Rephrase the 2nd amendment

The people who try to read the Second Amendment out of the BoR by making it a "collective" right (despite the fact that the BoR says "people" when it means people, and "States" when it means states) don't realize that they're inviting the same treatment for other amendments once the precedent is set.
Click to expand...
That's correct. Further, states, that is to say governments, don't have rights, they have powers granted to them by people. We've all heard at least something about the argument of states rights, but that's actually an argument over who power has been granted to, the federal or state governments; no government can have a right since a right is a condition of the human existence and intrinsic only to humans.

The argument over the militia mentioned in the Second Amendment should have been settled long ago. The Second Amendment's use of "a militia" as opposed to "the militia" in the main body of the Constitution, Article I, section 8, is important. The use of the indefinite article, "a" means no specific militia, it references the general concept of the militia in America. In Article I, section 8; the definite article "the" is used to identify militia's trained, regulated, and armed by the states or federal government as a military force.

The uses of the two grammatical articles, "a" and "the", are subtle but extremely important in order to fully understand what the Second Amendment does and says.
 
Last edited:
states, that is to say governments, don't have rights, they have powers granted to them by people. We've all heard at least something about the argument of states rights, but that's actually an argument over who power has been granted to, the federal or state governments; no government can have a right since a right is a condition of the human existence and intrinsic only to humans.
Click to expand...

I don't know where y'all get these definitions, but States' rights are the foundation of our frame of government. In a federal system, States have reserved rights of sovereignty. That is what the Tenth Amendment is about, the reserved rights of the States. Yes, I know the Tenth says "powers", but if you look further, the Tenth is in the Bill of Rights, many of the requests for the Tenth used the word "rights", and the Tenth was intended to replace the Second Article of Confederation which said that the States retain their rights. And the Tenth Amendment is the "States' Rights Amendment". So I don't see how a person can say that the USBOR does not regard States' rights, that States can't have rights, or anything of that nature, because it defies our history and our Constitution. The term "States' rights" has been in the dictionary for over 150 years now.
 
In Order to Maintain and Create a Free State and a Sense of Well Being,

No Government ,State , Federal or World

No Law

No Courts or Tribunals

No Person other then My Self Shall be granted the Power to Relinquish a Individuals

Abilities of Self Preservation by Any Means! End.


This is as close as I can come. I'm sure someone can find holes it it!:rolleyes:
 
Rather than rewrite an already well-written 2nd Amendment, how about we require politicians to understand the English language and American History?

Nah, I guess not. We wouldn't have enough people to run the place (into the ground, generally).
 
Be they government, law enforcement, treasury or any other agency or individual, No World, Federal, State, Local or any other entity shall deny any individual the ownership, possession, or use of weapons equivelant to those in use by contemporary American infantry, cavalry, or artillary units.
 
The people have the right to keep and bear arms.

Can anyone find anything wrong with this?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think giving a loaded firearm to a 2 year old as a present would be child abuse.
 
I agree! Written in sixth grade English is just to much for them! It reads just fine to me!
Click to expand...
+1. What's sad is that such an elegantly written amendment was so easily understood for over a hundred years, but now seems nearly incomprehensible to so many people. Science has advanced from kites with keys flown in thunderstorms to study electricity back in the 1700s to its current state of interplanetary robots and wireless phones smaller than a human hand. But when it comes to our native language, spoken constantly every day for centuries, we've regressed to the point where your average citizen might well be considered marginally functional if transported back 200 years.
 
Yeah, I think giving a loaded firearm to a 2 year old as a present would be child abuse.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: You can't be serious....

Does a 2 y.o. have the right to refuse a search without a warrant?

Does a newborn have the right to petition the government for redress of grievances?

Do I have to spell it out for you... :confused:
 
I think perhaps the point of this exercise is not to improve on the elegant and straightforward language of the original but rather to break it down to a first grade level and making it genuinely idiot proof.
 
I think perhaps the point of this exercise is not to improve on the elegant and straightforward language of the original but rather to break it down to a first grade level and making it genuinely idiot proof.
Click to expand...

Well, sort of, but I know that you can't really make anything idiot proof. I trained enough personnel to know that some folks could tear up a stainless steel bowling ball.

Really I just wanted to see what/how folks would change it if they could. I hear lots of arguments about the 2'nd amendment but not too many people actually go the next step and suggest changes/solutions if they feel it might be helpful.

personally I have no issue with the way it's written, but I wanted to get the ball rolling and see what results from this little thought experiment.
 
Yeah, I think giving a loaded firearm to a 2 year old as a present would be child abuse.
Click to expand...
You can't be serious....

Does a 2 y.o. have the right to refuse a search without a warrant?

Does a newborn have the right to petition the government for redress of grievances?

Do I have to spell it out for you...
Click to expand...

Not particularly serious, but the answer to your first two questions are yes? (even if done via proxy / guardian, the right to not be searched without just cause or warrant and to petition the govt for redress of grievances is still a right of even newborns)

The thing is, if you are going to rewrite the 2nd amendment, don't try to make it as minimal as possible, try to make it as clear as possible.

- If there is an age / competency requirement, say so
- Define what is meant by arms (small scale or nuclear)
- Define the word "bear"

For instance:

"The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, or have passed proficiency requirements as set by the congress, to manufacture, import, buy, sell own or carry firearms and accessories, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States."
 
Last edited:
The thing is, if you are going to rewrite the 2nd amendment, don't try to make it as minimal as possible, try to make it as clear as possible.
Click to expand...

I disagree. It should be kept as minimal as possible. How different would things be in this country if the second amendment didn't mention the militia, just The People.

As for the others, arms means arms, keep means keep and bear means bear.
 
Last edited:
As for the others, arms means arms, keep means keep and bear means bear.
Click to expand...

Except it isn't obvious to states that don't allow you to arm yourself with certain rifles, keep more than 10 round magazines, or generally carry weapons.

If it were clear, these state laws wouldn't exist.
 
Ultimately it doesn't matter how it's phrased.
Click to expand...
I agree with this part of what you are saying, but not the rest.

It doesn't matter how it is phrased because the right exists independent of the founding documents.
 
TBM,
It doesn't matter how it is phrased because the right exists independent of the founding documents.
Click to expand...

Feelin' a little argumentative today :)

The Constitution doesn't protect our rights. It's merely a contract between the government and the people. The government only respects our rights when we force them to do so. You be the judge; how effective are the people at holding their government in compliance?
An unenforced contract is merely (to quote our President) "a Go^&amned piece of paper".

So to summarize, you don't have a right if the government denies it to you...practically speaking.
 
This over the top behavior is very telling.
Click to expand...

Over the top? I take it you disagree with my version.

Which part?

The part that explicitly specifies a citizenship requirement?
The part that explicitly includes magazine sizes, butt stocks, ammunition, barrel shrouds as untouchable?
The part that explicitly allows carry on a federal level?
The part that explicitly says it doesn't matter where the gun was manufactured?
The part that says you can buy as many as you want?
The part that says if you are 18 you have unlimited rights?
The part that says if you qualify and are under 18 you also have unlimited rights? (under the age of majority)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top