Plain-Language reading of the Second Amendment (2A) -- how should it read?

[ccw9mm]

Given your understanding of what the Second Amendment actually meant when it was penned, what would be your plain-language wording of the 2A? IOW, the 2A for the layman.

Imagine your 7yr old child asks you about the 2A, and you're looking to explain it simply and clearly, opting to rephrase the basic meanings and intent as best you can. You wouldn't simply repeat it word for word. You'd rephrase in simple, plain language that anyone could understand.

Note: Let's keep away from pie-in-the-sky wishes for what we'd prefer it meant. Keep on track with your best understanding of what it meant when it was crafted. A multi-sentence plain-language version is fine; it needn't be restricted just to tortured single-sentence poetic wonders.

ie/hypothetical: "Since the government-led state is so crucial, it's important for the government-led state to defend against all threats to its continuation, the right of the state (government) to have weaponry shall not be infringed, impeded or otherwise limited in any way." Or, whatever your reading would be.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[ArmyMan]

I don't think it should be changed at all. IMO it's perfectly clear the way it is.

The problem is not the 2A, but politicians who want to try to distort it. If we change the language then current politicians with less than honorable intentions can seed loopholes in it's wording and structure.

[gasmitty]

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.

"Defense of the state is ultimately in the hands of the governed, not the government. Therefore the government shall not violate the rights of the governed to own and use weapons suitable for use in defense of oneself or the state."

[ccw9mm]

I don't think it should be changed at all. IMO it's perfectly clear the way it is.

The problem is not the 2A, but politicians who want to try to distort it. If we change the language then current politicians with less than honorable intentions can seed loopholes in it's wording and structure.

Am not asking for changes. We're keeping away from all that.

Question is: how would a plain-language, layman's understanding of the 2A read.

[Crowman]

Should be read as written. The 2nd amendment is in no way long or written in legal "babbleize". It is really not a difficult read. All it needs is for the Supreme Court and other law makers to stop watering it down with their asinine interpretations of it.

To make it any simpler to read we would have to use the chalk board and speak slowly. Come on how simple can you make something that is already simple and in plain English.

[zacii]

Here's my crack at it:

A well trained population being necessary for the security of the state, the right of the of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

However, if we were drafting the bill of rights today, I would probably change the entire text. But I didn't think that is what ccw9mm had in mind.

[Mike1956]

The wording and intent is quite clear. The framers understood that unregulated militias would run rough-shod over an unarmed citizenry, thus destroying the security of that free state for which they were striving.

[sensei2]

because the militia, which is comprised of all the armed citizens of the nation, having been shown to be necessary to the security and preservation of a free state, the right of each individual citizen to keep and bear personal arms, shall not be restricted.

[Brad426]

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.

"Defense of the state is ultimately in the hands of the governed, not the government. Therefore the government shall not violate the rights of the governed to own and use weapons suitable for use in defense of oneself or the state."

Well done.

[Smitty901]

In todays world you can read it anyway you want. But it means nothing.
The only thing that madders is 5 of 9. People really need to get this idea that there is this Constitution out of their head.
It is words that 5 or 9 will make mean what ever they want at any time.
Doubt me look at the last 30 years. look at what is going on now.
Election do madder he that appoints just 1 of the nine can change anything he wants them to.
Scary

[OldVet]

It's not a question of how it's written; it's a question of the literacy of those who seek to change its meaning.

[ccw9mm]

In todays world you can read it anyway you want. But it means nothing.

But the 7yr old child will still go without, unless he/she receives a basic paraphrasing/explanation. This thread's about a plain-language reading that would be understandable to your average intelligent kid who's asking what the 2A's about.

[oakchas]

But the 7yr old child will still go without, unless he/she receives a basic paraphrasing/explanation. This thread's about a plain-language reading that would be understandable to your average intelligent kid who's asking what the 2A's about.

"In the United States, the people have the natural right to keep guns to protect themselves, their country, and their form of government, without unreasonable* restrictions."

*I added the word "unreasonable" only because of someone else's "reasonably" accurate statement about the 5 of 9.

That's for a seven year old... By HS, they ought to be able to read and understand it as written.

[onacoma]

But the 7yr old child will still go without, unless he/she receives a basic paraphrasing/explanation. This thread's about a plain-language reading that would be understandable to your average intelligent kid who's asking what the 2A's about.

That why I'm reading "The Founders' Second Amendment" pened by Stephen P. Halbrook. It cover the history of what generated the concerns of our founders. Next to the Federalist papers and the anti-Federalist papers some of the most insightful documentation on the 2nd Amendment. Hand her a copy of all!

Sent from my BlackBerry Runtime for Android Apps using Tapatalk 2

[GunGeezer]

It's not a question of how it's written; it's a question of the literacy of those who seek to change its meaning.

Allow me to correct this for you. "It's not a question of how it's written; it's a question of the agenda of those who seek to change its meaning".