General Discussion

defacto7

(14,162 posts)

97. or you can re-read my post.

Reply to X_Digger (Reply #95)

Fri May 24, 2013, 03:18 PM

May 2013

I stand by it.

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