A Better Second Amendment?

[NaT805]

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms [on their person or property in the jurisdiction of the united States thereof], shall not be infringed."

Tell me that can't be misconstrued...:confused:

[maeqFREEDOMfree]

it's fine the way it is. by trying to make it "more clear", you're playing into the hands of people that want to bring up doubt about the original intent.

The Constitution was written in "simple" english (in those times) so that all who read it could easily understand it. IF it wasn't for the anti-intellectualism that's been going on in our country, no one would even pretend it means anything other than what it says.

[NaT805]

Playing into the hands? They already believe what they believe, nothing I say will change that.

If it had those extra words there would be no way for the lack of intellectualism to misread it.

[Dequeant]

"Guns are good, those who take them are bad and should be beaten with a large stick many times until their ultimate repentance, furthermore, the right of the people to own, carry, and use firearms shall be limited in no way by any form of government or ordinance other than the gun owner's own choosing. Any officials who try to circumvent this law in any way should immediately be executed for crimes against the state."

I don't see anyone screwing that up!

[Doktor_Jeep]

As an old friend says:

The letter of the law destroys, the spirit of the law protects.

We don't have to be specific if the spirit is not lost. The modern state of everything being saturated with "legalese" is due to the lost morality and ninnying control freakism that is ruining everying.

[Mini-Me]

As an old friend says:

The letter of the law destroys, the spirit of the law protects.

We don't have to be specific if the spirit is not lost. The modern state of everything being saturated with "legalese" is due to the lost morality and ninnying control freakism that is ruining everying.

While this is true, you also have to keep in mind that the letter of the law is the only thing that is in any way objective. The very problem with using the "spirit" of the law is that modern idiots will dispute that the spirit is something entirely different from what the words obviously show it to be...and the Second Amendment is the textbook example.

[rmodel65]

the way i see it if your anywhere in America "WE" are the people it needs no more changes it is already clear.

[Carehn]

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms [on their person or property in the jurisdiction of the united States thereof], shall not be infringed."

Tell me that can't be misconstrued...:confused:

the one we have now cant be misconstrued. This one is much more clear but people will continue to fight it no mater what.

[1000-points-of-fright]

You're complicating it. You don't add stuff to clarify, you subtract.


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

End of story. Brevity is the soul of wit. Nuff said.

[AisA1787]

While this is true, you also have to keep in mind that the letter of the law is the only thing that is in any way objective. The very problem with using the "spirit" of the law is that modern idiots will dispute that the spirit is something entirely different from what the words obviously show it to be...and the Second Amendment is the textbook example.

The problem with the "letter of the law" is that the meaning of words is continuously changing. Words we use today will have different meanings a hundred years from now. As an example, a "well regulated militia" means something different today than it did when the 2nd amendment was written, if you go strictly by what the word "regulated" means now as compared to then.

The rule of law is that the law is the intent of the law maker. Not the spirit, not the words, not anything else. The people making laws should certainly choose their words carefully, but the law should be interpreted according to original intent, not to silly word games. Especially when you have Presidents who say things like "Well, that depends on what your definition of the word 'is', is". Ring a bell?

[AisA1787]

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms [on their person or property in the jurisdiction of the united States thereof], shall not be infringed."

Tell me that can't be misconstrued...:confused:


Nope. Because then you could only keep and bear arms on your person or your property. Which means that if you were to bear arms on your person and property then you would be in violation of the law.

Also, "bearing arms" by definition means that they're on your person, so saying "on their person" is redundant. And "keeping arms" means that they are your property, so saying "on your property" doesn't make sense.

It's fine the way it is.

[Acala]

The Second Amendment is fine. What we need is a mandatory Constitutional death penalty for any legislator who introduces, co-sponsors, or votes for legislation that is found by either the Supreme Court, a majority of Congress, or a majority of State legislatures to be a violation of the Second Amendment, or any other provision or limitation in the Constitution.

[PatriotnMore]

We only need ask our Founding Fathers their thoughts. Isn't this enough for anyone?

http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm202/dhall61/Founders1.jpg
http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm202/dhall61/Founders4.jpg
http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm202/dhall61/Founders8.jpg
http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm202/dhall61/Founders9.jpg
http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm202/dhall61/Founders10.jpg
http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm202/dhall61/Founders12.jpg

[NaT805]

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms [thereof], shall not be infringed."