modernizing the 2A.

[chibicascade]

But google gives an interesting translation of it into English.

I kinda wish we could have the amendment stated like that.

 

[downzero]

I kinda wish we could have the amendment stated like that.

Nah, "should" sounds like a recommendation.

We don't need a recommendation--we need a command. "Shall" is stronger than "should."

I still say "must" would be better.

 

[GIJEW]

Regarding your question on who do you 'filter' out of 2A rights, I think the premise is "rights and responsibility are a package deal".
1)Children don't have all rights because they don't have the maturity, judgement, understanding, and self discipline to exercise rights responsibly.
2) Criminals FORFEIT rights by abusing them. We can discuss violent vs. non violent offenses.
Immigrants? If they're LEGAL immigrants than why shouldn't the 2A apply to them? The right to arms/self defense is 'fundamental'.
The problem with uniformity between state and federal firearms laws is that the plain meaning of the 2A is not taken seriously. "Reinstate" the constitution and that problem evaporates.

 

[downzero]

Criminals don't forfeit rights, they are taken from them by a punitive procedure which generally requires a jury trial and other protections (like proof beyond a reasonable doubt, etc.).

Does "the People" not imply "the People of the United States"? and does that mean residents? citizens? anyone?

 

[Titanium_Frost]

The way we are arguing about the pragmatics of simple words and phrases are the exact same reason single laws are 10x longer than the entire Constitution.

People want every loophole filled and convey their entire thought rather than settling on the point of what it is supposed to mean and leaving it at that.

We all plainly know there isn't supposed to be all the restrictions on our RKBA but even we can't decide the best way to convey it.

If the Constitution was ever "updated" heaven help us because it would be longer and more convoluted than anything you could imagine.

 

[downzero]

The way we are arguing about the pragmatics of simple words and phrases are the exact same reason single laws are 10x longer than the entire Constitution.

People want every loophole filled and convey their entire thought rather than settling on the point of what it is supposed to mean and leaving it at that.

We all plainly know there isn't supposed to be all the restrictions on our RKBA but even we can't decide the best way to convey it.

If the Constitution was ever "updated" heaven help us because it would be longer and more convoluted than anything you could imagine.

Some believe the opposite, that the founders, in an exercise of their genius and compromise, purposely left certain things vague and undefined, because they sincerely believed in spontaneous order.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

Some believe the opposite, that the founders, in an exercise of their genius and compromise, purposely left certain things vague and undefined, because they sincerely believed in spontaneous order.

While "some" believe this, others have read the OTHER writings of the founders and discovered EXACTLY what they meant. They were NOT at all vague but rather intentional and deliberate in what they wrote to mean exactly as it was stated. The COTUS is NOT a living document as progressives would have us believe other than in the sense that a procedure for changing it was included in the text. Anyone that claims there are other ways to change it is selling a bill of goods and attempting to circumvent the true meaning.

 

[Smokepole]

The way we are arguing about the pragmatics of simple words and phrases are the exact same reason single laws are 10x longer than the entire Constitution.

People want every loophole filled and convey their entire thought rather than settling on the point of what it is supposed to mean and leaving it at that.

We all plainly know there isn't supposed to be all the restrictions on our RKBA but even we can't decide the best way to convey it.

If the Constitution was ever "updated" heaven help us because it would be longer and more convoluted than anything you could imagine.

I agree. It would end up ridiculously long and unwieldy and would end up creating more issues and questions than there are now. The founding Fathers had more experience with dictatorial governments and as such were far better suited and educated to accomplish what they did than most of the members of the Clown Rodeo that is our current Government will EVER be.

And when you start dinking around with the foundation of anything you are exposed to a very real possibility of collapsing the whole thing.

Leave it intact and just make a amendment or two that may CLARIFY and leave it at that.

 

[sepe]

While "some" believe this, others have read the OTHER writings of the founders and discovered EXACTLY what they meant. They were NOT at all vague but rather intentional and deliberate in what they wrote to mean exactly as it was stated. The COTUS is NOT a living document as progressives would have us believe other than in the sense that a procedure for changing it was included in the text. Anyone that claims there are other ways to change it is selling a bill of goods and attempting to circumvent the true meaning.

I don't know if you should point to progressives as the only ones that would have you believe it is a living document. There have been plenty of idiot "conservatives" that many here have or would vote for that believe the EXACT same things and there are many here that believe there are rights that should be restricted based on who they think should have certain rights.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

I don't know if you should point to progressives as the only ones that would have you believe it is a living document. There have been plenty of idiot "conservatives" that many here have or would vote for that believe the EXACT same things and there are many here that believe there are rights that should be restricted based on who they think should have certain rights.

...and this frightens me a great deal. I lose more sleep over those people than I care to admit! Thanks, now I'm going to toss and turn all night since you've reminded me of the enemy amongst us. They tend to be the "power hungry" ones and also tend to abuse the powers they have to suit their own personal needs, wants and desires.

 

[Cerberus]

So the 2A says anyone can own a gun. But is that really a good thing? The country has changed a lot in the last 221 years. My reasoning for this post is b/c I see so many interpretations of the constitution and how it applies to modern day. We have things the founding fathers never could have dreamed of..

The 2A says exactly what it needs to say. All the amendments are called amendment for a reason, they amended (changed or fixed) some part of the Constitution. The Constitution was ratified in 1787 with the following in Article 1 Section 8; "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
The Bill of Rights which includes the 2nd Amendment was ratified in 1791, so the wording makes since. "A well regulated militian being neccesary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
In effect this provides the body of the populace with the duty and right to regulate the states' militia by being armed as a final check upon the immoral use of force against a free people.

As an aside, I don't think the founders, most of whom were extremely intelligent and often inventive and knew that human history was a constant advancement of technology, failed for a minute to realize that things would get more advanced, including weaponry.

 

[Raskolnikov]

So the 2A says anyone can own a gun. But is that really a good thing? The country has changed a lot in the last 221 years. My reasoning for this post is b/c I see so many interpretations of the constitution and how it applies to modern day. We have things the founding fathers never could have dreamed of.

1) Should the mentally ill (or w/e your preferred term is) be allowed?
Yes I know this in an extremely broad label, be specific with your response if you want.

2) Should criminals be allowed?
Tax evasion and battery are two very different felonies.

3) What age should ownership be allowed?

4) Immigrents?

5) Depending on your opinion, how do we filter out people.

6) It should be a state level issue, but how do we make it nationally uniform.


I'm sure there are more, I can add them to this post as they get brought up.

I'm about 111 posts too late on this, but here it goes.

The Second Amendment does not need to be modernized in any way. It is perfect as written and intended by our Founding Fathers.

1) The mentally ill have existed since the dawning of man. If a person has been declared mentally incompetent by a court (with existing evidence from a licensed physician), this should be grounds for having rights suspended pending satisfactory psychiatric treatment. Of course, the rights could be revoked if the person is a violent felon (which leads me to question 2).

2) Felons existed at the time the Bill of Rights was ratified. Violent felons should have their rights to bear arms revoked. All other felons should have their rights reinstated once their sentences have been served. Should the felon be given a gubernatorial, presidential, or otherwise have their felonies reduced or expunged, their rights should be reinstated immediately.

3) Plenty of children owned and operated firearms at the time the Bill of Rights was ratified. At that time, parents were actually responsible for their children. A person should have to be 18 years of age to purchase or "own" a firearm (any type). Should the person be an active member of any branch of the armed services at age 17, he shall be permitted to purchase and own a firearm (once basic military training has been completed). Of course, minors under the supervision of parents or other suitable adult guardians, should be able to use firearms.

4) The United States is a nation of immigrants. The Constitution protects all people in the United States.

5) The current mode of background investigations (NICS) seems to be working, however, the criteria which one must meet to purchase a firearm must be lessened. There has been talk recently (Rahm "Satan" Emmanuel) about prohibiting persons on the "No Fly List" from purchasing guns. This list of those like it should never be used to screen people from purchasing firearms. All suspensions or revocations of rights must come directly from a court where due process was given.

6) The Federal Government has a duty to ensure that the states are granting their residents all rights that are protected under the Constitution. As much as I am for states' rights, this is largely a Federal issue. For example, I feel that it is essential that the Federal Government mandate that states allow their residents to carry a firearm without license.

You should neither have to have a license to own/carry a firearm, nor be mandated to train with it. You have a right to be stupid.

Private citizens should be allowed to own attack choppers, tanks, etc. These are essential tools for the militia.

 

[Roadie]

Does anyone else find it ironic that the OP wants to limit Rights by "modernizing" the 2nd Amendment, yet has a Gadsen Flag as an avatar?

"I do not think it means what you think it means..."

 

[Ted]

I'm about 111 posts too late on this, but here it goes.

The Second Amendment does not need to be modernized in any way. It is perfect as written and intended by our Founding Fathers.

1) The mentally ill have existed since the dawning of man. If a person has been declared mentally incompetent by a court (with existing evidence from a licensed physician), this should be grounds for having rights suspended pending satisfactory psychiatric treatment. Of course, the rights could be revoked if the person is a violent felon (which leads me to question 2).

2) Felons existed at the time the Bill of Rights was ratified. Violent felons should have their rights to bear arms revoked. All other felons should have their rights reinstated once their sentences have been served. Should the felon be given a gubernatorial, presidential, or otherwise have their felonies reduced or expunged, their rights should be reinstated immediately.

3) Plenty of children owned and operated firearms at the time the Bill of Rights was ratified. At that time, parents were actually responsible for their children. A person should have to be 18 years of age to purchase or "own" a firearm (any type). Should the person be an active member of any branch of the armed services at age 17, he shall be permitted to purchase and own a firearm (once basic military training has been completed). Of course, minors under the supervision of parents or other suitable adult guardians, should be able to use firearms.

4) The United States is a nation of immigrants. The Constitution protects all people in the United States.

5) The current mode of background investigations (NICS) seems to be working, however, the criteria which one must meet to purchase a firearm must be lessened. There has been talk recently (Rahm "Satan" Emmanuel) about prohibiting persons on the "No Fly List" from purchasing guns. This list of those like it should never be used to screen people from purchasing firearms. All suspensions or revocations of rights must come directly from a court where due process was given.

6) The Federal Government has a duty to ensure that the states are granting their residents all rights that are protected under the Constitution. As much as I am for states' rights, this is largely a Federal issue. For example, I feel that it is essential that the Federal Government mandate that states allow their residents to carry a firearm without license.

You should neither have to have a license to own/carry a firearm, nor be mandated to train with it. You have a right to be stupid.

Private citizens should be allowed to own attack choppers, tanks, etc. These are essential tools for the militia.

I've highlighted some concerning passages in red. While they may appear a matter of semantics for some, they certainly are not.

Rights are inherent to people, not governments. They are granted by God, or nature if you will, and cannot be granted or revoked by government. They can, however, be infringed.

It is however a practical matter of those who obey the law, or are in a position of sound mind (despite being on INGO), to continue to possess the means of self defense.....while removing those not otherwise qualified or competent for the time being.

The right to defend oneself is more basic a right than the right to the means of self defense. Just because one is incarcerated or deemed of unsound mind, doesn't remove the right to defend oneself....merely some level of means to do it.

 

[Roadie]

Modernizing the language? Perhaps. Changing its meaning in any way, shape or form? Nope.

I like the "if it were written today" version found in THE UNABRIDGED SECOND AMENDMENT by J. Neil Schulman, as coined by Professor Roy Copperud..

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/unabridged.2nd.html

"Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged."

 

[beararms1776]

So the 2A says anyone can own a gun. But is that really a good thing? The country has changed a lot in the last 221 years. My reasoning for this post is b/c I see so many interpretations of the constitution and how it applies to modern day. We have things the founding fathers never could have dreamed of.

1) Should the mentally ill (or w/e your preferred term is) be allowed?
Yes I know this in an extremely broad label, be specific with your response if you want.

2) Should criminals be allowed?
Tax evasion and battery are two very different felonies.

3) What age should ownership be allowed?

4) Immigrents?

5) Depending on your opinion, how do we filter out people.

6) It should be a state level issue, but how do we make it nationally uniform.


I'm sure there are more, I can add them to this post as they get brought up.

Nice avatar!

Unless your trying to disarm 100% of the population in the U.S. of A., no revision should be necessary.
1. Which of the mentally ill are you referring to?
We have:
a) Ordinary average people that live ordinary average lives
b) Non combative/ confrontational persons that no one can get along with
c) People with common sense
d) etc., etc., etc.

2) Which criminals are you referring to?
The ones that want to disarm you now, violent criminals that want an easier prey or the ones that carry anyway?

 

[beararms1776]

Have a need to feel superior to a lesser class of people? That is the only real reason for gun control, and that is ALL your "improved" version of the 2A is, a framework for gun control.

A gun makes people free. Gun control makes them slaves. You cannot regulate yourself into prosperity OR safety, you make it yourself.

I am a free and prosperous man today because I own and am willing to use my gun to protect it, you will never take away my freedom while I possess it.

Further, who gets to decide what counts as your gauging factors for gun control? More and more "diseases" are considered mental illness to the point that almost anyone can be considered unfit to possess a firearm by our government. You say it should be a State issue but then talk about conformity on a national level? Do you want a FEDERAL State to control you or a more local State of control?

You need to do a LOT more research in the real world and learn how things like Constitutions and laws really work before you go trying to "fix" our current system.

Please excuse any misplaced punctuation or sentence structure but, this is by far, the best post in the whole thread.
Might I add, being situationally aware of the odd things people do to others or they do to yourself can be considered paranoid thoughts. Your not supposed to think that way.

 

[Liberty's Teeth]

This is a non-argument. Do we put any conditions on the first amendment? Should we change that also? Freedom of Speech and Expression has caused far more misery and death in this country than firearms.

 

[Beau]

You know who else should be excluded? Those people that have those "Don't Tread On Me" flags or use them as their avatars. They are obviously dissident domestic terrorists and should not have access to firearms.
"

 

[jon5212]

Our current Amendment LITERALLY says: "Shall Not be Infringed" yet they still do. What, pray tell, do you suppose is a stronger way of saying "Shall Not be Infringed" than the exact words "Shall Not be Infringed?"

How about if you do infringe you will be sentenced as a traitor to the country and locked up for life?