The Second Amendment

M

mineralman

New member
Why can't it be expanded? Clarified? The Constitution is a great work, and works fairly well. However, the world has changed a very great deal in the last 210 years. The nature of "arms," have changed dramatically, and therefore so have their role in defending citizens from excesses of government. So, why not add a 28th amendment, expanding on the second? If the people cannot decide on a meaning for such an important bit of legislation, does it retain any meaning at all? The Second Amendment does allow the citizenry to bear arms. But due to its wording, squeamish judiciaries have managed to get around this all important Amendment. Why not stop them in their tracks? The Founding Fathers were truly great men, of this there can be no dispute. They were probably the preeminent men of their day, in fact. But, there can also be no dispute that these were men. They were not Gods, and infallible. They obviously did not mean for the Constitution to be an unchanging island of rigidity, with the rest of soceity morphing around it. They created it so as it would be able to grow, and change, even as the great nation that it embodies for has, from 13 little colonies of Mighty Britain, into the preeminent nation in all the world. Why not make use of the system that they gave us, amending their creation, to truly secure to ourselves the rights that it protects?

~~~Mineralman
 
No, no, NO. That would be the death knell for the RKBA. Can you imagine what the amendment you propose would include in today's political environment? I shudder to think of it.

Everytime I read the Constitution, I am awed by the wisdom and wording of it. Take the 2nd Amend. for example since it's the one we talk about all the time anyway. The Founding Father's used the very simple word "arms". They didn't say "muskets" or "military arms" (Rosie wishes they did). They didn't even say firearms, therefore swords and knives are included. They didn't say the "right of the states" to keep and bear arms, they said it's the "right of the people". They made the BoR applicable to the lowest common denominator in the new Republic - the people. Let's keep it that way by not letting Congress screw it up for ever after.
 
Oh. I see now. Here i am talking about realism, and all the time tripping on my own idealism. *thinking to self: "Idiot."* Maybe i should just sit down and turn off my mouth for a bit.

~~~Mineralman
 
Don't feel bad mineralman. I too wish there were a way to put the whole gun control debate behind us. Then we could concentrate more time, money and energy on the many other important issues.
 
Why can't it be expanded? Clarified?

Because it's as expansive and clear as possible. "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

How can one "expand" that more? "Arms" encompasses all weapons, from rocks to battleships. "The people" encompasses all citizens. "Shall not be infringed" forbids limitations.

How can it be clarified any more? People might have to pick up an old dictionary to understand "well-regulated" as written; that's not hard. "Militia"? pretty clear that "the people" form the "militia".

The problem isn't that it's hard to understand. The problem is that people don't want to understand it.

The Constitution is a great work, and works fairly well.

Ain't broke; don't fix it.

However, the world has changed a very great deal in the last 210 years. The nature of "arms," have changed dramatically, and therefore so have their role in defending citizens from excesses of government.

I totally disagree.

The world has not changed much. We may be able to move goods, people and information from here to there faster, but people still behave essentially the same. Hoodlums still mug people on dark streets, and armies still invade other countries. The modern effects are equivalent to ancient effects of such violence.

As one who studies swords as well as guns, I've concluded there is little advantage of a gun over a sword when both sides use essentially the same weapons.

As for defending people from excesses of government, nothing has changed there either. Tyrants were just as effective at oppressing people with swords and torches back then as they are today with guns and grenades. Being armed with rifles let the Branch Dividians hold off a modern army - complete with tanks and helicopters - for 50+ days. Afghanistan drove out a superpower's military by using mostly just small arms.

The tools have changed; the needs and results have not.

So, why not add a 28th amendment, expanding on the second?

What's to expand? It's not that the 2nd is unclear, it's that they refuse to accept its meaning.

If the people cannot decide on a meaning for such an important bit of legislation, does it retain any meaning at all?

When someone decides that "the people" means "the state" in the 2nd Amendment, but means "the people" in other amendments, it's not that the meaning is undecided but that certain readers are desparately trying to make it say something other than what it plainly says. If someone is voluntarily stupid, you can't make him smart.

The Second Amendment does allow the citizenry to bear arms. But due to its wording, squeamish judiciaries have managed to get around this all important Amendment.

No, squeamis judiciaries have managed to plainly ignore the obvious. Thanks to a huge pile of precidents, creative liars can find some twisted way to justify a misinterpretation. It's like the linguistic exercise of taking a word, finding chains of synonyms, and eventually coming up with the antonym of the first word.

Why not stop them in their tracks?

How? They are willfully irrational. Anything we say gets twisted.

The Founding Fathers were truly great men, of this there can be no dispute. They were probably the preeminent men of their day, in fact. But, there can also be no dispute that these were men. They were not Gods, and infallible. They obviously did not mean for the Constitution to be an unchanging island of rigidity, with the rest of soceity morphing around it.

Yes, they provided ways to modify the Constitution: very difficult ways, but ways nontheless.

Why not make use of the system that they gave us, amending their creation, to truly secure to ourselves the rights that it protects?

Because given the chance to change the 2nd Amendment, the majority would lessen it into oblivion. How could it possibly be improved...and how could you possibly expect an "improvement" to pass? Instead of merely updating the definitions and grammar, we would end up with something like "Civilians have the right to own government-approved firearms for sporting purposes. Such firearms shall not include semi-automatics, ugly guns, handguns, assault weapons, sniper rifles, or any gun with (a) ability to hold more than one bullet, (b) greater than .22 caliber, and (c) muzzle velocity greater than 1000 fps. In other words, all you get is a muzzle-loading .22, and that must be registered with all appropriate governmental bodies. By the way, you can only have 10 bullets at any given time." See? That would give you the right to keep and bear arms...just in a way suitable for this "changed world".

The 2nd Amendment is completely clear and fine as is. Most who claim to find confusion and complexity do not want to clarify it, they want to change or eliminate it.
 
Ctdonath,
Couldn't have said it better.
As you indicated, the old statment that we all know well, rings true:

"If it ain't broke; don't fix it".




------------------
To own firearms is to affirm that freedom and liberty are not gifts from the state.
 
One of the primary objectives of the left is to have another Constitutional Convention, whereby the entire Constitution would be up for grabs. If the document (our Constitution)itself isn't enough to convince you of its true intent, clarity, and purpose...then I suggest that you read the Federalist Papers which discuss the intricacies of the development of the Constitution.

Agreeing with the leftist argument that such wording is somehow unclear and requires change, is just another ploy to add followers to their rhetorical ideology. If you believe in FREEDOM, then let freedom ring. The liberty bell of freedom IS our Constitution. Support it, defend it, preserve it, and protect it, but never, ever allow anyone or any argument change it.

Live free or die.
 
The only change I would consider in 2A would be to remove the subordinate clause, since that's where the confusion seems to occur.

------------------
"If your determination is fixed, I do not counsel you to despair. Few things are impossible to diligence and skill. Great works are performed not by strength, but perseverance."
-- Samuel Johnson
 
Speaking of reinterpretation of the 2nd....

I just saw a Washington, DC-held US Conference of Mayors on the subject of "gun safety in America".

The chilling jist of the "conference" can be thus listed:

1) The 2nd Amendment needs to be re-interpreted, once and for all, to mean what it really means: the States' right to have a National Guard.

2) This reinterpretation needs to occur at the Supreme Court level, hopefully before the next Republican administration.

3) Mayors are encouraged to sue gun manufacturers and even gun dealers for the increasing cost of gun violence.

4) Mayors who appear on TV need to stress the points of "Safety, safery, safety" and of "Children, children, children". Apparently, the USCoM feels that talking about "gun control" will cause the media to dub tha mayors "gun-grabbers", so calling it "safety" is more appealing. (LOL)

5) Mayors need to protect us, the citizens, against the "mental health" problem posed especially by the White Male, who, as President Clonton brilliantly pointed out after the Fort Worth Church shooting, is prone to unexpected explosions of rage.

6) The 2nd is clearly obsolete. For it to mean what the "gun people" want it to mean, the citizens should be allowed to keep and bear nuclear missiles, because mere "9mm and saturday night specials" clearly cannot fend off Government forces the way that muskets would have 200 years ago.

7) The Constitution is a "living, breathing, fluid and dynamic document" that has to be adapted to the times the Country faces.

All this egregious claptrap was put forth by a group of about 10-15 mayors, ALL DEMOCRATS, and all from large metropoles such as Chicago, DC, LA, Detroit etc. I have never seen such a frightening collection of schoolmarmy, overweight, bespectacled, self-righteous, verbous and un-American slobs all in the same place.

It all ended by these living bowling-pins patting each-other, the DNC and the Administration on the back for being the "most sensible and the most sensitive" on the issue of gun-safety since the founding of our country.

If you like what these gentlemen had to say, stay tuned for the State of the Union address tonight.... I bet there's a generous second helping on the way.

------------------
If you are younger than 20 and not a Liberal, you have no heart.

If you are older than 20 and STILL a Liberal, you have no brain.
 
There seems to be a good deal of confusion surroungding militias. The militia means able-bodied persons in the State may be called to active duty in times of emergency. It does NOT mean the National Guard. Here (VT) we have a retired military officer who is in charge of the state militia, and it is his duty to implement such a plan should the emergency arise.
 
The rulings (this century) that have gone against the standard interpretation of the 2nd were all at lower courts. The SC held in Miller, in the 1930's, that the only reason the law against an individual owning a sawn-off shotgun was constitutional was that such a weapon was not used in the military. They were wrong, both on whether a short-barrelled shotgun is used in the military, and in their interpretation that the 2nd restricts individuals to only military weapons. However, they certainly did not rule that the 2nd doesn't apply to individuals. Since they ruled against the appeal, their comments on the 2nd do not set precedent.

In the early 1990's there was a case that partially hinged on whether "the people" referred to in the 4th amendment included non-citizens living in the US. The majority opinion, which, IIRC, was written by Chief Justice Rehnquist, held that the "people" in the 4th meant the same as "the people" in the 1st, 2nd, 5th, and 8th. Which, he said, is all individuals living in the country. This opinion sets no precedent WRT the 2nd, because the 2nd wasn't at issue, and because they ruled against the appeal (the land that was "unreasonably searched" was, in fact, not in this country).

Dang, it's hard for a dragon to type this much. ;)

[This message has been edited by Gorthaur (edited January 27, 2000).]
 
The only change I would consider in 2A would be to remove the subordinate clause, since that's where the confusion seems to occur.

I do protest!

The subordinate clause - while worded archaicly - points to the ultimate goal: that every able citizen be able to prepare himself for combat via his own choice and means. Since a world-average soldier is equipped with a handgun, "assault rifle" and often some specialty weapon, I - as a mundane US citizen - should be allowed (or even encouraged) to own a Glock (for basic mundane protection), M16 (for standard military combat) and a .50BMG or other "sniper" rifle (for my preferred specialty of precise long-distance target shooting). Why? Because I may be called on to "serve my country" and I can do that a whole lot faster and more effectively if I just bring my own guns that I'm already familiar with, as opposed to a "draft" where I must be equipped, taught, and directed.

Note also that a "militia member" may be called upon for a wide range of protective services, from repelling an invading army to stopping a mugger in the parking lot. The National Guard is sometimes called out to assist police (LA Riots), and sometimes both police and NG are impotent and the "militia" must simply do what needs doing (Hurricane Andrew).

Without the militia clause, it's far easier for the anti's to say "we already have a sufficient military & police; you can only own guns for sport." With the clause, it becomes clear that WE _are_ the militia.

Ain't broke. Don't fix it.
 
I stand duly chastised. :)

------------------
"If your determination is fixed, I do not counsel you to despair. Few things are impossible to diligence and skill. Great works are performed not by strength, but perseverance."
-- Samuel Johnson
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top