" or "collective right." Again, what would you tell them?
Link Posted: 12/15/2001 4:24:15 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/15/2001 4:56:35 AM EDT
There is really nothing you can add to it to avoid the current trouble. No matter what you wrote the liberal dem judges on the federal courts would try to twist it. The latest argument is that the term 'people' in the second is a different 'people' than what is used in the rest of the constitution, and therefore the second 'people' means society itself as a force, so society itself, acting through its elected reps can ban firearms, because in a way it is merely making a choice for itself regarding its own right. Then you have clowns on the 3rd and 6th circuit saying things like 'the second is not an absolute right, so there is no individual right of action attached to it' Ummmmm....the right to life is not absolute, liberty? nope....abortion? nope....right of a federal judge to hold office? nope, not absolute.
Link Posted: 12/15/2001 5:06:03 AM EDT
Happy, I am NOT one of those people who thinks we have a right to bear arms because of the 2nd Amendment. We have an inalienable, God-given right to protect ourselves, our families, and our property. Just as one wouldn't take a knife to a gunfight, my right to defend myself would be subverted without RKBA. The 2nd is just around for the ride. It did not establish this right to self-defense and does not protect it. I am just playing the what if game...
Link Posted: 12/15/2001 5:12:11 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/15/2001 10:18:51 AM EDT
Yo, founder dudes. Leave out the "well regulated". You and I know it means "reliable, accurate" but take it from me, the meaning will shift. Here, use my Liquid Paper.
Link Posted: 12/15/2001 10:40:53 AM EDT
I'd go for: "Every man, woman and child has the right to defend themselves, and those around them, at all times and all places with any weapon usable in defense of life or limb." Kharn
Link Posted: 12/15/2001 1:31:24 PM EDT
I'd make it similar to the wording in the Ohio State Constitution: 1.04 Bearing arms; standing armies; military powers (1851) The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power. But even with those indisputable terms, Cleveland still found it possible to ban 'assault weapons' and CCW is currently a one-way ticket to court.
Link Posted: 12/15/2001 1:36:37 PM EDT
I'd like to see "the people" changed to "individual citizens"
Link Posted: 12/15/2001 1:41:35 PM EDT
"all arms are legal to own"
Link Posted: 12/15/2001 2:31:31 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/15/2001 3:15:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/15/2001 3:24:57 PM EDT by Imbroglio]
I would have inserted this into the text of the Constitution: "The word "rights", as mentioned within these Amendments, shall be defined as collective priviledges bestowed upon the populace by those elected to legislative, judicial and executive positions within the Republic and who by acheiving such a position, speak on the behalf of the Creator."
Link Posted: 12/15/2001 3:28:29 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin: and wiggle your way into the meeting hall where the Founding Fathers were debating the Bill of Rights, what changes would you advise them to make in the 2nd (actually, the 4th at the time, as there were 12 original amendments in the BoR)? I would tell them to add a few words for clarification: "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms in their homes or on their persons, shall not be infringed." This way, it would be next to impossible for antis to even exist, let alone use phony arguments like "National Guard" or "collective right." Again, what would you tell them?
View Quote
I would have them ad the clarification of the much debated question, "Is this an individual right. "Peoples right for self, and property protection, being necessary to the security of a free State, the individuals right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Link Posted: 12/15/2001 4:01:00 PM EDT
If we support changing it, there will be those who will sneer 'You see, it never really said what they said it did anyway!' The language is clear and concise. As is. Eric The(Sorry,Sarah,But'theBear'NeedsABedpan!)Hun­[>]:)]
Link Posted: 12/15/2001 4:12:44 PM EDT
I have to agree with EricThe(Always_Got_something_ to_Say)Hun. The 2nd is clear and concise as is. We need to stop electing idiots who can't read. Reading Is Fundamental, but if you don't understand what is read, it don't matter. Hey Eric, where do you get all your ideas for your extra input?? I love it!! [smoke]
Link Posted: 12/15/2001 4:48:06 PM EDT
Some good suggestions. I would also add to any of them the following: Any Politician or Judge at the Federal,State Or Local level that utters one word or makes any gesture to suggest infringing on the RKBA shall be hanged by the neck until dead from the nearest lamp post.
Top Top