General Discussion

defacto7

(14,162 posts)

89. Actually it reads,

Fri May 24, 2013, 03:00 PM

May 2013

" 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.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

162 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

It's time to rewrite the 2nd Amendment- How would YOU rewrite it? [View all] zebonaut May 2013 OP

"has now been achieved with a modern military" really? let's just let drones do our thinking? NYC_SKP May 2013 #1

There is more to our modern military than just drones. n/t AndyA May 2013 #31

Here is my wish: Tumbulu May 2013 #2

Interesting , democracy newmember May 2013 #5

So, if a community of RWers, or .... oldhippie May 2013 #29

Of course not. There always must be legal safeguards against such practices. The law CTyankee May 2013 #49

Wooosh! You're missing the whole point .... oldhippie May 2013 #52

Sorry, I was dealing with your statement. I don't agree with the amendment just posited. CTyankee May 2013 #56

I'm afraid we will disagree .... oldhippie May 2013 #60

drop by today. It is a little different... CTyankee May 2013 #63

I'll be watching! oldhippie May 2013 #65

You could challenge it under the 14th Amendment, thucythucy May 2013 #119

It's kinda hard to challenge it if it's in the Constitution ... oldhippie May 2013 #130

I agree. That particular language would be a problem. thucythucy May 2013 #161

How does that keep the bad guys from getting guns? nt. clarice May 2013 #55

Damn, I have to reply to this again.... defacto7 May 2013 #3

Repealing the amendment doesn't make the right go away. X_Digger May 2013 #42

Actually it reads, defacto7 May 2013 #89

See US v Cruikshank.. X_Digger May 2013 #91

But that's the point! defacto7 May 2013 #93

Feel free to call for another constitutional convention and re-write it. X_Digger May 2013 #95

or you can re-read my post. defacto7 May 2013 #97

Okaaaay. You v. courts & 200+ yrs of legal tradition. Hrmm. Guess which one I'll stand by? n/t X_Digger May 2013 #99

I'll stand by the one that replies to the OP. defacto7 May 2013 #114

Does not reply #3 (by you) say.. 'repeal it'? X_Digger May 2013 #115

I'll take that under advisement! defacto7 May 2013 #116

So you try to chide me for not sticking to the OP's concept when you veered off into 'repeal'?!? X_Digger May 2013 #118

Actually, "In countries with an English common law tradition, a long standing common law right to AnotherMcIntosh May 2013 #110

of course those selling guns are incented to argue otherwise samsingh May 2013 #140

So you want a gun free society newmember May 2013 #4

Of course not; authoritarians are 'comfortable' with guns closeupready May 2013 #36

This: BainsBane May 2013 #6

Here's how I'd reword it: joshcryer May 2013 #7

Yes, lets emulate Sweden... rrneck May 2013 #45

you just made it legal to go sleeveless maxsolomon May 2013 #106

They can only bare arms sarisataka May 2013 #112

Let's to this to its logical conclusion: Buzz Clik May 2013 #133

I like it. Bare arms aren't a threat to anyone. Buzz Clik May 2013 #131

Similar to the Founding Fathers being comma happy, ManiacJoe May 2013 #8

"This amendment is now null and void." mwrguy May 2013 #9

"The right of well-regulated militias to keep and Ron Green May 2013 #10

"You guys can have all the deadly force you want!" moondust May 2013 #11

I like the Bill of Rights just fine as it is, thank you very much. LAGC May 2013 #12

It's been tweaked repeatedly maxsolomon May 2013 #107

No, you're talking about other constitutional amendments. LAGC May 2013 #109

Well, I don't like the "Well-regulated Militia" part maxsolomon May 2013 #113

The classical definition of "Militia" is: LAGC May 2013 #117

As I understand it, Militia has been expanded maxsolomon May 2013 #121

Absolutely. LAGC May 2013 #123

that definition does - they can only be in the militia if they're in the national guard. maxsolomon May 2013 #124

If you want to modify or tweak the meaning of a given phrase... LAGC May 2013 #125

"Safer"? maxsolomon May 2013 #143

You know, once upon a time you could mail-order guns from catalogs, shipped straight to your house. LAGC May 2013 #145

firearms are certainly efficient facilitators of those root causes. maxsolomon May 2013 #146

It's easy to identify the problem. LAGC May 2013 #152

i don't know how to fix it anymore. i never did. no one does. maxsolomon May 2013 #162

Being a wee bit selective are we? gcomeau May 2013 #132

Guns are for women. veganlush May 2013 #13

Except my ex-wife. No effin' way she gets a gun. Buzz Clik May 2013 #135

Only women in the National Guard belong to the Militia. maxsolomon May 2013 #147

The right of the people to keep and bear arms treestar May 2013 #14

mmmm LostOne4Ever May 2013 #15

"Congress shall make no law forbidding in general the keeping and carrying of arms... Recursion May 2013 #16

Good as is... Pelican May 2013 #17

Whatever makes you think you could get it passed and ratified? GreenStormCloud May 2013 #18

Once you've proven you can rewrite an Amendment from the original Bill of Rights customerserviceguy May 2013 #19

the slope is slippery! maxsolomon May 2013 #108

I would like to get rid of it but first, I'd like to see how other modern constitutional CTyankee May 2013 #20

Using the mechanisms outlined in the Constitution. cherokeeprogressive May 2013 #21

Shorten it: "The individual's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." 1-Old-Man May 2013 #22

If it expands citizen self-determination at the expense of the state, closeupready May 2013 #35

That's already its functional interpretation maxsolomon May 2013 #111

I would much rather work on the Fourth than the Second jmowreader May 2013 #23

Sect. 1. The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed baldguy May 2013 #24

I'd circle the word 'regulated' twice then add a star and underline it Johonny May 2013 #25

You would need to define 'regulated' because the way you want it defined rl6214 May 2013 #85

Everything we'd like to do to regulate guns demwing May 2013 #26

How about this? Deep13 May 2013 #27

No, thanks. I'll keep it the way it is. nt piedmont May 2013 #28

Leave 2A as is. The problems in the U.S. are far greater than guns Eleanors38 May 2013 #30

No, it's not. End of thread. closeupready May 2013 #32

My state's version might be a good start: Lizzie Poppet May 2013 #33

Leave it the way it is. HappyMe May 2013 #34

Very true. nt clarice May 2013 #57

Strike it. Nye Bevan May 2013 #37

can we also strike the first? backwoodsbob May 2013 #76

I wouldn't re-write it, I would enforce the literal meaning of it. JaneyVee May 2013 #38

This is the way I see the 2A AndyA May 2013 #39

Repeal The Time is Now May 2013 #40

You seem to be under the impression that the second amendment 'grants' or 'limits' the right. X_Digger May 2013 #41

It is not clear to me that the ninth amendment confers rights. CTyankee May 2013 #51

It doesn't. *sigh* That's the point. X_Digger May 2013 #53

A lot has been written on this. As I said, to me it is not as clear as you make it out to be. CTyankee May 2013 #61

Yes, and if you read *any* of it, you'll quickly realize that our founding documents don't 'grant'.. X_Digger May 2013 #66

it is a "hot mess" to use your wording and I think it cuts both ways. CTyankee May 2013 #72

The argument in Roe re the ninth was not whether it was covered.. X_Digger May 2013 #77

I don't think the right to life crowd would ever accept either one, much less a combination. CTyankee May 2013 #78

What crazy RWNJ's think != what court jurisprudence has held. X_Digger May 2013 #79

if what you are saying is right, then it is what is wrong with this country, that we cannot CTyankee May 2013 #87

Our *non*-gun homicide rate is higher than most comparable countries *total* homicide rate. X_Digger May 2013 #88

The more unfettered gun possession in our society, the more violence and killing. CTyankee May 2013 #90

Yet we have more guns but lower homicide rate than just 20 years ago. X_Digger May 2013 #92

Yes, I've seen the charts in the Gungeon and only in the Gungeon...thanks, but... CTyankee May 2013 #101

You mean FBI's 'Crime in the US' reports?!? Okaaaay. X_Digger May 2013 #103

I will say this once and I will not say it again. Please listen. CTyankee May 2013 #160

That's good ...... oldhippie May 2013 #54

Well, I was paraphrasing Laurence Tribe...do you know who he is? CTyankee May 2013 #58

Yep, I do ...... oldhippie May 2013 #64

well, that makes two of us. Old,that is. I find myself misspelling a lot more these days CTyankee May 2013 #73

You'd need a separate law to ban guns, but that could be passed. Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 #96

It's already been ruled 'fundamental'. X_Digger May 2013 #98

C.F. the right to own slaves. Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 #100

There was no 'right to own slaves' -- the legal contention was that slaves weren't "men" X_Digger May 2013 #102

Yup re-write it gopiscrap May 2013 #43

I would totally get rid of it. Apophis May 2013 #44

+1 forestpath May 2013 #48

Best solution! nt Tumbulu May 2013 #74

It will be eventually nullified with a new Amendment. nt onehandle May 2013 #46

Add an amendment... rrneck May 2013 #47

So if I get mugged... Pelican May 2013 #68

Yep. rrneck May 2013 #84

Fair enough... Pelican May 2013 #157

It is fine the way it is. NCTraveler May 2013 #50

Here's mine, FWIW: Occulus May 2013 #59

Make gun owners qualify for militia duty with six weeks of very high stress militia training. hunter May 2013 #62

"Well Regulated Armies are necessary for the security of a free Country, jmg257 May 2013 #67

How is that different than what we have now? Pelican May 2013 #69

Armies are different then Militia. jmg257 May 2013 #70

excellent point! CTyankee May 2013 #75

No assault weapons shall be allowed, Jamaal510 May 2013 #71

I think I would just annul the 2nd amendment Politicub May 2013 #80

Maybe just have the "Nine Amendments?" KansDem May 2013 #83

No. Pass an amendment like the 21st that repealed prohibition Politicub May 2013 #86

Maybe it is the libertarian part of me sarisataka May 2013 #81

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... graham4anything May 2013 #151

I always figured the 22nd sarisataka May 2013 #158

"You are free not to own a gun if you don't want to." Throd May 2013 #82

"Armed militias being the greatest imaginable threat to the security of a free state..." N.T. Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 #94

I wouldn't change it, nor any other part of the BoR petronius May 2013 #104

Vague enough to allow variance and interpretation LanternWaste May 2013 #105

so you'd leave it as is, then? maxsolomon May 2013 #122

Pretty much, yeah. Except, I'd make sure the phrases "bing-bong"... LanternWaste May 2013 #134

The Federal Government will set up armories from which guns may be checked out for specific purposes Tierra_y_Libertad May 2013 #120

Lots of better ideas. Starting with "well regulated" Ted Brown May 2013 #126

Here one version I would consider: ZombieHorde May 2013 #127

'Militia' is a plural noun, so your revision makes no sense unless it stipulates petronius May 2013 #139

Good point! nt ZombieHorde May 2013 #154

Like this: gcomeau May 2013 #128

A new second amendment? Yeah. That will get a lot of votes in Congress. Buzz Clik May 2013 #129

A tough job, but somehow it should be changed so that one's right to be safe is just as important as AlinPA May 2013 #136

How about this? doggie breath May 2013 #137

So the right to travel is no more, eh? X_Digger May 2013 #148

no need to change it. Niceguy1 May 2013 #138

include a liability clause. samsingh May 2013 #141

It needs only one word changed: "arms" to "muskets". kestrel91316 May 2013 #142

I would ban all guns klyon May 2013 #144

How do you propose to implement such a proposal? Throd May 2013 #150

pass a law klyon May 2013 #155

You have the right to defend yourself it attacked. If not, fuckall.... Taverner May 2013 #149

Are you on drugs? JohnnyBoots May 2013 #153

Just a small change... kentuck May 2013 #156

I'd clear up the right of the people...to make it unquestionable. ileus May 2013 #159