If you HAD to rewrite it...?

[armedindy]

If you absolutely had to rewrite the second amendment how would you say it...........we all know what it means, but how would you choose to say it as a modern american?

this is by NO means an affront to the 2nd, the founders, or the lingual differences between america now and then...

ALSO, im aware that many of you are probably going to simply copy and paste it, then change something miniscule like punctuation, or adding or losing a single word here and there just cause youre positive that it shouldnt be changed at all.....i get that, but thats not really what im looking for.....

 

[churchmouse]

I would only add the BHO is not allowed to tamper with this as written. Best I got.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

It doesn't matter how it's worded or re-worded. It's worded just fine the way it is. But when folks are intent upon usurping the clear language, they'll always find a penumbra to hide under or some less-than-strict scrutiny by which to rationalize an infringement.

 

[Bunnykid68]

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

 

[JetGirl]

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

There ya go.

 

[Twangbanger]

The Supreme Court has ruled that it protects an individual's right to self-defense...thereby wiping away all the revisionist stuff about "collective rights" that were heaped on it by wishful anti-gunners.

We'd be crazy to change it, now that the 9 Black Robes have interpreted it "our way." (We just need to get a solid decision explicitly extending that right "outside the home," before one more justice seat changes hands and it goes permanent liberal majority, forever).

 

[Bunnykid68]

The Supreme Court has ruled that it protects an individual's right to self-defense...thereby wiping away all the revisionist stuff about "collective rights" that were heaped on it by wishful anti-gunners.

We'd be crazy to change it, now that the 9 Black Robes have interpreted it "our way." (We just need to get a solid decision explicitly extending that right "outside the home," before one more justice seat changes hands and it goes permanent liberal majority, forever).

Only 5 of them.

 

[brotherbill3]

It is funny; the 'argument' that is thrown out now is that 'the supreme court never ruled before that it was an individual right' ... the reason they never had to is that before the late 80's - everyone more or less understood that. ... which shows just how true the 'our rights are only 2 generations away from elimination' process is; if we do not stand up for them. ...

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

If you absolutely had to rewrite the second amendment how would you say it

Git'yer dammned hands off mah gunz and keep'em off 4 evr u Gmen sumbeaches !!!! 4 EVR !!!! , The end .

 

[CathyInBlue]

No government shall have any authority to regulate the ownership or use, nor any process regarding ownership or use, of any firearm, ammunition, related accessory, nor constituent nor aggregate thereof, in any form whatsoever.

 

[armedindy]

No government shall have any authority to regulate the ownership or use, nor any process regarding ownership or use, any firearm, ammunition, firearm accessory, or constituent or aggregate thereof, in any form whatsoever.

i like it....only question, does the UN count as a government, or should you throw in something about international governing entities just for clarification?

 

[level0]

The government will leave the people the hell alone.

 

[CathyInBlue]

I meant for the "in any form whatsoever" clause to apply to absolutely every other clause, so:

No government in any form whatsoever
shall have any authority in any form whatsoever
to regulate in any form whatsoever
the ownership in any form whatsoever
or use in any form whatsoever
, nor any process in any form whatsoever
regarding ownership in any form whatsoever
or use in any form whatsoever
, of any firearm in any form whatsoever
, ammunition in any form whatsoever
, related accessory in any form whatsoever
, nor constituent in any form whatsoever
nor aggregate in any form whatsoever
thereof, in any form whatsoever.

might more completely encapsulate the meaning of my version, but it just gets unnecessarily wordy.

 

[KDUBCR250]

It doesn't matter how it's worded or re-worded. It's worded just fine the way it is. But when folks are intent upon usurping the clear language, they'll always find a penumbra to hide under or some less-than-strict scrutiny by which to rationalize an infringement.

This !

 

[actaeon277]

The thing is already written simple enough a moron can understand it.
Problem is, every time you make something idiot proof, they design a different idiot.

 

[kludge]

No government shall have any authority to regulate the ownership or use, nor any process regarding ownership or use, of any firearm, ammunition, related accessory, nor constituent nor aggregate thereof, in any form whatsoever.

Why limit it to firearms? The Founders didn't.

IMHO, the whole problem with the GUN CONTROL debate is that 80 years after GCA1934 we are still allowing them to frame the question.

If someone wants to ban a private citizen from owning the Death Star, then go get a damn Constitutional Amendment.

Really, How hard would it be to ban the Death Star? And then work your way down the line, if that's what it takes...

Somewhere between the Death Star and Fists, Feet, Teeth, and Fingernails, you will cease to get the States' ratifying votes.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Why limit it to firearms? The Founders didn't.

IMHO, the whole problem with the GUN CONTROL debate is that 80 years after GCA1934 we are still allowing them to frame the question.

If someone wants to ban a private citizen from owning the Death Star, then go get a damn Constitutional Amendment.

Really, How hard would it be to ban the Death Star? And then work your way down the line, if that's what it takes...

Somewhere between the Death Star and Fists, Feet, Teeth, and Fingernails, you will cease to get the States' ratifying votes.

I like your thought process on this

 

[BigShow]

We the people have the God given right to be armed with any weapon equal to or greater than any military power in the universe, for any reason We the People see fit. And specifically to keep the U.S. government in check, and to protect the Republic from any and all threats. This shall not be infringed by anything or anyone. This also includes any future weapon that may be invented. Hence We the people can not be disarmed of any weapon of any type.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

I wouldn't change it at all, but maybe add another amendment to the Bill of Rights, the 'Mike Vanderboegh' amendment: "If you try to take our firearms we reserve the right to kill you."

Why limit it to firearms? The Founders didn't.

IMHO, the whole problem with the GUN CONTROL debate is that 80 years after GCA1934 we are still allowing them to frame the question.

If someone wants to ban a private citizen from owning the Death Star, then go get a damn Constitutional Amendment.

Really, How hard would it be to ban the Death Star? And then work your way down the line, if that's what it takes...

Somewhere between the Death Star and Fists, Feet, Teeth, and Fingernails, you will cease to get the States' ratifying votes.

My concern - would it be closer to the Death Star or closer to fists and feet on the spectrum of armament?

I am fine with every citizen not in government service having mini-nukes, for those times when we don't feel like wasting perfectly good bullets on coyotes, but not everyone feels this way.

 

[Trigger Time]

It's written as clear as can be in my opinion. The only ones who interpret it wrong are the ones who read it with bias and emotion. I guess I'd ad something to the effect that anyone trying to undermine ones natural right to keep and bear (carry around any and everywhere) arms, is an enemy of the state.

for me the right to keep and bear arms is just as important and serious as a mans natural right to be free. So slavery being illegal, women's right to vote, freedom of religion, are all on the same level as the right to keep and bear arms. A natural right is a natural right. Doesn't matter if you have a personal dislike for one of them or not.