Amend the Second Amendment?

Phantom · 06-27-2008, 10:37 AM

Not my idea, but from a prominent Washington Post comedian.

Originally Posted by Gene Weingarten

Okay, let's look at this thing:

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

It’s a mess. Any Constitutional lawyer -- heck, any English teacher -- can see that. More so than any other surviving Amendment, this one was clearly written by men in tights and wigs, with all manners of quaint concerns on their minds: Injuns! Marauding British troops come to lay waste to the White House! To arms! To arms!

Yet now, thanks to yesterday’s Supreme Court Decision, these malodorous, mal-ordered 27 words, this syntactic scrabble, becomes an uncontestable truth. NRA-financed assaults on all sorts of gun restrictions will follow, to the detriment of our cities, the bastions of civilized civilization.
Isn’t it time to repeal this thing, and replace it with something that preserves the right of gun ownership, but with a little discipline and wiggle room in place?

What do you think?

I tend to agree. The amendment was written (poorly) by persons who had concerns that are completely irrelevant today.

We would be better off scrapping the amendment in place of something that addresses modern concerns.

thewise1 · 06-27-2008, 10:44 AM

SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

Sure, let's replace it with Washington's version of the 2a.

Stylerod · 06-27-2008, 10:56 AM

Originally Posted by thewise1

Sure, let's replace it with Washington's version of the 2a.

I like it.

Phantom · 06-27-2008, 10:59 AM

Originally Posted by thewise1

Sure, let's replace it with Washington's version of the 2a.

This would apparently give felons a right to guns - too broad IMO.

I think the feds have rules on felons and guns, so that isn't a present concern in Washington.

thewise1 · 06-27-2008, 11:00 AM

Originally Posted by Phantom

This would apparently give felons a right to guns - too broad IMO.

I think the feds have rules on felons and guns, so that isn't a present concern in Washington.

Some felons should have the right to guns

motivez · 06-27-2008, 12:25 PM

I think it would be better if we updated it to something everyone could understand, but I have my doubts we could pass any amendments to the constitution with the current political climate

I also wonder what would happen if something like the bigoted "no gay marriage" thing happened when states have already legalized it.. I have a feeling the states would continue on, ignoring the new amendment..

Rouger2 · 06-27-2008, 12:53 PM

Originally Posted by Phantom

Not my idea, but from a prominent Washington Post comedian.

I tend to agree. The amendment was written (poorly) by persons who had concerns that are completely irrelevant today.

We would be better off scrapping the amendment in place of something that addresses modern concerns.

I don't know what is wrong with the regulations we have now. If you buy a gun you have to fill out a application and have a criminal records check, and you have to have a license to carry a concealed handgun, also you can't own a automatic rifle or machine gun. I don't know if that is universal in US, but it sounds like enough to me. Why change anything?

thewise1 · 06-27-2008, 12:55 PM

Originally Posted by Rouger2

I don't know what is wrong with the regulations we have now. If you buy a gun you have to fill out a application and have a criminal records check, and you have to have a license to carry a concealed handgun, also you can't own a automatic rifle or machine gun. I don't know if that is universal in US, but it sounds like enough to me. Why change anything?

You actually can own a fully auto firearm, but you need a $200 tax stamp and to live in a state that isn't Washington (and probably California, Illinois, or any number of other commie states

)

Stylerod · 06-27-2008, 01:09 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

You actually can own a fully auto firearm, but you need a $200 tax stamp and to live in a state that isn't Washington (and probably California, Illinois, or any number of other commie states )

You also give the ATF the right to enter your home at any time to verify that the weapons are stored in a secure Gun Safe. At least that is what my gun collector buddy told me.

lew · 06-27-2008, 01:42 PM

I'd change it to this:

Every man, woman, and child has a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, and civil right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon any time, anywhere, without asking anyone's permission, with no impediments, such as gun registration, by the state permitted.

motivez · 06-27-2008, 02:24 PM

So you'd let 3rd graders carry around an AK-47? And they wouldn't even have to ask their parents permission?

Dylith · 06-27-2008, 04:58 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

So you'd let 3rd graders carry around an AK-47? And they wouldn't even have to ask their parents permission?

Not to mention crazy joe who lives down the street and is building a dirty bomb in order to "protect his interests."

Ardentfrost · 06-27-2008, 05:54 PM

Originally Posted by Dylith

Not to mention crazy joe who lives down the street and is building a dirty bomb in order to "protect his interests."

If i lived my life scared of crazy joe, I'd never leave the house.

leviathon · 06-27-2008, 06:13 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

If i lived my life scared of crazy joe, I'd never leave the house.

Yup, a perfect example for not needing guns.

Ardentfrost · 06-27-2008, 06:59 PM

Originally Posted by leviathon

Yup, a perfect example for not needing guns.

I don't get it. I'm scared of crazy joe so I don't need a gun?

lew · 06-27-2008, 08:51 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

So you'd let 3rd graders carry around an AK-47? And they wouldn't even have to ask their parents permission?

Obviously they'd have to ask their parents' permission since they wouldn't have money to buy one.

lew · 06-27-2008, 08:52 PM

Also, property rights would still exist so if a private school, mall, whatever doesn't want guns on their property or doesn't want kids to have guns, then that would be enforceable by law.

lew · 06-27-2008, 08:53 PM

Originally Posted by Dylith

Not to mention crazy joe who lives down the street and is building a dirty bomb in order to "protect his interests."

Yes, gun control and weapons banning stops crimes. We all know this.

Columbine never happened. And DC is the safest city in the world, thanks to gun laws.

Donkey® · 06-28-2008, 12:38 AM

Originally Posted by lew

Yes, gun control and weapons banning stops crimes. We all know this.

Columbine never happened. And DC is the safest city in the world, thanks to gun laws.

And yes, we all know that giving guns to everyone works all over the world in defeating crime. We all know this.

lew · 06-28-2008, 12:48 AM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

And yes, we all know that giving guns to everyone works all over the world in defeating crime. We all know this.

Giving guns to everyone doesn't solve crime.

However, giving guns to a society that understands property rights and liberty sure as hell does dramatically reduce crime.