How would you rephrase the 2nd Amend to modern language?

[whiterussian1974]

I know, I know. It's great just the way it is. No changes needed.

I'm just asking if we were "translating" 1787 English into 2014 English, how would you retain the meaning and purpose yet make it easily understandable?

Such as "Well Regulated" meaning Trained and Equiped. And elaborating that the purpose of a "Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" means: A well trained and equiped Civilian base rather than a Standing Professional Army. Since Standing Armies typically erode Freedom and lead to a Totalitarian State.

[whiterussian1974]

Contemporary documents and published accounts state that the 2nd Amend was intended to limit Standing Armies, which were universally regarded by the Founders as Totallitarian and Anti-Freedom.

Do Liberal/Erosionist Judges really believe that the Constitution only guaranteed the use of weapons while serving on Active Duty?

No, it intended for Citizen Groups and State (non-Fed) Militias to bear the brunt of Domestic Policing and Defense. Not the opposite.

The role of the National Army was to organize, equip, and train the State Militias and Citizen Groups so that they were Standardized. And to streamline Admin and Acquisitions.

[poikilotrm]

I know, I know. It's great just the way it is. No changes needed.

No. There need to be changes.

It costs $20 for a seatbelt violation in Georgia. BTW, a seatbelt violation in Georgia is unique, in that it is neither a civil nor a criminal infraction, it is a seatbelt violation. A chickenshit bit of nothing like doing as you please without harming another person needs a law and it has a punishment attached to it.

The punishment for many crimes is spelled out in the description of the crime. There is no punishment directly associated with violation of civil rights by givernment actors. Ever hear that absolute fucking lie about cops being held to a higher standard? OK, since they so eagerly spout it, then they won't mind if we make that true. If a cop violates any civil rights without great cause, and bubba, officer safety ain't a great cause, then the sentence is death, to be administered immediately upon conviction, and in public. Furthermore, anyone has standing to bring a charge of civil rights violation before the courts, magistrates MUST immediately issue an arrest warrant upon presentment of evidence, and since DAs and AUSAs are notorious shitbags, private criminal prosecutions may be conducted.

[whiterussian1974]

While I understand your perspective based upon your personal and non-unique experiences, these proposed changes aren't workable for several reasons.

Death Penalty? How about settling for Trebble Damages. That's a far more palatable response.
Overreach in your Reforms, and the Public Backlash will swing the Pendulum of Historic Trajectory/Dielectic the wrong way.

And compelling Magistrates to issue Arrest Orders upon each and every claim of Civil Violations?
French and Russian Revolutions show that path. Total Anarcy and noone willing to act in Public Interest.

Instead I'd suggest that we enact the Citizen Review Panel that other Members have suggested. They would work like a Grand Jury overseeing Public Corruption and Abuse. An ACLU or retired Defense Attorney would be available to explain legal ?s. The Police and DA Offices would have ZERO influence on Panels. Even their IDs would be protected.

Most Organizations rot from the Top. Cut off the Head and the snake becomes docile.

Since Gov is a Hydra, just contain the Heads via Citizen Oversight. And ensure that Correct Action benefits Officials more than Abuse and Corruption.

[whiterussian1974]

Also Poki, your reply didn't explain your rephrasing of 2nd Amend to Clarify for 21st Century audiences.

You addressed listing Punishments as an Addendum to Constitution.
That's another Thread that you are welcome to Author, but I only wanted to clarify existing language. Not add Const Articles or Sections.

[poikilotrm]

While I understand your perspective based upon your personal and non-unique experiences, these proposed changes aren't workable for several reasons.

Death Penalty? How about settling for Trebble Damages. That's a far more palatable response.

No. When you have skin in the game, you think twice. There has been such an egregious abuse of unchecked power for so long that the only thing that will restrain scumbags is the threat of death. If you doubt that assessment, I suggest you review what just happened vis a vis Bundy and the BLM. The feds backed down because of the threat of death, and nothing more.

Overreach in your Reforms, and the Public Backlash will swing the Pendulum of Historic Trajectory/Dielectic the wrong way.

Freedom is rarely poorly recieved.

And compelling Magistrates to issue Arrest Orders upon each and every claim of Civil Violations?

No. There must be more than simple statements made. There must be some evidence to support the claim. Note that this standard is far higher than what is required for a cop to get a warrant, and with that warrant a cop can kick down your door with his buddies and summarily execute you.

French and Russian Revolutions show that path. Total Anarcy and noone willing to act in Public Interest.

Placing power in the hands of those wronged by madmen is hardly anarchy. It is balance. It keeps the bad dogs on a short leash.

Instead I'd suggest that we enact the Citizen Review Panel that other Members have suggested. They would work like a Grand Jury overseeing Public Corruption and Abuse. An ACLU or retired Defense Attorney would be available to explain legal ?s. The Police and DA Offices would have ZERO influence on Panels. Even their IDs would be protected.

Been tried, doesn't work. Need many, many examples?

Most Organizations rot from the Top. Cut off the Head and the snake becomes docile.

Since Gov is a Hydra, just contain the Heads via Citizen Oversight. And ensure that Correct Action benefits Officials more than Abuse and Corruption.

Also doesn't work. Need a multitude of examples?

[StoneyGherkin]

Pennsylvania got it right in 1776.

Article I, Section 21

The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

Nothing confusing or complex was necessary.

[doubloon]

2A does two things.

It specifically declares the right of each sovereign State to raise a militia to defend its freedom, whether a volunteer army or a standing army it does not matter and is not important. And it does not declare the right of any central government to raise a militia, that is granted elsewhere.

It also declares the right of each individual to own and carry arms. Not just firearms but knives, pikes, bats, guns, axes, spears, etc. and it doesn't say how many or what kind or for what purpose because none of that is any of your frikin business.

2A says it right, SCOTUS got it wrong.

[whiterussian1974]

Thanks StoneyGherkin and Doubloon. These were in the Vein I was hoping for.
Many People are aware of the Federalist Papers, but not very many of the Anti-Federalist Papers which were counter-arguments and often aimed at limiting the National Leviathon that Hobbes warned against. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hobbes#Leviathan

[silencertalk]

"All free citizens have the right to keep, use, and carry in public any small arms and ammunition, including full auto, short barrels and silencers, for any purpose except murder."

[silencertalk]

The "well-regulated militia" is necessary but risky as we were afraid of such armies, so the people can keep and bear arms also.

The people are not the militia. The people have guns to protect themselves from the militia.

[L1A1Rocker]

I'll try and take a stab at it: In order to insure the raising of a militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and ordnance, shall not be restricted. Nor shall any man be debarred the use, nor bearing of arms without due process. Nor shall any class, or type of arm be prohibited.

[doubloon]

ETA L1A1 has the best proposal so far.

...
The people are not the militia. The people have guns to protect themselves from the militia.

I could be wrong but I believe you need to think of "militia" in terms of Old English which was the language of the founders/rulers at that time. Also because there was no public till from which to fund a State supported militia. It would be years (decades?) before the States could afford to raise a standing army and the key to defending their freedom was the reserve forces of a militia.

The colonies adopted the English "Militia System" long before the revolution and that system obligated all males between the ages of 16 and 60 to possess arms and participate in the defense of the community. This system was carried forward through the declaration and battle for independence from Britain.

http://www.virginia1774.org/Militia%20A ... 01757.html

APRIL 1757 - - 30th GEORGE II.

CHAP. III.

An Act for the better regulating and disciplining the Militia.

I. WHEREAS it is necessary, in this time of danger, that the militia of this colony should be well regulated and disciplined. Be it therefore enacted, by the Lieutenant-Governor, Council, and Burgesses, of this present General assembly, and it is hereby enacted by the authority of the same, That from and after the passing of this act every county-lieutenant, colonel, lieutenant-colonel, and other inferior officer, bearing any commission in the militia of this colony, shall be an inhabitant of, and resident in the county of which he is or shall be commissioned to be an officer of the militia.

II. And be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, That the lieutenant, or in his absence the chief officer of the militia, in every county, except the county of Hampshire, shall list all male persons above the age of eighteen years, and under the age of sixty years, within this colony (imported servants excepted) under the command of such captain as he shall think fit, within one month after the passing of this act.

...

The People are the Militia.

[silencertalk]

I'll try and take a stab at it: In order to insure the raising of a militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and ordnance, shall not be restricted. Nor shall any man be debarred the use, nor bearing of arms without due process. Nor shall any class, or type of arm be prohibited.

Then people will then say that it only applies to militias, and claim, that is the national guard takes that over. There should be no mention of a reason. The reason doesn't matter, only the right that is protected.

[silencertalk]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YY5Rj4cQ50

[doubloon]

Then people will then say that it only applies to militias, ...

The People are the Militia.

As much as I like Penn and Teller they got it just as wrong as SCOTUS.

The Militia and the People are not separate or at odds against one another they are one in the same.

[poikilotrm]

The people are not the militia.

Au contraire, mon frere:

10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes

Current through Pub. L. 113-88. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

[poikilotrm]

I'll try and take a stab at it: In order to insure the raising of a militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and ordnance, shall not be restricted. Nor shall any man be debarred the use, nor bearing of arms without due process. Nor shall any class, or type of arm be prohibited.

According to the POTUS and the AG, due process consists of a few guys sitting around a table deciding on a course of action. You can't give them any wiggle room.

[TROOPER]

If I had a complaint with the 2A, it would be that the clarification clause is so often misunderstood. The justification for the law doesn't need to be imbedded in the wording. Succinct is good.

That Pennsylvania law sounds good-to-go.

Also, wording it as "any reason except murder" is probably an inappropriate vein to mine since there are other things to do with a gun besides murder that are still unsavory. "Officer, I'm carrying this guy to shoot him in the legs."

[jlwilliams]

"All free citizens have the right to keep, use, and carry in public any small arms and ammunition, including full auto, short barrels and silencers, for any purpose except murder."

I disagree with limiting to "small arms" and don't believe that was what this country's founders meant to protect. If the founders meant anything, they meant cannons. The 2nd Amendment was meant to insure our country could protect itself without a standing army. To do that you need artillery and that was particularly true back then when an invasion might literally row ashore from sail boats. With a couple of well located cannons, you can keep enemies out of a harbor or a river mouth. Rifles are all well and good, but without artillery and rockets you don't have much of a meaningful national defense. The idea that "Of course the Second Amendment doesn't mean grenades..." is a modern myth that even pro gun people have swallowed.

[silencertalk]

The Militia and the People are not separate or at odds against one another they are one in the same.

Why complicate it by mentioning militias at all? Just say "individual citizens." All that does it open a debate as to if you can bear arms when not on militia duty.

[L1A1Rocker]

I'll try and take a stab at it: In order to insure the raising of a militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and ordnance, shall not be restricted. Nor shall any man be debarred the use, nor bearing of arms without due process. Nor shall any class, or type of arm be prohibited.

Then people will then say that it only applies to militias, and claim, that is the national guard takes that over. There should be no mention of a reason. The reason doesn't matter, only the right that is protected.

Well, I thought it was clear that the right is so that when the call goes out to form a posse, folks have to show up armed and ready. But, it's easy enough to toss the first phrase out. How about:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms, and ordnance shall not be restricted. Nor shall any man be debarred the use, or bearing of arms without due process. Nor shall any class, or type of arm be prohibited or otherwise restricted.

[doubloon]

Individual citizens don't win battles. 2A is not just about individuals carrying weapons and it's not only about throwing off the shackles of a tyrannical government. It's about protecting freedom at all costs and down to the last man.

The authors saw the value of both an organized militia and individually armed citizens. One does not preclude the other, both are required. 2A recognizes that both are required and that they are dependent upon each other.

Does this help?

The right of the State to regulate a Militia and the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

The part about the militia being necessary isn't important in the declaration of the right of the States to raise a militia. It is simply the rationale behind the right.

[doubloon]

...
Well, I thought it was clear that the right is so that when the call goes out to form a posse, folks have to show up armed and ready. ...

I think it's more than that. The word "regulated" means organized and trained.

...
The right of the people to keep and bear arms, and ordnance shall not be restricted. Nor shall any man be debarred the use, or bearing of arms without due process. Nor shall any class, or type of arm be prohibited or otherwise restricted.

This leaves out the rights of the State which are separate from the individual. Both the State and the individual were important to the authors and 2A reflects this very strongly.

[L1A1Rocker]

This leaves out the rights of the State which are separate from the individual. Both the State and the individual were important to the authors and 2A reflects this very strongly.

You raise a good point. So in order to prohibit any anti's from conflating the two entities - split them into two separate amendments.

You have the one above for the individuals and another for the states with no chance of conflating them.

The amendment for the states: The several states retain all rights in the establishment, calling forth, and regulating of their respective militia.