Willravel

As was discussed elsewhere, many people are confused or concerned about the wording of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the USA. It's structure is based in a rather old way of speaking and no longer is as clear as it may have once been. This thread is about a hypothetical reworking of the Second Amendment in today's world.

Before we get started, I'd like to have this thread stay on topic. Please, no personal insults, no posturing and no belittling others. This is about solution-centric discussion.

So I'll start:
Congress shall make no law prohibiting the the ownership of guns by legal citizens os the United States, provided they pass a background check and have not committed a crime with a gun.

Thoughts?

samcol

Don't really care for the background check or not committed a crime with a gun part. The gun laws are so batshit insane. Things like having a handgun on your person without a permit would be a gun crime, or having a mag that holds too many rounds, or having forward grips etc.

I like my states take on it (Indiana)

"The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State."

__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.

Daniel_

I figure that the original intent was along the lines of wanting there to be the facility for citizens to have the wherewithal to form a civil defense unit to overthrow a tyranical government (i.e. the British).

Therefore I would suggest:

"In order that a militia may be formed, the government shall allow citizens to form locally organised arrmed units with standardised weaponry as used by the infantry regiments of national guard units. Citizens joining such militia units shall be entitled to keep their weapon within their dwelling for as long as they continue to be part of the duly constituted milita".

__________________

╔═════════════════════════════════════════╗
Overhead, the Albatross hangs motionless upon the air,
And deep beneath the rolling waves,
In labyrinths of Coral Caves,
The Echo of a distant time
Comes willowing across the sand;
And everthing is Green and Submarine
╚═════════════════════════════════════════╝

Willravel

That's what most people think. Still, it does beg the question: would the Second Amendment, in it's current form, really provide the means necessary to state a rebellion?

Would this right extent to the emotionally unstable and criminals?

MSD

No citizen shall be deprived of the right to keep and bear arms except by due process of law.

Short, straight to the point, allows judges or juries to decide who's too dangerous. I want due process to be an individual right rather than allowing for blanket deprivation of rights like removing the right to bear arms from those who commit felonies that do not suggest a risk to others, or arbitrarily denying an individual's right to vote.

Willravel

I agree with this one, but I'll wait for final judgment by our fellow members that are more gun-friendly.

MSD

There are nearly as many guns as people in the country and a lot of people who aren't going to take tyranny lightly. In polls, less than half of members of the armed forces said that there was any situation in which they would follow orders to fire on American citizens on our soil, and about a quarter said that they would to suppress a rebellion.

You can't be deprived of liberty without due process of law. My second amendment reinforces that, but it's a no-brainer to my libertarian-leaning mind.

edit: rather than citizen, I want to change mine to encompass lawful residents. If you live here legally, you should have the right to defend yourself, others, and the country just like a citizen.

dksuddeth

All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property, the state, and this right shall never be questioned or infringed upon, but the legislature shall have power, by law, to prevent the carrying of concealed weapons.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

samcol

what? no ccw?

__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.

dksuddeth

ok, i'll edit that last part

i like that version better anyway.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Daniel_

I don't believe it does.

Everyone remembers the "right to bear arms". Nobody (or very few, anyway) remembers the "militia" bits.

I see the 2nd ammendment akin to the old statute that existed in England, requireing all men to do archery practice so an army could be made up from the yeomanry in times of crisis.

I'd be interested to know what'd happen if there was a REQUIREMENT to drill and train so that civil defense forces can be called upon in times of (domestic) need.

__________________

╔═════════════════════════════════════════╗
Overhead, the Albatross hangs motionless upon the air,
And deep beneath the rolling waves,
In labyrinths of Coral Caves,
The Echo of a distant time
Comes willowing across the sand;
And everthing is Green and Submarine
╚═════════════════════════════════════════╝

Willravel

This is Charles Manson. I believe he has been diagnosed with a particularly bad case of anti-social personality disorder, which led to several murders (along with some other really bad things). While he was initially sentenced to death, his sentence was reduced to life without the possibility of parole.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't Charles Manson be guaranteed a gun under your amendment (so long as it's not concealed, of course)?

dksuddeth

I believe that as a prisoner for life, without parole, is certainly going to meet that standard of the 5th amendment of being deprived of that right after due process, especially now that he's in prison.

If you are looking for exact wording and detail as to who does and doesn't have the right, you're going to be looking at an amendment that will span pages, not sentences.

It would, save for the hundreds of laws out there, namely the hughes amendment to FOPA86 and some others.

In any case, unless a principled and dedicated supreme court were to suddenly spring up, any new amendment would quickly be reduced to the same circumstances our current one has.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

MSD's amendment: "No citizen shall be deprived of the right to keep and bear arms except by due process of law." This one seems to cover it.

My concern would be that your wording is somewhat absolute. I think the idea is to provide a summarization or overall idea about the right with the amendment. So an absolute (unless I'm misinterpreting) would seem to negate the 5th.

flstf

Change to:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Charlatan

I like daniel's idea of mandatory training and drilling... This way you have a ready militia and a citizenry that has been trained in the use of guns.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

ASU2003

The NRA should be a regulated militia. They should be responsible for determining if a person can continue to carry a gun. And even life membership should be revocable.

I understand that guns are good sometimes, but I think the time has come to rework things just a little. Gun owners should have more rights, prior military with a clean bill of health should get more gun options, and there should be a few more limits on who can own a gun.

Jinn

Why are we offhandedly discussing as experts changing something that has withstood the test of time for over 200 years?

I don't believe the voting majority -- who understands the "spirit" of the law (rather than the "letter of the law") thinks that the 2nd Amendment applies only to organized militias. If they did, it would've been corrected long ago. The fact that people argue for a "militia only" 2nd Amendment demonstrates that people will always try to use words out of context, but I'm comforted by the fact that disarmament of the US population will never occur, and that those who understand the 2nd Amedment as a God given right to protect oneself represent the majority.

I'd accept a clarification, but not yours, will. The Constitution and Bill of Rights don't deal in specifics, simply because "background check" and "gun crime" are so vague. As a democratic republic of States, we should allow the States themselves determine the criteria for lawful use of a firearm.

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

Willravel

It hasn't at all. If you'd like, review case logs of Second Amendment cases before the Supreme Court. There have only been two major supreme court cases to directly address the Second Amendment, and they're both well over 100 years old. That speaks in volumes.
We don't vote for supreme court justices. This thread is simply a hypothetical exercise. As for using words out of context, the sentence structure of the amendment as it stands was debated elsewhere.

As for "god given", Christianity predates the US and even guns by quite a long time. I see that as moot.
And how would your amendment read?

ratbastid

I've always thought it was interesting that the original 2nd has a justification built into it. To put it in plain, modern english, the 2nd reads, "People's right to have and use guns shall not be infringed upon, since it's necessary for a free state to have a well-armed army."

It's the only amendment that has a rationalization built into it. You don't see "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, because, you know, no one religion is truer than any other, and we had enough of that nonsense back in England, and most of us founding fathers are Deists anyway, not Christians, so, yeah, we're doing that."

Kind of makes you suspect that this was controversial even when it was written, doesn't it? Like, they had to put that in there to justify something.

Also, those who say amendments to the constitution shouldn't contain specifics, you're probably not familiar with the Seventh: "In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law." That "twenty dollars" is both VERY specific and HORRIBLY out of date.

levite

How about: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the legislatures of the several states shall be empowered to form National Guard units of the Federal Armed Forces; and furthermore, the legislatures of the several states shall empower duly constituted authorities within their jurisdictions to create police departments, whose agents may be armed during the course of their duties."

I have no objection to the governments of states permitting individuals the right to keep rifles or shotguns for the purposes of hunting during game seasons. But handguns cause more trouble than they are worth; and I certainly cannot see any reason why individual citizens should ever need military-grade assault weapons, to say nothing of heavier weapons.

__________________
Dull sublunary lovers love,
Whose soul is sense, cannot admit
Absence, because it doth remove
That thing which elemented it.

(From "A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning" by John Donne)

dksuddeth

The very first court case to declare that the 2nd amendment was not an individual right was the kansas state supreme court in City of Salina v. Blaksley. Up until that time, there isn't a single case out there before 1905 that even hints at that. The 'collective rights' idea would have been laughed at before then. Since then, numerous anti-gun courts and politicians have pushed hard to rewrite the second amendment through the courts. Hell, you even have presidents right up in to the early 60s that still spoke of the 2nd amendment as an individual right.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

ratbastid

How about: "A person's life and health being of greater value than another person's rights to property, the privilege of owning firearms of any type shall be reserved only for those who have demonstrated the ability to use them safely and responsibly. Crimes committed with firearms will be punished especially strongly."

This thread is interestingly tautological. We're dealing with a MAN-given right, given by the MAN-written 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution. We're talking about rewriting it completely, and yet there's this concern here for preserving some big fancy Right? That makes no sense, if we're chucking it and rewriting it from scratch.

God didn't give anybody the right to have guns. Thomas Jefferson and his buddies made sure Americans could keep and bear arms, given the necessity to a newly-formed and fragile nation of a well-armed military.

Slims

I can tell you with 100% certainty, that if the majority of US citizens stopped supporting the government, currently available firearms would be sufficient to overthrow the gov.

An insurgency doesn't have to have superior, or even equal firepower to be effective. Insurgencies are almost always impossible to stop provided they have the support of the local population.

I don't believe the second amendment was written with the intent of only allowing 'certain' firearms. Afterall, many wealthy landowners owned their own cannon, which were employed in the revolutionary war.

__________________
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence

Jinn

Alas no, but God did give us the right to defend ourselves at all cost against those would harm us or Him. In Jesus' day, that meant sabers. Nowadays? Colt 45.

"If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him", Exodus 22:2

Judges 5:8 reminds us of what happens to a foolish nation that chooses to disarm: "They chose new gods; then was war in the gates: was there a shield or spear seen among forty thousand in Israel?"

Luke 22:36: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

dksuddeth

who determines the qualifications for safe and responsible?
this is the problem with rights being reserved for those who 'qualify', much like what happened to freed blacks in the jim crow days.

The framers believed that the right to bear arms pre-existed the constitution, not granted by it.

they learned first hand that governments with strong armies could deny and remove liberties and freedoms and that the only true and final protectors of our rights would be us, we the people.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

ratbastid

Oh, man, Jinn, I REALLY don't think you want to go to biblical sources for justification on this one. Because there's some CRAZY shit in the bible, and I doubt you really want to be on the same level with "Do not lay down with a man...". Literally, until you're living true to all the rules of the ancient Hebrews yourself, don't go to the Old Testament for support for your pet policies. Because it's NUTS in there.

On to the New Testament. You're taking the Luke quote horribly out of context, btw. Matter of fact, you're taking the whole thing out of context. God doesn't say "Defend yourself with deadly force if necessary." God says "Turn the other cheek." I guarantee you, Jesus would not be a gun owner.

Congress would have to make laws to flesh out those specifics. Those details shouldn't be tied to something as universal as the Constitution, they should be more open to interpretation over time. A Constitution lays out general principles that guide the creation of specific law.

Also, I deliberately didn't use the word "right". I used the word "privilege".

Show me some evidence of this assertion. Otherwise, it's just more "God wants me packing", which I'm telling you is against centuries of biblical and theological tradition.

Ustwo

I will accept the rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do. - Robert A. Heinlein

Perhaps the most interesting dichotomy in thought, and its not universal but the trend is apparent, that those who complain the loudest on things like the patriot act or say things like 'Bush is shredding the constitution' are also those who are in vehement favor of disarming the populous. If anything I would expect the opposite if such claims were based on being rational but instead its more based on rationalization.

I subscribe to the above Robert Heinlein quote. I am free to make the choices I make in life based on what I find tolerable. I am responsible for my own actions. Those actions may include defending myself from a petty criminal or may include defending myself from the government imposed upon me. By telling me I am not allowed to defend myself using the technology of the day (firearms) you are removing my freedom, you are saying I am not personally responsible, I am not to be trusted with my own fate, and it should be left up to others who you say know whats best for me.

This is not tolerable.

As such, if changes must be made to the 2nd amendment to be more clear I'd state it as the following.

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Jinn

Well, if we're really playing the role of editor here and changing the way the Constitution reads, I'd steal Ustwo's and add a little bit.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except as necessary for the defense of this Nation and its populace. The Government may prevent the sale, transfer, or ownership of firearms by anyone convicted by due process of law of committing violent crimes; murder, forcible rape, forcible sodomy, robbery, aggravated assault, or simple assault for a period of 10 years or one-half of the time sentenced, whichever is greater. Any person convicted of the above crimes two (2) times will be prevented by the force of law from owning a firearm for the remainder of their natural life.

I think this serves a dual function of clarifying that it is a (a) citizen's right to bear arms, not a militia's, and (b) that violent criminals and repeat criminals are sentenced to long sentences, but will regain their "human right" of armed defense of person if they've demonstrated non-criminal behavior. If they're convicted to 50 years in prison, for example, they have to be 25 years out before they can own a gun again. Likewise, if they've been convicted twice, then we can remove their natural right of self defense in a lawful "defense of the Nation."

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

ratbastid

It's a good response, Ustwo. I don't agree with all of it, but I can respect it a whole lot more than "God wants me to have a Glock".

One question, mostly just because I'm interested in your take on it:

If you were a speculating man, why would you guess the Framers wrote it the way they did? What was the point of putting the "hey, come on, we gotta have a well-regulated militia, guys!" rationalization in there?

dksuddeth

rat, this sounds suspiciously like the 'living constitution' theory, where people can use judical activism to redefine terms when something that started out great, becomes not so great because of personal displeasure.

If it's a 'privilege', then there would be no need to have an amendment in the bill of rights. Since you created a new amendment, I merely assumed it was a mistype on your part. my apologies.


US v. Cruikshank. 'The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.'

on top of that, most of the documentation from both pre-ratification as well as post-ratification talk of the right to bear arms. I would imagine that since they believed that the right to bear arms was inherent before the 2nd amendment was ratified, therefore it pre-existed.

I believe george mason said it best when he said "Who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country...? I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers."

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

ratbastid

I believe the founders gave us the power to amend the Constitution for a reason. It was never intended to be set in stone. They designed it to be flexible, and to be open to interpretation. That's a GOOD thing.

Without some context, that sounds to me like judicial activisim. :P


Ok, but that doesn't answer my question. (I was also specifically directing my question at Ustwo, but that's fine, your answer is quite welcome of course.) The question is: given they DID put the "because, you know, militla!" rationalization into the wording of the amendment itself, why do you think they did that? I don't really have an answer, but I think it's interesting, and I'd like to see pro-gun folks' thoughts about the question. It's not a "gotcha", I just think it's curious. It's the only amendment where they included their thinking on the matter. Why do you think they felt that was necessary?

dksuddeth

amend, yes. I wholeheartedly agree with the amendment process the framers made. using judicial decisions to re-interpret, not only no, but hell no.


undoubtedly one of the worst USSC decisions to come off the bench. It basically cleared the state from any wrongdoing of not protecting people because the constitution and bill of rights were only a check on the federal government. It's worse than judicial activism, it was a clear cut case of judicial tyranny.


One of the founders main concerns over the constitution was the power granted to congress in Art 1. Sec. 8
because of these fears, it was realized that freedom could be lost by congress simply not arming or organizing the militia, as it is today. In order to allay these fears, the 2nd amendment was created in order to ensure that the people COULD always be armed. That 'well-regulated' militia isn't about a federal or state run entity of volunteers, it's about the people as a whole, knowing how to shoot and fight. WE are necessary to maintaining our security as a free state.

thats how I see it anyway. most of the pre-rat docs show this.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Ustwo

Because regulation of arms by oppressive governments was a common occurrence in their day and the centuries prior.

What made the original roman republic so powerful was that the common man was expected to have his arms and armor ready to be used at a moments notice in defense of the republic. The founding fathers were aware of this history. Every citizen was expected to fight for the republic and being a republic for themselves, not the king or emperor, or whatever lord there was.

I still find this sentiment true today. We, the people, should be armed and able to handle threats to the republic, we should not rely on a professional army and police force to be the only ones capable of defense. That threat may be a lone gunman or an invasion, it doesn't matter, we the people are our own masters.

Its dangerous to think that because things seem 'free' right now they will remain such indefinitely. I doubt those roman solider citizens thought their civilization, perhaps the greatest in the world until the last 200 years, would collapse in chaos either.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Willravel

So, basically, yes.

ratbastid

But the whole point of the judicial branch is to interpret the law. How you could deem a law constitutional or not without interpreting both the law and the constitution is beyond me. Seems like that'd be the very first thing you'd have to do.

pan6467

From a stalker on this thread, I am truly proud of the posters on this thread, it shows how they can respect and work together.

Just spewing forth my opinion.....sorry for the threadjack.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Willravel

"Should" and "are" seem to be 100 miles apart even with the current right to bear arms, though. Most people wouldn't get off their sofas until the invaders were driving down their own streets in tanks. Or if American Idol was cancelled.

If China was somehow able to take care of the US Pacific fleet (like bankrupting the government?), and China invaded, San Francisco would likely become a battleground. Plenty of people around here have guns (I've actually been surprised how common they are here in liberalstown), but fighting a ground war against the Chinese Army would likely not go well. Have you ever opened fire on a tank with a shotgun? I can't imagine that going well. Better? Surrender, lull them into a false sense of security, and then rebel like there's no tomorrow. IEDs are frighteningly easy to build.

I have to wonder if an amendment would really help us in such a time. If we're rising up, we're going to rise up regardless of Constitutional permission.

Ustwo

This thread is about a hypothetical reworking of the Second Amendment in today's world.

This is the issue here which is perhaps the most open to debate. You say todays world like its different than yesterdays world and I don't think it is very different. Our methods may have changed in warfare, but just as we look back and see little difference between 1415 and 1416, I'm sure they thought the world was turned upside down in France as knights lost to mostly commoners. Todays world is nothing special compared to their world, our motivations are the same, our brains our the same, our mortality is the same.

Perhaps, but I also recall lines at the recruitment offices after 9/11. I was motivated to join even though I was over 30 years old, with a wife, in the middle of a professional program. Were at 21 and single again, I could not imagine having not joined.

Tanks control the macro terrain, but men with guns control the micro. You will not win a war with IED's unless the nation at wars will is weak.

And when you rise up, what will you fight with?

Personally I'd be happier if two years of service was required and after you were required to keep your weapon ready to use until the age of 60, after that it would be optional.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Willravel

And if the military couldn't have paid you?
I don't know if I'd call them "men with guns". If it were China, it'd be some of the best trained military officers in the world, who are quite capable in suburban terrain. While I'd like to think I could fare well in a firefight, realistically they'd kill me quickly. Even if I was well trained and well armed.
I'd likely be the guy who organizes everything. I know how to build bombs and I know how to set traps, but more than that I focus under pressure.
I'd support a draft if Congress and the President couldn't make any military decisions. Until the military is de-politicized, most people, myself included, wouldn't trust our fates to politicians.