Declaring that the 2nd Amendment is the length of a tweet, “the LA Times” asks its readers to write a better statement of right to bear arms. Some of these re-writes would only allow state militias to be armed.
Most just reword the original. Leaving me to observe that the founders did a pretty good job the first time.
just take out the first four words … that’s where the confusion lies
… or maybe just be sure to put in a clause about ‘silencers’, or ‘clips’, or ‘pistol grips’, or ‘bayonet lugs’, or ….
Careful there LA Times. We could just as easily change the first amendment to “freedom of the press, except the LA Times”.
To what end? To satisfy leftists? No rewrite will ever do that, and any rewrite will be twisted hard by the left. Leave it be.
The 2nd Amendment is perfect as written.
Why don’t they have their readers rewrite a better statement on the right to have a abortion? Oh, that’s right! There is no such right in the Constitution and the Supreme Court made it up out of thin air.
Why does it need to be changed, the original meaning is perfectly self evident to anybody but the morons on the left who want to use any excuse to take away our constitutional rights to keep and bear arms and this shall not be infringed. How much more self evident can that be?
It’s perfect and concise as is… “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”
btw; the 1st meets the same standard…”no laws regarding the establishment of religion”
Apparently the demoncrats need a dictionary so the can look up the words infringed and establishment.
I would ad that ” tampering will result in immediate termination.”
Like the first, the second amendment is an amalgam of two proposed amendments. As I recall reading somewhere it was VA who insisted it’s right to raise and maintain a militia be included before they’d sign on, while the MA delegation insisted the individual citizens’ right to keep and bear arms be included.
To say that only citizens who are in state militias can keep and bear arms is like saying freedom of speech and press only applies to discussions of religion since all are contained in the first amendment.
A well regulated, fuck it, keep your sorry ass away form my guns nigga!
Perfect as is. Only a pin head lawyer can misinterpret something so clear and concise.
Does anyone know why the Founding Fathers, in the case of the 2nd Amendment, did NOT use/include the phrase “Congress shall make no law”?
Though “shall not be infringed” is certainly strong and similar to the above, that the phrases are different suggests a difference in meaning/intent.
No change, not a word, not a comma, not a period, period.
after infringed should be added “by any level of government.” To remove any doubts among illiterate legislators or judicial branch zealots.
Make sure everyone is packing no matter what.
_____shall not be infringed.” In this respect, all male children upon reaching the age of sixteen shall be issued a long gun and sufficient ammunition to last a long winter. Such young males shall be trained in the care and handling of such weapons. They shall be tested periodically on the use of such weapons by the leaders of the local militia.
Note: This was amended in 1920 to include Abigail Adams and other patriots.
Every citizen of legal age will be required to bear a working firearm at all times and in all places.
Problem solved
The 2nd Amendment is perfectly clear to anyone who is reasonably intelligent and has some knowledge of history of the time it was written.
Unfortunately, there are many who are not so well equipped intellectually or informed who cannot quite grasp that clear meaning, and try to second guess by parsing the single sentence, getting it wrong.
Maybe a re-write would address this sorry situation. What follows is off the top of my head, and is certain to be imperfect. But here goes:
<b?The right of the people to keep and bear weapons is absolute. Neither Congress nor any other governmental entity shall limit in any way that right to make or otherwise acquire, keep, carry or otherwise transport any weaponry, nor shall the use of such weaponry in defense of self, family, property, community, or any other innocent person being attacked without just cause, or for any non-aggressive purpose, be proscribed in any manner whatsoever. No records regarding the possession or use of weapons, nor transactions involving weapons, nor any other recorded information of any kind shall be demanded or kept in any way by any governmental entity.
Heh! The first thing about it that’s imperfect is the HTML bold tag.
I wouldn’t change a thing. I won’t pretend to be smarter than our nation’s founders!
Ask a loaded question, get a loaded answer.
Democrats ask, “Is it time to burn the Constitution NOW?”
…put your lighters away, not now.
I would like this statement at the end of the Second Amendment.
This document is so critical to the United States Constitution that any individual citizen or group of citizens attempting to change or impede this law as it stands will lose their American citizenship and be treated as an enemy of The United States of America forever.
It’s NOT up for debate and it CAN’T be voted on. It’s a self evident statement.
Any republican over the age of 25 can own any gun they want and carry any gun they want
No questions asked
“This gun will blow your head CLEAN OFF. You can have it when you take it from my cold, dead hands!”
(An amalgamation from two sources.)
Bayouwolf is correct.
IT IS SELF EVIDENT.
CONVERSATION STOPS.
PERIOD.
ABC Political Analyst Says Second Amendment Exists To Protect The Government From Threats… LOL
https://www.weaselzippers.us/359481-abc-political-analyst-says-second-amendment-exists-to-protect-the-government-from-threats/
Don’t touch the 2A, just amend the Constitution to include The Communist Control Act.
Just FYI, Thomas Jefferson believed the Constitution should be rewritten from scratch every 20 years, because he thought it was wrong for the previous generation to bind the next one to terms it might find unacceptable.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch2s23.html
Can you imagine how that would have worked out?
Although I must admit it would be great if we could apply that philosophy to the National Debt situation.
🙂
How about “the right of the people to blast the ever living shit out of communists.”
Everything before the first comma can go – it seems to cause confusion among the doltish.
^^ That clause is willfully misconstrued by gun grabbers to further their agenda by clouding the issue.