It's time to rewrite the 2nd Amendment- How would YOU rewrite it?

[zebonaut]

Contrary to popular belief; the second amendment is not a religious tenet written in stone. I can be changed; rewritten or repealed. How would you rephrase it?

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.


How about

"A well regulated militia; being necessary for the security of a free nation, has now been achieved with a modern military; so the right of the people to keep and bear small arms; shall only be infringed insofar as background checks, and required training for the public safety."

or something to that effect...

Any better ideas?

[NYC_SKP]

1. "has now been achieved with a modern military" really? let's just let drones do our thinking?

wow.

[AndyA]

31. There is more to our modern military than just drones. n/t

[Tumbulu]

2. Here is my wish:

Firearms are for the use of trained, licensed, insured and bonded individuals only for the sole purpose of serving the community. As such the community has the right to remove firearms from anyone it deems unsafe or unstable.

[newmember]

5. Interesting , democracy

[oldhippie]

29. So, if a community of RWers, or ....

.... fundies, in, let's say, Texas, deems that all Muslims, Blacks, Latinos other minorities and gays in their community are "unstable", then they could be deprived of firearms? And the community sets the standards for training, licensing, insurance and bonding? That would, in fact, be democracy in action. Sure you like that?

[CTyankee]

49. Of course not. There always must be legal safeguards against such practices. The law

should apply to any and all equally. Any such local ordinance could be challenged in federal courts as a violation of constitutional rights. How do you think we got rid of the discriminatory Jim Crow laws in the South?

[oldhippie]

52. Wooosh! You're missing the whole point ....

How could such a local law be challenged as a "violation of Constitutional Rights" when the new CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT just posited (well, wished for, anyway) says that COMMUNITIES could do exactly that? What exactly is the definition of "Community"? Do you see the problem in crafting the language?

Firearms are for the use of trained, licensed, insured and bonded individuals only for the sole purpose of serving the community. As such the community has the right to remove firearms from anyone it deems unsafe or unstable.

[CTyankee]

56. Sorry, I was dealing with your statement. I don't agree with the amendment just posited.

I would like to see a total revamping of our constitution, tho. I don't think we need a 2nd amendment. It is antiquated and its original meaning has been distorted. We appear to be the only modern constitutional democracy with such idiocy in their constitutions (which is why so many of the newer emerging ones are NOT modeling their constitutions on OURS any more. Our constitution is NOT the shining beacon of liberty and freedom. The 2nd A has now been distorted to in effect show us to be backward and outlandish in our celebration of Americans right to strut around showing off gun hardware strapped to various parts of our bodies. We look stupid in the eyes of the civilized world.

[oldhippie]

60. I'm afraid we will disagree ....

... but I still really like your Friday art challenges. I just wish I were good enough to know more of the works.

[CTyankee]

63. drop by today. It is a little different...

[oldhippie]

65. I'll be watching!

[thucythucy]

119. You could challenge it under the 14th Amendment,

which provides for due process and equal protection under the law.

To give you an analogy: there is no constitutional right to own property, no constitutional amendment that says you have a right to own a house. If you don't have money, you can't buy property. Further, local communities are given wide lattitude in passage and enforcement of zoning laws, regulation of land use, building codes, etc.

What they CAN"T do is legislate so that a particular ethnic or racial or religious group or individual is singled out for a denial of property. You CAN"T say, for instance, that Catholics are not allowed to own a house in a particular area, just because they're Catholic. That would violate the 14th amendment (and also the various Fair Housing acts, all of which have been found constitutional).

I would imagine that the same would apply to guns, even if there wasn't a 2nd amendment. In other words, the same law about "being unstable" would have to apply to everyone. And the due process provision would mean that anyone deprived of their guns would have to have a way to appeal, and to seek an administration or judicial remedy.

[oldhippie]

130. It's kinda hard to challenge it if it's in the Constitution ...

The poster said his wish was, "... As such the community has the right to remove firearms from anyone it deems unsafe or unstable. "

Kinda hard to say it would have to pertain to everybody, when it says "... anyone it deems ...". That's pretty explicit. You can't say it is unconstitutional when it IS the Constitution.

That was my whole point about the proposed amendment. It's not crafted carefully.

[thucythucy]

161. I agree. That particular language would be a problem.

I thought you meant simply repealing the 2nd Amendment would enable that sort of discrimination. My bad.

[clarice]

55. How does that keep the bad guys from getting guns? nt.

[defacto7]

3. Damn, I have to reply to this again....

I would repeal it.

Let the laws of the land rule the day. There is no need in this day and age to create a right to own a weapon or anything else in particular for that matter.

[X_Digger]

42. Repealing the amendment doesn't make the right go away.

The second amendment protects a pre-existing right. Remember the Declaration's language.. "to protect these rights, governments are institituted..", which shows that the rights pre-date the constitution.

[defacto7]

89. Actually it reads,

" That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,..."

What are these rights?

"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. "

"among these".... would include....

those rights that are set forth BY "the consent of the governed" and we have a "right" to abolish a government or change the government if we are not being represented. There is no right to bear arms unless we the governed consent to it though our elected government and the constitution which is fashioned by them.

There is no right to bear arms that predates the constitution or the declaration.

[X_Digger]

91. See US v Cruikshank..

Regarding the right protected by the second..

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.

Courts think differently, and have done so for hundreds of years. Good luck with that.

[defacto7]

93. But that's the point!

I am reading the declaration and the constitution. That's what it says no matter how it's interpreted by a rather corrupt 1876 court.

Time to exercise our right the change the government. The subject it how we would rewrite the 2nd amendment so the OP implies that we are doing so in comment. That is as hypothetical as it gets. You are somehow stuck in the present reality that is more corrupt than the US government of late 19th century.

I would abolish it and a government that does not represent a 21st century "governed" which would be better served by the original declaration and constitution.

[X_Digger]

95. Feel free to call for another constitutional convention and re-write it.

Just don't be surprised when it doesn't result in the things you want.

And btw, there is a loooong tradition of rights pre-dating the constitution. Read up on the Enlightenment.

[defacto7]

97. or you can re-read my post.

I stand by it.

[X_Digger]

99. Okaaaay. You v. courts & 200+ yrs of legal tradition. Hrmm. Guess which one I'll stand by? n/t

[defacto7]

114. I'll stand by the one that replies to the OP.

You have picked some other subject for some reason, but I know what it's like to have a bone to pick.

If your subject ever arises, I'll be glad to carry that ball.

[X_Digger]

115. Does not reply #3 (by you) say.. 'repeal it'?

Did you forget that you said that?

[defacto7]

116. I'll take that under advisement!

I'm sorry, did you forget the OP? It's called the "OP". It's just before #1.

[X_Digger]

118. So you try to chide me for not sticking to the OP's concept when you veered off into 'repeal'?!?

Okaaaaay.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

110. Actually, "In countries with an English common law tradition, a long standing common law right to

keep and bear arms has long been recognized, as pre-existing in common law, prior even to the existence of written national constitutions."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms

[samsingh]

140. of course those selling guns are incented to argue otherwise

[newmember]

4. So you want a gun free society

Does that include police?

[closeupready]

36. Of course not; authoritarians are 'comfortable' with guns

as long as they remain in the hands of (duh) authorities.

[BainsBane]

6. This:

[joshcryer]

7. Here's how I'd reword it:

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

There. You just made us Sweden and people with guns get in deep shit for having them in public spaces. Private spaces, they're fine (and this wouldn't necessary ban hunting on Federal lands, of course, you'd just have a Supreme Court decision saying it was OK).

[rrneck]

45. Yes, lets emulate Sweden...

http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2013/05/22/186042744/riots-in-sweden-thats-right-sweden

Sweden is one of the wealthiest, most stable and smoothly running countries in the world.

Which would explain why the country's 9.5 million residents may be shocked by the events of the past few days.

For the past three nights, hundreds of youths have been rampaging through parts of the capital, Stockholm, torching cars, setting fires, and throwing rocks at police and fire trucks.

...

In the troubled neighborhoods, allegations are said to be flying around about police brutality, racism and harassment. Sweden is once again facing a debate over whether immigrants and their families — once welcomed with open arms — are being marginalized, and whether multiculturalism is working.

[maxsolomon]

106. you just made it legal to go sleeveless

thank you, there are a lot of arms i don't need to see bared.

i'd rather see the entire amendment tossed as was prohibition's.

[sarisataka]

112. They can only bare arms

on private property. Long sleeves may still be required in public i.e. concealed arms

[Buzz Clik]

133. Let's to this to its logical conclusion:

"... the right to go totally butt nekkid shall not be infringed."

[Buzz Clik]

131. I like it. Bare arms aren't a threat to anyone.

[ManiacJoe]

8. Similar to the Founding Fathers being comma happy,

what is with all the semicolons?

[mwrguy]

9. "This amendment is now null and void."

That ought to do it.

[Ron Green]

10. "The right of well-regulated militias to keep and

bear arms shall not be infringed."

[moondust]

11. "You guys can have all the deadly force you want!"

Nukes for everybody!!!!! Yeeeehawww!!!


Wut?

[LAGC]

12. I like the Bill of Rights just fine as it is, thank you very much.

If we start tweaking with the Second Amendment, how long before the other side wants to start tweaking with the First Amendment, perhaps eliminating the separation of church and state?

No thanks.

[maxsolomon]

107. It's been tweaked repeatedly

and then untweaked in the case of prohibition.

did someone trot out a slippery-slope scenario when that was repealed?

[LAGC]

109. No, you're talking about other constitutional amendments.

The Bill of Rights is only the first ten core amendments, and they haven't been modified since inception.

And while its true that other amendments expanded who the Bill of Rights applied to, its always a bad idea to amend the constitution to limit rights. It shouldn't be taken lightly.

[maxsolomon]

113. Well, I don't like the "Well-regulated Militia" part

because it's an anachronism in the era of a professional standing military.

there are no well-regulated citizen militias securing the liberty of a state outside of the broadest possible definition of 'everybody' is the militia. they are in fact NOT neccessary.

the preamble has been rendered meaningless when 4 year olds get their own arms to bear.

[LAGC]

117. The classical definition of "Militia" is:

"Every able-bodied male, aged 17 to 45."

Just because we have a standing army now doesn't change the fact that our Founders never liked the idea.

It's not about what is necessary, its about what is permissible under law.

Underage kids never had a right to keep and bear arms -- that is a privilege bestowed by parents, sometimes unwisely.

But if you want to make the case that people over 45 shouldn't be able to own guns either, feel free.

[maxsolomon]

121. As I understand it, Militia has been expanded

to include Women in some circumstances! pass the smelling salts.

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

[LAGC]

123. Absolutely.

Are you going to deny them the same rights?

[maxsolomon]

124. that definition does - they can only be in the militia if they're in the national guard.

but keeping and bearing is not dependent on militia membership, as i am quite aware. it's mere WHY we have the right.

to call out everyone with a flintlock to defend our free state against slave rebellions.

[LAGC]

125. If you want to modify or tweak the meaning of a given phrase...

Isn't it safer to expand constitutional rights in favor of more freedom, rather than try to take them away?

I mean, the First Amendment doesn't just apply to quill and parchment any more either. We've expanded that right to encompass newer technologies as well.

The problem with trying to modify the constitution to restrict fundamental civil rights is that you end up with the wing-nuts trying to pass constitutional amendments banning gay marriage and the like.

We just don't need to go there.

[maxsolomon]

143. "Safer"?

We've already decided to INFRINGE on the RKBA when it comes to automatic weapons, in 1934. We RESTRICTED Constitutional Rights rather than EXPANDING them, and I contend the result is a SAFER country, albeit less "FREE", perhaps.

Do you favor expanding the RKBA back to the pre-NFA of 1934 standards, to treat Automatic Weapons with the same regulations (or lack thereof) that we treat semi-automatic firearms? It would expand Freedom.

Not every slope is a slippery one.

[LAGC]

145. You know, once upon a time you could mail-order guns from catalogs, shipped straight to your house.

We didn't seem to have a problem with gun violence back then, besides the sensational stories you might hear of gansters in the news. (But that had more to do with Prohibition than anything else.)

Violence has many root causes, none of them dependent on the particular weapon used.

I don't think the world would end if machine-guns went unregulated again. They are just incredible wastes of ammo, not as efficient as semi-autos, so I doubt they'd be picked up by many hobbyists or even criminals alike. (Especially with how expensive ammo is right now! )

[maxsolomon]

146. firearms are certainly efficient facilitators of those root causes.

that freedom is not about to be expanded to include automatic firearms, thank the FSM.

America has a problem with gun violence now, even if statistically violent crime is on the decline. until our gun violence rate is as low as the OECD average, it's a problem to millions of americans, whose rights to life liberty and the pusuit of happiness are just as important as the 2nd amendment. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/opinion/blow-on-guns-america-stands-out.html?_r=0

newtown is simply unacceptable. aurora is simply unacceptable. va tech is simply unacceptable. even if they were the only gun deaths in their respective years, it would be unacceptable. the negligence of (the few) gun owners (nancy lanza, the parents of toddler shooters) must cease being tolerated and abetted by politicians.

[LAGC]

152. It's easy to identify the problem.

The trickier part is: how to fix it?

"The toothpaste is already out of the tube" so to speak, when it comes to the proliferation of guns in this country.

How do you propose to put it all back in?

I mean, even if there was a total ban on private ownership of weapons, it would take literally decades for our gun crime rates to ever drop to the level of, say, Japan. In the long meantime, criminals would run rampant and the law-abiding would have no means to defend themselves.

[maxsolomon]

162. i don't know how to fix it anymore. i never did. no one does.

"it's waaay too late for gun control" - steve earle, live at the BBC

maybe "literally decades" is the best we can hope for the problem to diminish. it probably is.

and, i'm sorry, but your last sentence is a cliched pro-proliferation slippery-slope fallacy. "run rampant"? please. we still have police, sheriffs, a massive prison industrial complex, and the planet's most expensive military.

[gcomeau]

132. Being a wee bit selective are we?

Those "able bodied males aged 17 to 45" were required to be organized into companies and battalions, turn out for muster and training, were subject to courtmartial for disobeying orders, etc...

They were members of MILITARY UNITS under command of their state governments not random idiots with weapons stockpiles in their basements.

[veganlush]

13. Guns are for women.

Only women may carry guns.

[Buzz Clik]

135. Except my ex-wife. No effin' way she gets a gun.

[maxsolomon]

147. Only women in the National Guard belong to the Militia.

Otherwise, sorry, ladies. No muskets for you when you're on Slave Patrol.

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

[treestar]

14. The right of the people to keep and bear arms

as a well regulated militia, in order to provide security to a free state, shall not be infringed.

[LostOne4Ever]

15. mmmm

Original:

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.

My version:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep Bear Claws, shall not be infringed.

If you want my pastry you will have to pry it from my cold dead hands!

[Recursion]

16. "Congress shall make no law forbidding in general the keeping and carrying of arms...

... but Congress shall have full regulatory authority over all commerce in arms."

[Pelican]

17. Good as is...

[GreenStormCloud]

18. Whatever makes you think you could get it passed and ratified?

It takes 2/3 of both the Senate and the House and it must then be ratified by 3/4 of the states. That means any 13 states can block your proposed changes.

[customerserviceguy]

19. Once you've proven you can rewrite an Amendment from the original Bill of Rights

Which other ones are you prepared to see rewritten by the reich wing?

Fortunately, it will be impossible to do in the case of any of them.

[maxsolomon]

108. the slope is slippery!

it's slicker than bear grease on a steel pole.

you change 1 syllable in that perfect document, and BAM, we're Stalin's USSR.

[CTyankee]

20. I would like to get rid of it but first, I'd like to see how other modern constitutional

democracies deal with it in their constitutions (or if they just deal with guns in their laws and don't mention them in their constitutions). I think our U.S. constitution is clunky and unworkable, which is why so many emerging democracies are now turning away from our model and looking to others, such as South Africa's.

I would also like a revamping of our constitution to insure women's equality and reproductive freedom. It is a disgrace that women have no mention in our own constitution.

We are "exceptional" only in a very bad way as compared to many democracies around the world.

[cherokeeprogressive]

21. Using the mechanisms outlined in the Constitution.

And good luck with that.

[1-Old-Man]

22. Shorten it: "The individual's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

[closeupready]

35. If it expands citizen self-determination at the expense of the state,

I'm all for it.

[maxsolomon]

111. That's already its functional interpretation

There are no citizen militias, no slave patrols, no state that must be kept free from other states.

But we already do infringe on some individual's (felons, mental incompetents) right to keep & bear.

[jmowreader]

23. I would much rather work on the Fourth than the Second

When the Founders wrote the line about being secure in your "papers and personal effects," it's reasonably clear, to me at least, they were trying to guarantee a degree of privacy. The lack of that actual word has caused untold grief, so...

"As the right to security in one's papers and personal effects is vital to a free society, privacy in one's personal affairs shall not be abridged."

While we're here, let's deal with church-state separation: "The state may not attempt to control or influence any recognized religious organization in any way, to include levying of federal income tax on the organization or pay received from the organization by its ministers. Recognized religious organizations may not attempt to control or influence the State in any way, to include making political contributions either directly or through a third-party political group or lobbying for or against legislative actions."

And as long as we are at it: "No corporation not expressly formed as a political party or a political action committee may participate in the political process in any fashion to include donating money to politicians or political corporations or forming a political corporation as a subsidiary corporation, and no corporation formed as a political party or political action committee may earn any money through any method other than political contributions only from citizens of the United States or from the manufacture and/or sale of articles to be used in political campaigns or articles used by citizens to display membership in or affinity toward the group."

[baldguy]

24. Sect. 1. The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed

Sect. 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of firearms, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

[Johonny]

25. I'd circle the word 'regulated' twice then add a star and underline it

then maybe people would notice it...

[rl6214]

85. You would need to define 'regulated' because the way you want it defined

Is not the way it was defined back then.

[demwing]

26. Everything we'd like to do to regulate guns

is written into the 2nd as it stands.

We don't need a few new words, we need a better understanding.

[Deep13]

27. How about this?

A well-regulated militia is necessary for the security of each state, consequently, the collective right of the people of the several states to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

[piedmont]

28. No, thanks. I'll keep it the way it is. nt

[Eleanors38]

30. Leave 2A as is. The problems in the U.S. are far greater than guns

We are in a corporate state and there is neither effective opposition nor clear alternative to it. As long as corporatists go unchallenged, they will consolidate until they achieve their avowed goal of "permanent power," and progressive, liberal, leftist thought & politics will drift further into obscurity.

"Gun control/bans" is a game corporate power WANTS you to play: They can't lose.

[closeupready]

32. No, it's not. End of thread.

[Lizzie Poppet]

33. My state's version might be a good start:

"The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defense of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power."

[HappyMe]

34. Leave it the way it is.

Rewriting it or dumping it would kick the door open for all kinds of rewrites to other amendments.

[clarice]

57. Very true. nt

[Nye Bevan]

37. Strike it.

Allow every state to decide for themselves what restrictions are appropriate.

[backwoodsbob]

76. can we also strike the first?

should we let the states decide who gets freedom of religion?

Should we strike the forth and let the states decide who is and isn't protected from search and seizure?

[JaneyVee]

38. I wouldn't re-write it, I would enforce the literal meaning of it.

[AndyA]

39. This is the way I see the 2A

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.

The "A well regulated militia" part is the key that everyone seems to ignore. As an opening, everything else in the sentence is dependent upon those four words. Seems to me the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because of the necessity of a well regulated militia to the security of a free state.

Well = thoroughly, carefully, soundly
Regulated = to control or direct by rule, principle, method

The way it reads to me is that placing regulations--and there can be many, as the word "well" indicates--is a requirement. It also seems that the right to bear arms by the people is dependent upon serving in a militia, and as long as those requirements are met people can have guns.

I know the SCOTUS has ruled on this in the past, but as we all know they aren't always correct. (Corporations are people and money is free speech).

Attitudes are changing, what may have seemed impossible to consider a few years ago is not so impossible today. And unfortunately, until something is done, there will be more mass murders, suicides, accidents, etc., and with each one, more and more people will look at gun ownership differently. Things. Will. Change.

[The Time is Now]

40. Repeal

and replace with the gun laws of say the UK or Japan.

[X_Digger]

41. You seem to be under the impression that the second amendment 'grants' or 'limits' the right.

That if you tweak the amendment, you restrict the right.

You could repeal the second amendment tomorrow, and the right wouldn't go away. It would go from being explicitly protected to being an unenumerated right protected by the ninth amendment.

[CTyankee]

51. It is not clear to me that the ninth amendment confers rights.

[X_Digger]

53. It doesn't. *sigh* That's the point.

Read some of the enlightenment philosophers. Locke, Rousseau, and to a lesser extent, Hobbes.

Heck, it's right there in our Declaration of independence- "that to secure these rights, governments are instituted.." -- rights pre-date the government.

The ninth is a catch-all, reasserting that the enumeration of rights in the previous 8 amendments doesn't limit other rights. So the right protected by the second, were the second repealed, would go from being an 'enumerated' right to an 'unenumerated' right.

[CTyankee]

61. A lot has been written on this. As I said, to me it is not as clear as you make it out to be.

I'm certainly not a constitutional lawyer but it seems to me that there have been varying interpretations of the ninth depending on the case...

[X_Digger]

66. Yes, and if you read *any* of it, you'll quickly realize that our founding documents don't 'grant'..

..rights.

Heck, there are some rights, broadly protected, that don't appear in *any* of our founding documents- such as the right to travel.

No, the arguments usually center on whether a right is protected by the ninth or the fourteenth. Then you get into the deal with the Slaughterhouse cases and the hot mess that is selective incorporation. (Which flies in the face of the legislators' own comments and debates while drafting the fourteenth.)

[CTyankee]

72. it is a "hot mess" to use your wording and I think it cuts both ways.

IIRC, it was a pretty contested argument involving the ninth in Roe. It is not without contention and interpretation....that is perhaps a better way of phrasing the issue.

[X_Digger]

77. The argument in Roe re the ninth was not whether it was covered..

.. it was about whether the right was covered by the fourteenth or the ninth, or a combination.

State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy.

On the merits, the District Court held that the "fundamental right of single women and married persons to choose whether to have children is protected by the Ninth Amendment, through the Fourteenth Amendment,"

eta: fixed html

[CTyankee]

78. I don't think the right to life crowd would ever accept either one, much less a combination.

So there is a difference of opinion about what is a protected right somewhere in the constitution or not there at all. IOW, one has to believe there is a "right" in the first place in order for it to be "protected." But the anti-choicers would say there is no right to begin with.

[X_Digger]

79. What crazy RWNJ's think != what court jurisprudence has held.

Me, I'll side with the courts.

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.

You'll find similar sentiment peppered throughout case law from the 18th century on, with regards to many rights.

The idea that repealing an amendment would remove a right- is anathema to 200+ years of US constitutional cases.

[CTyankee]

87. if what you are saying is right, then it is what is wrong with this country, that we cannot

evolve our constitution to meet our own 21st century needs and society. And it is why other constitutional democracies around the world enjoy freedom without the gruesome consequences of such grotesqueries as what the 2nd A has become for our society with piles of dead bodies, so many of them children.

[X_Digger]

88. Our *non*-gun homicide rate is higher than most comparable countries *total* homicide rate.

We're more homicidal, with guns or without, for some reason. Income inequality? Our prison industrial complex that cranks out ever more violent felons? Our crazy war on *some* drugs?

[CTyankee]

90. The more unfettered gun possession in our society, the more violence and killing.

And the glorification of the 2nd A is grotesque.

[X_Digger]

92. Yet we have more guns but lower homicide rate than just 20 years ago.

Since NICS came online, we've seen 140M+ more firearms, but our homicide rate (with guns or without) is down.

When we compare the US v another country before they had substantive gun regulation, it demonstrates that it isn't the guns.. e.g. London in the 1880s had a murder rate 1/5th that of New York City of the same time frame (neither had much regulation of firearms then.)

[CTyankee]

101. Yes, I've seen the charts in the Gungeon and only in the Gungeon...thanks, but...

I'm not buyin' that chart. so don't start with me...

[X_Digger]

103. You mean FBI's 'Crime in the US' reports?!? Okaaaay.

There are none so blind..

[CTyankee]

160. I will say this once and I will not say it again. Please listen.

The selectivity and distortion of presenting such "evidence" has been long ago unmasked by others in many a Gungeon post. It has been washed and hung out to dry. No need to go and do it again in this GD thread. While I will not put you on Ignore (feel free tho to put me on your Ignore list) because I have never seen the need for Ignore, it will not further the conversation here to pursue this and I will not converse about it. Been there, done that in the Gungeon long ago. Consider me on your "hopeless" list because to you, I am. And that is fine with me.

[oldhippie]

54. That's good ......

... as the Constitution does not confer any rights. Rights exist. The Constitution states that they are to be protected. Doesn't anybody do Civics anymore?

[CTyankee]

58. Well, I was paraphrasing Laurence Tribe...do you know who he is?

hint: somebody who "does" civics (to use your odd usage of "do&quot .

[oldhippie]

64. Yep, I do ......

And guilty as charged as to the grammar. Even though I am old, I occasionally lapse into my son's "textspeak."

And although Laurence Tribe is a pretty smart guy, and I'll always listen to his views, I don't always agree with him.

[CTyankee]

73. well, that makes two of us. Old,that is. I find myself misspelling a lot more these days

and it drives me crazy. I used to be so proud of my spelling ability and that seems to have gone down the drain as I age...ACK...

[Donald Ian Rankin]

96. You'd need a separate law to ban guns, but that could be passed.

There is no "inherent" or "inalienable" right to own guns, only a legal and constitutional one. That can and should be restricted and/or taken away, by amending the constitution and then changing the laws.

[X_Digger]

98. It's already been ruled 'fundamental'.

But let's say you remove the second amendment.

Then, you'd have to pass the same repeal in all 50 states (see 10th amendment), then bring a case arguing that the right is not protected by the ninth or the fourteenth (and good luck with that, there's tons of historical context for it being a right.)

No, it's folly to assume you can strip a right from the people, once protected.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

100. C.F. the right to own slaves.

I agree that there is no realistic possibility of the second being repealed, and hence no chance of sane gun laws in the USA, any more than there's any chance of a decent healthcare system being set up. But I think your contention that you'd need to change any other amendments too is laughable - if the repeal of the second *were* to happen democratically, do you really think the courts wouldn't respect that?

[X_Digger]

102. There was no 'right to own slaves' -- the legal contention was that slaves weren't "men"

No, states can protect rights explicitly that the government does not- see the right of marriage equality.

Just as DOMA didn't stop states from passing marriage equality, repealing the second amendment would not invalidate the protections in the state constitutions.

[gopiscrap]

43. Yup re-write it

and ban all private gun ownership

[Apophis]

44. I would totally get rid of it.

[forestpath]

48. +1

[Tumbulu]

74. Best solution! nt

[onehandle]

46. It will be eventually nullified with a new Amendment. nt

[rrneck]

47. Add an amendment...

The safety and security of each citizen, being necessary to the security of a free state, the responsibility of the state to prevent harm to its citizens shall not be infringed. Should such infringement occur, each citizen shall be made whole at the expense of the state.

[Pelican]

68. So if I get mugged...

... I can sue the state to recover my losses because there should have been a cop babysitting me?

Good lord, how do you work in the world with such a desperate need to be cared for and taken care of?

[rrneck]

84. Yep.

Just imagine if the mugger kills you. Hard to fix that.

I probably should have added the drippy sarcasm thingy.

[Pelican]

157. Fair enough...

I seem to have lost my ability to distinguish between the two... You never know.

[NCTraveler]

50. It is fine the way it is.

Background checks are permissible by the state the way it is written. We need to change the politics.

[Occulus]

59. Here's mine, FWIW:

"The Security of the free States, and that of the United States, having been obtained and guaranteed by its well-regulated Militia, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms designed to end Human Life, shall only be obtained via Training, License, and Occasional Test, as administered by the several States, and shall not be obtained by any Citizen younger than eighteen years, or as provided in Special License issued by the several States."

[hunter]

62. Make gun owners qualify for militia duty with six weeks of very high stress militia training.

And subject them to a draft. All of them. Even people with physical handicaps. In the modern world anyone who can play a video game or post on a message board could potentially contribute to the defense of our nation.

Anyone who couldn't make it through training simply wouldn't be allowed to have guns. It would be a felony for any person unable to complete this training to posses a gun.

I further elaborated here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2752619

[jmg257]

67. "Well Regulated Armies are necessary for the security of a free Country,

but the Military shall always be kept in strict subordination to the civil power."

[Pelican]

69. How is that different than what we have now?

[jmg257]

70. Armies are different then Militia.

The former is the way We, the people have decided is the best way to maintain the security of our country. The latter, especially as referred to and intended in the 2nd, is obsolete.

Keeping our country and liberties secure were the primary purposes of the 2nd, so why not update it to modern-day reality?

[CTyankee]

75. excellent point!

We have before us a 2nd amendment distorted beyond reason, seeming to extol a kind of individualism with sneering disrespect to the rights and sensibilities of society as a whole. The reactions of the rabid 2nd A defenders to the Newtown parents were particularly nasty and egregious. I even saw some indefensible remarks on DU.

This is unsustainable. This will have to change. However, I do believe that this change is coming. It is only a matter of time.

[Jamaal510]

71. No assault weapons shall be allowed,

except for use by the nation's military. Citizens deemed mentally unstable are not permitted to bear arms. All other citizens shall have the right to bear arms, provided that they undergo a criminal background check and pass a safety course first.

[Politicub]

80. I think I would just annul the 2nd amendment

When I got to thinking about how I would write it, it became challenging to figure out the right guardrails.

My preference would be some kind of citizen board being established whose charter is to decide which models of firearms, ammo and magazines are to be banned based on a set of strict criteria. Guidelines and criteria would need to come from somewhere, though, and the republicans in congress have proven themselves as being unable to govern.

The technical arguments about clips, magazines and assault vs non assault weapons get tiresome since thinking people understand that it's just an attempt by second amendment absolutists to muddy the waters.

The majority of the people want comprehensive background checks. We want to make it difficult for people to own firearms that make it hard to shoot more than a small number of bullets in succession. And so on and so forth.

This isn't rocket science.

[KansDem]

83. Maybe just have the "Nine Amendments?"

[Politicub]

86. No. Pass an amendment like the 21st that repealed prohibition

Prohibition was ushered in via the 18th amendment and later repealed with the 21st.

[sarisataka]

81. Maybe it is the libertarian part of me

but I do not like any change to the Constitution that explicitly reduces rights...

I believe we already have too many of our enumerated rights infringed and the 2nd doesn't even make top three.

[graham4anything]

151. I agree, that we should have the right to vote for Barack Obama a 3/4/5/6/7/8/9/10/11/12/13/14/15...

[sarisataka]

158. I always figured the 22nd

was just a Republican snit about FDR

[Throd]

82. "You are free not to own a gun if you don't want to."

[Donald Ian Rankin]

94. "Armed militias being the greatest imaginable threat to the security of a free state..." N.T.

[petronius]

104. I wouldn't change it, nor any other part of the BoR

But if we're starting from the premise that it was to be changed, I'd expand it to explicitly recognize that people have the right to keep and bear firearms for self-defense, hunting, recreation, and all other lawful purposes (in addition to the defense-of-the-state reason that is currently in there). And maybe add a lengthy footnote defining what "infringed" really means. And I suppose we could add a few paragraphs defining "arms" versus artillery, missiles, destructive devices, etc. But really I wouldn't change it...

[LanternWaste]

105. Vague enough to allow variance and interpretation

"How would YOU rewrite it?..."

Vague enough to allow variance and interpretation, but concisely enough to allow those who believe their interpretation is absolute and without variance to pretend they're more clever than they really are.

[maxsolomon]

122. so you'd leave it as is, then?

[LanternWaste]

134. Pretty much, yeah. Except, I'd make sure the phrases "bing-bong"...

Pretty much, yeah. Except, I'd make sure the phrases "bing-bong" and "butt-soup" are included somewhere in it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

120. The Federal Government will set up armories from which guns may be checked out for specific purposes

and for specific amounts of time. All guns must be registered.

[Ted Brown]

126. Lots of better ideas. Starting with "well regulated"

No one who is NOT part of a "well regulated militia, (substitute modern words like " law enforcement, military, national guard/civil defense&quot .
not one person of adult age 21 plus shall be given a musket, or anything more modern, unless authorized by the present day, well regulated militia.

Bottom line: anybody crazy or a criminal at 21, never gets a weapon, except illegally, which makes him/her, a terrorist, a prime candidate for GTMO.

[ZombieHorde]

127. Here one version I would consider:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right for Zombiehorde to go to any zombie movie without charge shall not be infringed. He gets a free soda and candy too.

That is just a quick draft, and could probably use some tweaks before it was passed.

[petronius]

139. 'Militia' is a plural noun, so your revision makes no sense unless it stipulates

that ZH also has the right to receive 2 (or more) guest passes to share with other DUers who might also be willing to serve society by attending said zombie movies...

[ZombieHorde]

154. Good point! nt

[gcomeau]

128. Like this:

"____________________________________________________"

It's completely unnecessary, why replace it with anything?

[Buzz Clik]

129. A new second amendment? Yeah. That will get a lot of votes in Congress.

This might:

"Because a scary, socialist Kenyan now occupies the White House, and because dark skinned people are projected to be in the majority sooner than later, white people need to buy a lot of guns, and anybody who gets in their way is not an American and should go the hell back to Mexico or Africa, or Canada or wherever cowards cluster."

[AlinPA]

136. A tough job, but somehow it should be changed so that one's right to be safe is just as important as

as someone else's 2nd amendment rights. IMO, the 2nd amendment seems to trump others' rights and liberties because a gun in one's hands puts that person in control of others who are not armed.

[doggie breath]

137. How about this?

The Federal Government having decided that only those rights specifically set forth in this Constitution are those which the Citizens of the several States are actually entitled to possess hereby declares that any possession of any firearm by any person other than those the Federal Government deems worthy of such possession shall be prohibited.

[X_Digger]

148. So the right to travel is no more, eh?

Free clue.. the Bill of Rights 'grants' no rights.

[Niceguy1]

138. no need to change it.

The dream of banning fireatms is just as much as a folly as the prohibition was or even the current drug laws.

[samsingh]

141. include a liability clause.

[kestrel91316]

142. It needs only one word changed: "arms" to "muskets".

[klyon]

144. I would ban all guns

even police officer, especially police officers
they are too violent
with the exception of wildlife management so that they can dart animals to protect them when needed or so birth control can be used
guns are completely unnecessary in a civilized society
no need to respond I will ignore all gun advocates
I'm entitled to my opinion so ....

[Throd]

150. How do you propose to implement such a proposal?

[klyon]

155. pass a law

how else?
this tread ask for what I would do, did not ask what was possible

[Taverner]

149. You have the right to defend yourself it attacked. If not, fuckall....

[JohnnyBoots]

153. Are you on drugs?

How are you going to get two thirds of the states to sign off on this? Even if you did, half the country would not comply leading to armed insurection and eventually an asymmetrical civil war, but a civil war none the less.

[kentuck]

156. Just a small change...

"a well-regulated militia, regulated by each individual state,...."

[ileus]

159. I'd clear up the right of the people...to make it unquestionable.

Lot's of people can't understand that my family and I are part of America, my first duty is to protect them.