I propose this change to 2A...

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by danf_fl, Oct 24, 2013.

  1. danf_fl

    danf_fl Retired Supporter

    12,369
    57
    48
    From this: "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."

    To This: "Being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. Being necessary to preserve the right of the people, the right of a well regulated Militia to keep and bear arms shalll not be infringed."
     
  2. MisterMcCool

    MisterMcCool Well-Known Member Supporter

    12,977
    410
    83
    I prefer shortening it to "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
     

  3. mountainman13

    mountainman13 New Member

    11,488
    0
    0
    I wouldn't trust the feds to make any change to the 2nd. They'd find some way to make the change sound like it is good and then slip it to us when they passed the change.
     
  4. SSGN_Doc

    SSGN_Doc Well-Known Member

    6,926
    66
    48
    The only way to make a change to the bill of rights would be a constitutional convention, and that opens the whole document to revision. I don't trust the current crop of "representatives" to have the peoples rights as their top priority if such an opportunity were to be given to them.
     
  5. JW357

    JW357 New Member

    6,716
    1
    0
    Agreed.

    I say leave it like it is, but with better education in schools and from parents on what exactly the BoRs means.
     
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2013
  6. WebleyFosbery38

    WebleyFosbery38 New Member

    7,510
    2
    0
    Yup, Just gotta tell them to get a 6th grade education and read it not read into it! Changing it now would not be wise. Theres really nothing wrong with it just the way it is. Simple and no fluff,.
     
  7. TDS92A

    TDS92A New Member Supporter

    2,747
    0
    0
    There is absolutely nothing wrong with the original writing of it. All the commas are in the right place. :D

    All one has to do is read and comprehend...........well I guess that leaves the idiots in D.C. out of it. :eek:
     
  8. Chainfire

    Chainfire Well-Known Member Supporter

    5,379
    624
    113
    All of the people McCool? (Careful, this is a trick question)
     
  9. Warrior1256

    Warrior1256 New Member

    614
    0
    0
    Agreed!!!!
     
  10. myers1991

    myers1991 New Member

    69
    0
    0
    The definition of infringe is deep enough to make it hard on the liberals already....I believe the founders kept it short, sweet, and to the point to keep the nut jobs from twisting into oblivion. Because we have all seen what they're capable of to get around what they don't like. But Dan has a point....a well regulated militia will just be swatted down because we, the militia or whatever you deem it, will just look like terrorist in the liberals eyes. The excuse for them would be, a "so called" well regulated militia to secure a free state was not stated in the constitution. Consequently, they now have the ability to determine the definition of a "free state".
     
  11. Axxe55

    Axxe55 The Apocalypse Is Coming.....

    7
    2
    0
    "Shall not be infringed" says volumes. means we should be able to own and possess any firearm of our choosing without hindrance from liberal gun haters and greedy politicians!
     
  12. hawkguy

    hawkguy Well-Known Member

    4,976
    56
    48
    i got a friend who is a social studies teacher and coach. and he be teachin the hell out of those BOR....he does a great job. it is happening in some places at least.

    i always thought if i was gonna teach, it would be history. i hated history until i got to college and a few professors introduced me to some REAL history.
     
  13. hawkguy

    hawkguy Well-Known Member

    4,976
    56
    48
    well....i don't really want to start it....but "shall not be infringed is NOT the entire second amendment." its more debatable than it seems. i'm not saying it to argue, it just IS. but we have been doen that road before, so I WILL NOT say anything else about that.

    but i agree with most everyone else here that the second amendment was put in place as a balance of power between the gov and the people....all i've ever read or understood from the founders makes this pretty much indisputable.

    these days i might actually be more worried about the 5th amendment than the 2nd.....LEGAL indefinite detention of americans scares the ish out of me. i still don't get how the hell that happened????? :confused: i wish there was an organization of the NRA's strength to protect ALL of the BOR's.
     
  14. MisterMcCool

    MisterMcCool Well-Known Member Supporter

    12,977
    410
    83
    All free men (and women.) Juveniles are not considered men or women.
     
  15. hawkguy

    hawkguy Well-Known Member

    4,976
    56
    48
    career violent criminals paroled out of our "justice" system are free men and women

    (and sometimes not juveniles these days...;))

    :confused:
     
  16. Axxe55

    Axxe55 The Apocalypse Is Coming.....

    7
    2
    0
    there is an organization. it's we the citizens voting those people out of office and voting in those who will abide by the Constitution like they are suppose to do.

    and i agree, its only part of the 2nd, but IMO, the most important part of the 2nd. only those who want to declare it obsolete or outdated want to debate it's meaning. it means what the founding fathers wrote.
     
  17. hawkguy

    hawkguy Well-Known Member

    4,976
    56
    48
    upon more thought, i would just want the term "militia" removed from the 2nd....it confuses to many uninformed citizens who don't want to bother to research the history that will explain why the founders put the right to bear arms in the peoples bill of rights.
     
  18. MisterMcCool

    MisterMcCool Well-Known Member Supporter

    12,977
    410
    83
    I do not agree with releasing a violent criminal who continues to pose a threat to society.
    I also disagree with life sentences. If the sentence exceeds the reasonable life expectancy, why wait?
     
  19. Axxe55

    Axxe55 The Apocalypse Is Coming.....

    7
    2
    0
    IOW's using the death penalty. not them sitting around for 10-15 years before doing it.

    i agree. if they have served their time, and are safe to release back into society, then they should afforded all their rights, including that to own and possess a firearm. if they aren't deemed safe enough to own and possess a firearm, then they need to be kept locked up. seems simple enough to me.
     
  20. DrumJunkie

    DrumJunkie New Member

    4,823
    0
    0
    While on probation or parole you are not a free man. There are conditions to your release that you must adhere to or go back to the crossbar hotel.

    But after fully released you are a free man. And that should be enough to live with the rights of any other free man.