Let's Rewrite the 2nd Amendment!

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: StargateSG7

If that was your point, then why didn't you include tanks, drones, fighter jets, aircraft carriers and nuclear bombs? Because if your point is to go up against Uncle Sam - that's the stuff he's bringing to the party.

Arms can mean anything...and if PERSONAL arms aren't enough i also give voice to a county or
state militia being able to possess and use all methods and means to remove said oppressive
regime...so that means YES WE CAN USE tanks,
drones fighter craft, robots, nukes, etc IF that is what is Necessary for Americans to free
Themselves from the chains of TYRANNY !!!

originally posted by: StargateSG7

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: StargateSG7

If that was your point, then why didn't you include tanks, drones, fighter jets, aircraft carriers and nuclear bombs? Because if your point is to go up against Uncle Sam - that's the stuff he's bringing to the party.

Arms can mean anything...and if PERSONAL arms aren't enough i also give voice to a county or state militia being able to possess
And use all methods and means to remove
Said oppressice regime...so that means
We CAN USE tanks, drones fighter craft, robots, nukes, etc IF that is what is
Necessary for Americans to free
Themselves from the chains of
TYRANNY !!!

Yes but, the current amendment has no qualifications so, no elucidation is necessary.

It is a purely political issue which requires only diligence not calligraphy to ensure.

a reply to: StargateSG7

You can also use the remedies to tyranny already provided to us in the Constitution. In fact wanting to change a document that was created to prevent tyranny seems rather...

tyrannical.

a reply to: StargateSG7

That's not the amendment you're looking for.

a reply to: StargateSG7

Your wording allows the mentally ill to use weapons. There are 800,000 people in the US who suffer from mental illness. Some of them have access to treatment. All would have access to guns under your wording.

Number of Guns Per Capita By Country

310 million or so, increasing by 10 million per year.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Interesting. From that page it shows the US is BY FAR the highest. By FAR!

yet, a historical list of countries by firearm-related death rate per 100,000 population in one year indicates that Honduras and Venezuela has the most deaths by firearms, with other central and South American countries also way up there. (And Swaziland). The US rate is only ~11 deaths per 100k, compared to Honduras with over 50.

And Americans don't get that - the people coming here from south of the border without permission are escaping FAR worse circumstances.

According to this guy's graph, anyway. Not sure how accurate it is.

The whole joke of it is that the 2nd amendment takes more rights and freedoms away from Americans, than it actually gives.

Look at how aggressive the police are, for a perfect example. Even when the cops just pull someone over they'll approach the car with there hand on there gun, ready to pull there weapon on you if you dare to move the wrong way. Then when they do a petty raid for a few plants, they tend to go in there like the person is a full on drug lord. Throwing a stun grenade in the window, busting down the door, then running in there with there guns drawn slamming everyone in the house on there face and cuffing them.

They can also get away with shooting people for twitching or running away, since who knows, they could have been armed.

Oh yeah, how liberating would it be to live in a society where everyone is potentially armed.... where the police shoot someone every two days and with a 5 per 100,000 murder rate.

SMH.

a reply to: StargateSG7

Here is my amendment.

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, but only if they wear pink and fake bunny ears and listen to justien bieber.

ok here are my suggestions for rewriting it:

add a clause Anyone in any office or in any media position that tries to take away gun rights by lawful citizens shall be removed from office, forbidden from any future office and or exiled and stripped of citizenship or else executed by firing squad.

or add a clause noting that the founders really did mean what they said even if 200 years later people are too stupid or willfully ignorant to acknowledge it. they really didn't mean it was for sport or hunting purposes only. they really did say it was as a last resort to stop a govt that becomes tyrannical and corrupt if lawful means of resistance and change are thwarted or withdrawn.

originally posted by: StargateSG7
The American people MUST have
the means to defend the Life and
Liberty of themselves and their
fellow citizens from ALL those
who wish to remove even the
tiniest semblance of true liberty
and a Just Government that is
By the People and For The People.

To GUARANTEE such ability to defend
our Liberty, I propose a revision of the
2nd Amendment which currently reads
as follows:

"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 the following wording as the new
REVISION OF THE 2nd AMENDMENT:


The Life and Liberty of the American
Individual and of the Greater American
Populace is to be kept and upheld by
the possession of and application of
the force of Personal Arms and the
Arms Held by a County or State Militia.

It is the inalienable right of all persons,
and the right of the local governing bodies
within all counties, territories and states
within or held by the United States to raise,
organize and train a militia to oppose and
counter any person, governing body or
other forceful entity that seeks to engage
or act upon the populace in any manner
that is either oppressive or counter to the
principles and amendments outlined within
the Constitution of the United States of America.
.
Therefore, it is the duty and obligation
of the people to act, using any and all
such personally-held and militia-held
arms of any type or means as required,
in order to remove and/or destroy any
agency or entity that acts as an unjust
or oppressive governing body which is
no longer By The People and
For The People.
.
And being necessary to the security
of a Free State and a Free People,
the inalienable right of all persons
to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed even in times of county,
state or federal emergency, or during
any external threat, or during any
natural or man-made disaster, riot,
insurrection or war.

And No Private Person or Private Entity,
nor any County, State or Federal Agency
and Governing Body shall remove or seize
any or all arms from any individual or
militia where that person or entity is
not legally imprisoned or is not barred
from possession of arms by a lawful court
order due to a felony conviction by a jury
of their peers. Any such legal bar against
possession of arms is rendered null and
void upon the completion and fulfilment
of any lawfully ordered court sentence
and after any court-ordered
probationary period.
.
It is lawful for all persons to defend
themselves with the application of
enough force of arms as required
in order to protect and save themselves,
their property, their home, their family,
their friends and others nearby from
immediate threat or harm caused by
acts of forceful intrusion, acts of nature,
criminality, riot, insurrection and war.

----

THERE THAT SHOULD DO IT!

The above is your NEW 2nd Amendment.


What do you think?

What alternative wording would
YOU use for a revised 2nd Amendment

Nah, Lets split the Union and you go live in your Fake America. I'll stick with the real one the Founding Fathers created.

The US government, and state governments, don't abide by nor follow the 2nd Amendment as it's written now. I'd have thought the phrase, "...shall not be infringed" would have been enough in its all encompassing simplicity. The problem with writing a new amendment shares the same problem as writing new laws; It's pointless if the law isn't followed to begin with.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
The US rate is only ~11 deaths per 100k, compared to Honduras with over 50.

And that number includes suicides, which are around two thirds of the yearly firearm related deaths. The rate for homicides is around 4.5 and has been in consistent decline for a couple of decades. For comparison sake, the world average homicide rate for 2012 was 6.2. Plus, its a well known fact that a disproportionate number of homicides in the US come from a relative few urban areas.

As to the original question of rewriting the 2nd Amendment, there have been times in the past when I thought that might be a good idea, but at some point, I realized that doing so would be to approach the problem from the wrong end. The real problem is that we have a bunch of elected officials who don't respect the Constitution or the rule of law and would prefer to just make things up as they go along. It would be more productive to vote all of them out of office in favor of people who do. Further, I don't trust the idiots in charge at the moment to rewrite 2A in a manner that protects the rights of the citizens, anyway.

You possess the Right, you must obtain the ability yourself, it can not be given.

a reply to: greencmp

Americans actually have a right to have tanks, nukes, lazors anything considered Arm's based on the constitution. Politically this will never happen but if we follow the law then what I say is truth. If our Government and "We the People" don't have to follow our core law then no one really has obligation to follow any of them.

New laws, State laws that attempt to override the "shall not be infringed" are simply that "Attempts at setting aside the constitution" when these attempts are backed by "political will" then they are illegally legitimized even if they are plainly illegal and unconstitutional laws.

Political Will has become the law of the land and once again that is the Political will of the 400 donors who buy the government offices that we the people vote for. They "Buy" who they want by lying to you both from their own mouths and through the bought and paid for MSM who by the way lie and manipulate you every moment you watch.

Donald Trump lives outside this system due to his success and wealth and he is now playing spoiler. I submit to you that you take advantage of this once in a lifetime opportunity to elect a President who cannot be bought or manipulated. Not because you agree with his policies but because he is uniquely qualified to expose and change the corruption in our political system.

Truth be known, Presidents have little power without support of Congress and Supreme Court. Trump could do little harm alone, but what a President can do is lead...he can expose the corruption, tell it like it is, wake up the American public to realities of the lies both the Career politicians, the Donor Class and MSM fill our lives with daily

He can bring change by getting inside and exposing the truth to you. So you have information you would not hear due to the control the Donor class has on MSM and Politicians.

The 2nd amendment is nothing more than late 18th century toilet paper, no longer fit to even wipe ones arse on.

It was written for a different time, and a different mindset.

If the American public were to form an uprising against a "tyrannical government" in this day and age, they would be up against far more than the poxy peashooters that they would bring to the party.

Never going to happen.

a reply to: woogleuk

We used that equipment before AND BETTER ,than the current serving forces,not to mention how many of the current serving forces wouldn't support such an idea either.
And how well trained vets STILL are.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

That's what people don't seem to realize. It wouldn't come down to citizenry against the military. A more likely scenario would be citizenry + military against DHS & foreign troops. Sure the average citizen wouldn't know how to efficiently deal with some of the toys DHS has. But I've no doubt vets do and would gladly share that knowledge given a situation like that.

a reply to: StargateSG7

If they decide to go in and change the second amendment they won't stop with only that one amendment and the corporations and their lawyers will end up turning into a world into something like the movie 1984 or Elysium through the changes in those guidelines set for governments to work within to preserve the liberties of their citizenry.

The current constitution may not be perfect but it is pretty much the most functional one out there in the world.

Don't let the ingrates get their paws on it or they will manipulate it for their own benefit/profit at the expense of the many.

Wait!, it already happened when they started to disregard it when we lost sound money 100 years ago.

So, really, we only need to revert the banking system to an earlier version.

Good luck with that....

a reply to: StargateSG7

I'm a gun owner who's not totally against consideration for a re-write of the 2nd, but the new version I have in mind wouldn't look anything like the one you're proposing.

Sounds to me like the only thing you left out was the right to marry your gun. Or "guns," if you're someone who leans toward polygamy.

Here's my contribution; If your proposal fails at the Constitutional Amendment level, (which I'm sure it would) maybe you could persuade one of those NRA puppets in Congress to present it as a Bill, they could call it "The Civilian Defense of Bundy Ranch, Military Recruitment Centers & Bigoted Gunshops Act.".