Time to rewrite the 2nd Amendment -----

[randys1]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-five-extra-words-that-can-fix-the-second-amendment/2014/04/11/f8a19578-b8fa-11e3-96ae-f2c36d2b1245_story.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.”

I probably will never get my way, which is to eliminate all hand guns and most rifles, but this works too...

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. With the caveat, of course

that anyone serving in the Militia is eligible to be called up for military service overseas.

[Bacchus4.0]

2. Nah, this is better

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

[randys1]

3. But that isnt what the constitution says EVEN NOW without changing it

[The_Commonist]

4. Exactly!

The gun-humpers always manage to forget about the well-regulated militia part.
Unfortunately, it's poorly worded.

As I'm posting on many of these gun threads...

"When did a 'well-regulated militia' become an unregulated, well armed populace?"

[unblock]

5. they read it something like this:

1. a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state;

2. the right of the people to keep and bear any and all manner of arms shall not be infringed;

3. this amendment shall be the supreme law of the land, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding;

4. clause one of this amendment is hereby repealed.

[randys1]

6. and

5. my right to play with my gun, shooting at wooden ducks trumps your right to live or your 6 yr old grandsons

[immoderate]

35. You misread the context of "regulated."

To assume it means "restricted" here, relegates the amendment to nonsense. Alternative interpretations imply a sense of qualification or adjustment. It also helps make sense out of Hamilton's references to the militia in Fed. 29.

--imm

[unblock]

40. where did i do what?

all i did is point out that many people interpret the part that comes before "the right to keep..." to be completely devoid of any constitutional or legal significance, and is as meaningful as if it hadn't existed at all, or had been repealed.

i am aware of the various meanings at the time of words such as regulated and militia, and i fail to see how that bolsters any argument that the framers put that bit in there for no purpose whatsoever.

[immoderate]

59. My apologies for the presumption.

I find most people jump to the meaning that is most common. In that sense I wasn't meaning "you," more like "that statement."

--imm

[dilby]

7. I think all men over 18 are part of a Militia, it's called Selective Service.

[Cannikin]

10. And only men can own guns...

[dilby]

11. If we made this Constitutional amendment I guess that would be the case.

Don't think it would solve the problem.

[TransitJohn]

13. Wrong. eom

n/t

[dilby]

16. You mean Right.

United States Code: Title 10 – Armed Forces
Subtitle A – General Military Law
Chapter 13 – The Militia

[TransitJohn]

61. No, wrong.

That has absolutely zero to do with the militia as referred to in the 2nd A.mendment. SSA is the DoD.

[TransitJohn]

14. The National Guard is not the militia

The National Guard is part of the professional military, which we are not supposed to have.

[former9thward]

21. No. The National Guard did not even exist until the late 1800s.

Almost 100 years after the 2nd amendment was ratified. So, No, the founders did not have them in mind. People who want to ban guns try to ignore history because it never helps them.

[wercal]

60. Nobody can ever answer this question for me....

Isn't the 2nd Amendment part of the Bill of Rights?

What is a Bill of Rights?...More particular, the US Constitution Bill of Rights? - It is a list of rights individual citizens have.

Look at them:

Right to free speech (1), protection from quartering soldiers (3), rights against warrantless searches (4), right of due process (5), right to speedy trial (6), right to jury trial (7), right against cruel or unusual punishment (8), rights given to individual even if not specifically listed (9), powers not delegated to fed government are reserved for the people (10).

There you have it - 9 amendments that grant individual rights.

Isn't it just a little peculiar that the second amendment doesn't grant individual rights?

Isn't it much more likely that the 2nd amendment is just like the other 9 amendments in the Bill of Rights, and is in fact granting an individual right?

Hey, I'm all in favor of the premise of the thread - if you don't like the 2nd amendment, amend the constitution. But why pretend that this one amendment is an aberration, an outlier, one that slipped through the cracks and neglected to guarantee individual rights?

[Cannikin]

9. Guns & same sex marriage

I was recently "gay" married in Arkansas, along with 500 other couples, and have spent every day since fighting with a state senator who is working hard to nullify it. The US Constitution has been my greatest weapon against his religious and legal arguments. I am very much pro-gun control but I feel very conflicted on the issue of making changes simply because I'm afraid that would be opening the door for that to be used against me later.

Any thoughts on that?

[Jenoch]

12. If simple gun-control laws, such as a UBC law, cannot be passed in congress,

how will a vote to rewrite the 2nd Amendment get passed?

[randys1]

20. Wont, not for a long time, and the tiny/minimal laws the NRA wont allow will do very

little also, better than nothing, but as long as we keep demanding that each person can own 400 guns, each capable of taking out an entire family in a matter of minutes, as long as we act that childish and stupid, and it is indeed childish and stupid, we will suffer the consequences, ALL of us eventually will be touched by this insanity.

[Jenoch]

22. I don't really understand the 400 guns reference.

How many of these mass shootings have been committed by a serious gun collector?

[randys1]

23. Doesnt matter, the point is you can own 400 or 4000 guns and 200,000 rounds of ammo

if you want to...

you can own guns that no citizen should own, I am not an expert on which ones those are but you probably are...

Fact: an evolved, mature, responsible society will not be a gun crazy society, it will be the opposite, common sense...which type of society do you want to live in...

[Jenoch]

30. I don't know anyone, or know of anyone, who owns 4,000 guns.

I think you are attempting to make a point that is insignificant in the area of wishing there to be fewer gun deaths in the U.S.

Apparently you do not wish for private citizens to own fully-automatic weapons. The last time I can remember full auto weapons being used in a crime is a bank robbery in North Hollywood in 1997. That was the time when the cops had to go to a gun store to get rifles because the guns they had in their squads were inadequate. By the way, the only deaths in that case were the perps.

I am not a gun collector, one of my brothers is. I would guess he has around 100 guns including two AR-15s. All of his guns are locked up in a gun safe. My father probably has 50 guns. They too are locked up in a gun safe. I have seven guns, which does not really make me a gun collector.

[badtoworse]

15. The militia part is settled law. Why are you wasting time discussing it?

Changing the constitution is a lot of work. You should get started.

[randys1]

17. Settled law like money is now speech?

[badtoworse]

18. Correct. That is settled law also.

[randys1]

19. You mean as of 2 yrs ago, before that something else was settled law

yet none of it is settled law, John Roberts put an end to that notion

Soon settled law may be that a state can decide what a woman can and cant do with her own body

[badtoworse]

26. The SCOTUS addressed the militia question and it's over.

It's time to accept that regardless of your opinion of the court. Whining about the court isn't going to change anything.

[randys1]

27. It's over, great news, tell all the women in America that no matter what happens

the state they live in cant interfere with their right to an abortion.

[badtoworse]

34. Don't you watch the news? Anti abortion laws are regularly thrown out by the courts.

[randys1]

39. You are now contradicting yourself

and all it would take is a new case at the SC , you do realize that

i know you do

[hack89]

53. And as we can see from abortion, it is hard as hell to get a case to the SC

Once the law is considered settled. Heller and Campbell settled 2A discussions for a very long time. They are the standard for every state and federal court.

[upaloopa]

56. We like that word whining don't we

Is it meant to be a put down? It is used against many DUers by those who can't support their ideas with logic.

[badtoworse]

57. Whining is what children do when they don't get what they want.

It rarely accomplishes anything. Not meant to be a put down, but I do see similarities with how many here discuss the SCOTUS rulings on RKBA.

[Sissyk]

24. Give it a shot (pun intended).

Just let us know if you are going to initiate this before or after the Election so I can stop working in my red state to get democrats elected.

[randys1]

28. Shhh, in other words, right, dont discuss making a better world, especially not in

a democrats only message board, for KRIST sake if we cant talk about it here where can WE?

[Sissyk]

31. Do the words "Go for it" not mean the same to you that they do to me?

That means. Go for it. Do it. No one is stopping you.

World? I thought you were talking about amending the constitution. I didn't know the world had anything to do with it.

The majority of us here are democrats. There are also a bunch of gun owners that are democrats that will discuss this issue with you when you bring it up. I'm starting to do that myself.

I don't know why you think you can't talk about it here? You have 2 or 3 threads on guns yourself and you are participating in thread and thread on the same. Doesn't look like anyone is stopping you from that.

I'm starting to think you are pulling our legs. Are you? Is this all performance art? If so, pretty good job.

[LittleBlue]

25. Our congress can't even pass a budget

Talking about changing the constitution is like planning for a trip to the Andromeda Galaxy when we have barely made it to Mars.

[randys1]

29. Yeah, I know...Our congress has some American Taliban terrorists on it, so yes

[dilby]

36. I doubt any of them could successfully pass a kidney stone.

[rock]

32. Your rewrite, as written, is pointless and/or confusing

It's NOT the same as not having a 2nd amendment, as it says too much. You would clearly wind up in the brig if you joined one the armed forces then insisted on carrying a weapon everywhere you went. If you don't want the 2nd amendment then you should say so. Don't try to futz up the one we've got; you may get unexpected consequences. I did enjoy your attempt at an innovative solution though.

[randys1]

33. I didnt write the article, i merely linked to it

But anything is better than what we have which is unlimited guns in the hands of mostly immature men playing with toys

mostly, not all but mostly

[rock]

37. Did you link to it because you believe it's a good idea of not?

I didn't mean to imply that it was your idea, just that you are pushing the idea.

[randys1]

38. It is a great idea, I have learned one thing at DU

Way way more gun folks and bible folks in the Dem party than I realized

Not saying that is bad, dont wanna argue anymore, just surprised.

[napkinz]

41. ...

[X_Digger]

42. You say this as if you think the bill of rights grants or conveys a right. (It doesn't.)

This is a fundamental misunderstanding you seem to have made.

The bill of rights creates no rights, conveys no rights. It protects pre-existing rights.

Heck, repealing the second amendment wouldn't change much- the right would go from being an enumerated right explicitly protected by the second, to an unenumerated right, protected by the ninth, plus almost all state constitutions.

[randys1]

44. I said what now?

[X_Digger]

45. Changing the second amendment per Justice Stevens would have zero impact on the right itself.

Only the scope of federal protection. Various states' constitutions that are explicit ('in defense of themselves and the state', e.g.) make clear that changing the federal constitution would do little to change the scope of the right.

So why would changing the text of the second amendment further your goal re handguns, etc?

[randys1]

46. Tell Justice Stevens, not me, that he doesnt understand the law...LOL

[X_Digger]

47. Oh he understands. He quotes US v Cruikshank when it suits him-

US v Cruikshank (1876)

"This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

Rights are not gifts from the government, silly.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

You know, the whole idea of human rights being fundamental..

[randys1]

48. I give up , as I did the other day on bible thumpers

buy all the guns you want, shoot all the stuff you want, I will just learn to duck better than I already can

(though the ones who were just slaughtered were younger and in much better shape than I am and ducking didnt help them)

but I will work on it

I really mean it, I give up, if this many so called progressive adults still think this way, then it is a lost cause...at least in my lifetime

[X_Digger]

50. This is fundamental to our system of government, regardless of the right being discussed.

Do you think that a theocracy could be established if the red states all got together and jury rigged a repeal of the religious clause of the first amendment?

Do you think that the right to a free press flows from the first amendment?!?

This is civics 101. Hell, it's 10th grade US Government, not even the bonus question on the final.

SMH.

[randys1]

52. And Stevens doesnt know this but you do, wow...

[X_Digger]

58. Stevens knows this, he's quoted that section of Cruikshank in decisions he's written.

But what Stevens knows, and what he says in an editorial about his new book coming out- are two entirely different animals.

Did you ever actually take a US Government course? Do you remember *anything* from it?

[badtoworse]

51. We're making progress. There are many Democrats, even progressive ones, that value the RKBA.

Apparently, you are beginning to appreciate that. What you are proposing amounts to surrendering a constitutionally guaranteed right. You should not have been surprised that many of us are unwilling to do that.

[ManiacJoe]

43. That would certainly clear up any confusion that some folks have with the current wording.

The fact that it completely changes the rights and intents of the current amendment is what would doom it to failure.

[ileus]

49. It's time to tie firearms into basic human rights

and out of the whole "save the country" idea.

[upaloopa]

54. I don't think we need to ban guns. What is needed

is for gun owners to join the rest of the civilized world and give up their fetish.
It can and most likely will be done because the civilized world is beginning to shun them.

[randys1]

55. Utlimately evolution will rid us of gun nuts, maybe a person will own a single rifle

to go hunting, which is bullshit unless you are hungry, but I dont consider that being a gun nut

time will tell