Rephrase the 2nd amendment

"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."



I have a problem the proficiency requirements because it dilutes the original meaning of the second and allows congress to set the bar wherever they choose. That takes us back to the English version of the bill of rights where the right to keep and bear arms was regulated by Parliment.
 
I have to say (and I mean this in all seriousness, I'm not snarking at anyone) this is really a fascinating look into the way different folks think! I really want to thank everyone for participating!
 
I have a problem the proficiency requirements because it dilutes the original meaning of the second and allows congress to set the bar wherever they choose. That takes us back to the English version of the bill of rights where the right to keep and bear arms was regulated by Parliment.
Click to expand...

Proficiency only applies for those under 18. This group currently has restrictions that CANNOT be overridden. This simply allows those that are capable to achieve the full rights of adult citizens.
 
I had a thought ... maybe after Heller and the other cases to follow, it will be as if the Second Amendment says something like:

The privileges and immunities of law abiding Citizens of the United States shall extend to the right to keep operable firearms in the home.


It seems to me that Virginians had that right under King George, and during reconstruction when under military rule, but we did not have a free State, and we did not have the Second Amendment. If we reword the Second Amendment such that it is not violated by military rule, then I think we have lost the intent of the declaration.
 
OK, how about this...

"The right of self defense being a natural right, and necessary to the preservation of a free state, the ability of the people to keep and bear arms of their choosing in any and all places shall be deemed right and proper,and shall not be infringed by any law or regulation. This right shall not extend to minor children, nor to persons convicted of a felony crime of violence, nor to those adjudicated by law upon presentation of clear and incontrovertible evidence, to be unable to manage their own affairs or to be a clear and present danger to the safety of the people."


This covers everything I can think of, while keeping the most basic "common sense" restrictions. Feel free to parse this and find where it could be abused.

I do feel the original wording is quite adequate, however there appear to be some people who either cannot, or will not understand simple English, therefore, I tried to cover as many bases as I could with my version.

And FYI, for some of you, the term "well regulated" as used in the day meant trained to arms, and showing up for militia service with basic arms, ammo, cooking and camping gear, and being aware of the rudiments of military drill and commands. It was not used to mean rigid regulation or formal organization. Like a gunsmith "regulated" the barrels of a double rifle to shoot to the same point of aim, "well regulated" meant properly set up (equipped) to do the job that needed doing. It did (and does) not mean a government orgainzation like the National Guard (which wasn't created until quite some time later).
 
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?
Click to expand...
I completely agree and my recent analysis leads me to believe that we as citizens haven't been able to achieve anything lately with enforcement of limitations upon them in recent memory. What mechanism is sufficient for doing so? Elections are too spaced out for such purpose: the time gap is too long for people's short attention spans these days to correct wrongs, and encumbancy is too powerful in defeating such effort. Recall seems too far of a stretch as I have seldom heard of its use. Even with both of those it still seems to lack any kind of punch like a heavy fine or jail time would. They really do have too little to fear. For some reason they can send anyone else to jail for decades for two springs and a bent piece of metal yet blatant circumvention of the supreme law of the land doesn't get even get a slap on the wrist. That's about as bad of a ruling class as it gets.
 
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed in order to form a well-regulated militia, being necessary to a free state."

Just my .02:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top