If you had written the Second Amendment What would it say?

C

cold dead hands

Moderator
Imagine you have the ability to influence one the worlds newest governments when you work on the wording of the documents that are the foundation of this new government along with the other founding fathers.


Pretend that you understand that weapons will be improved exponentially and your current designs will be relics someday. Even the men who lived then understood that technology marches forward.

Pretend that you understand that are evil men/women who will seek power wherever they can find it, including your new government if they get in. Pretend that you know these people will seek to control the people, the government and the future of both.

How do you word the Second Amendment?
 
I think I would keep it simple.

''No free man shall be denied the ownership or public carry of arms. No federal or state powers may infringe upon these rights. All able bodied citizens are to be considered the militia and are repsonsible for defending against tyranny from within or ouside of the governments and country.''

How's that for a start? I am sure someone can do better.
 
I would leave it the way it was written! Any one that can read 3rd grade English know exactly what is says! We The People! The only words in question is "WELL REGULATED" Put WE THE PEOPLE IN FRONT OF THAT AND THERE IS NO PROBLEM!!!!:D

WE THE PEOPLE! NOT WE THE GOVERNMENT! NOT WE THE FEDERALS!!
 
Citizens shall have the right to keep and bear arms as they see fit. Government attempts to infringe on this right shall have a MINIMUM sentence for violators and conspirators of life in prison without chance of parole.
 
I'd leave it as is. The militia clause anchors the Amendment in law that nothing else would approach in solidity. It effectively tells the federal AND state governments that they cannot take away arms from the people, who are the militia.

It's my opinion, that in the face of the overweening government we have today, removal of the militia clause would seriously weaken the protections required by the Amendment as it stands.
 
Pat H: At least it should be ammended to say that the militia is all non-government able bodied citizens. Otherwise it is likely to be applied to government only. That would be the opposite of the original intent.
 
2A

"The right of the people to keep in their homes arms and ammunition for recreation, sustenance, and defense are federally guaranteed, not to be limited by states or municipalities."
 
"The right of the people to keep and bear fully automatics shall not be infringed upon!" Because they are just soooo much fun.:D

Some Knob Creek pictures
Feature%20gun%204.img_assist_view.jpg


mini_guns.jpg


g1.jpg
 
If I had a time machine, here is how I would edit it to make the banners STFU over the "regulated" part.

"A well organized Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed in any way."
 
The liberty of a nation is properly ensured when the people retain the means to overwhelm a corrupt or tyrannical government, by force if necessary, therefore the right of the people to keep and bear their own arms shall not be infringed.
 
The liberty of a nation is properly ensured when the people retain the means to overwhelm a corrupt or tyrannical government, by force if necessary, therefore the right of the people to keep and bear their own arms shall not be infringed. ~BillCA
Click to expand...

I like that, Bill! I believe I'd change "the people" to "individual citizens" in the second instance.
 
Individual freedoms are real only when citizens have the means of effective self-defense from oppression by local criminals, from the outside by hostile forces or by government run amok. The preservation of individual freedom is essential to the freedom of the population at large. Therefore, the individual right to keep and bear arms appropriate for self-defense or service in a militia shall not be infringed by government.
 
I'd replace "the people" with "human beings," so that the court couldn't suggest that "the people" who have fundamental human rights to self-defense are only those attached to the United States in some way.
 
"All individual citizens of this country have the undisputed right to bear all forms of combat armament. No law shall be passed that infringes upon this right. Those that attempt to do so shall be found guilty of treason and executed."

How's that?
 
"Recognizing that this amendment does not grant the right but reaffirms the right, the right of the individual person to keep weapons, bear weapons in any manner and use the weapons of their choice, shall not be infringed.
 
The people have the right to bear arms in their warm, living extremities.

But -

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top