Is the 2A wording a good thing?

Is the 2A wording a good thing?

This is a discussion on Is the 2A wording a good thing? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; I'm not trying to start a flame war here, but I was just thinking, that does tend to get me into trouble, I'm not looking ...

Results 1 to 11 of 11
  1. #1
    Distinguished Member Array 4my sons's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Out side of Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,637

    Is the 2A wording a good thing?

    I'm not trying to start a flame war here, but I was just thinking, that does tend to get me into trouble,
    I'm not looking for the we have to fight to the death to protect the 2A replies, just wondering about the ongoing struggle.

    Just suppose if the 2A had been worded to come out and say, "every person in the U.S.A. is allowed to have any gun they want, no restrictions shall be passed."

    There would still be those opposed to guns, and their use.
    What would the big battle be about, or would there even be one.

    to the point of the thread, is it a good thing to have this fight an ongoing one, to keep a balance of too much and not enough?

    I guess my thinking is of the "a little revolution once and a while is a good thing" kind of thinking.
    With the above rewording, would things get out of hand?
    Because if we are always analyzing the good and bad, then there is some sort of balance.

    Don't get me wrong, I don't want to loose the 2A war, but I'm wondering if we are not caught in a perpetual win a little, lose a little struggle, and that being a good thing.
    Last edited by 4my sons; November 17th, 2006 at 12:49 PM.
    "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [Warren v. District of Columbia,(D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)]
    If I have to explain it, you wouldn't understand


  2. #2
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,788
    My guess is that no matter how the 2A is or would have been worded there would always be differences in opinion as to what it actually meant.

    Take for instance the cases of the mentally ill or the violent offender, abuser, or other non stable or criminal person. No matter how the 2A was worded, I don't feel that the courts or people for that matter would be willing to allow everyone, any weapon no matter what. Some might, I don't know.

    Then again, you would probably even have debate over what "gun" meant in your version. I don't think that you would ever be able to write any 2A sentence that would cover everything.

    There will always be differences in what laws say, if it was all black and white to everyone what fun would it be.
    Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
    www.ddchl.com
    Texas CHL Instructor
    Texas Hunter Education Instructor
    NRA Instructor

  3. #3
    VIP Member Array Tubby45's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Making ammo.
    Posts
    3,050
    The FFs were very smart, educated, and intelligent men. In other words, they knew what the words meant and knew what they were doing.

    It is the misinterpretation of the words that kills the 2A. If we started misinterpreting the other As to the BoR the same thing would happen that is happening to the 2A.

    Example, "arms". Most people think it is short for firearm. That is not the case. Arms as used in the 2A, as well as in common language, means weapons. If someone has a bat, is he not armed with a bat? If someone has a knife, is he not armed with a knife? If someone has a firearm, is he not armed with a firearm? To be armed is to possess weaponry. It is the right of the people to keep and bear weaponry, not just fireams.

    Militia, people, arms, infringed, shall not. Those are the terms that seem to be the most troublesome. The people are every citizen, they make up the militia (defense of the country), they can possess and use weapons, and the government is not to regulate, prohibit, or hinder that right in any way, shape, or form.

    The Second Amendment works just fine in Alaska and Vermont. I don't think the problem is with the wording, I think it is with abiding by the limit it places on the government.
    07/02 FFL/SOT since 2006

  4. #4
    Distinguished Member Array 4my sons's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Out side of Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,637
    I can agree with what both have said, but is the struggle itself a good thing, is that what keeps the balance, if there were less to argue about, would we be worse off, one way or the other. There are aspects of the current restrictions that most do not agree with, but overall I think that it's the enforcement of the current laws that would make society better off.

    Is the struggle to maintain the balance a good thing? does it keep the issue current, and pertinent to today's society.

    I guess it kind of relates to the "loose construction" of the Constitution, not just for 2A, but all isues, constant review, and adjustments, do they help or hurt?
    "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [Warren v. District of Columbia,(D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)]
    If I have to explain it, you wouldn't understand

  5. #5
    Senior Member Array raysheen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Maine, USA
    Posts
    793
    I am of the thought that the founding fathers knew exactly what they were saying when they wrote it...on the other hand, I do like the NH state constitution's wording (Article 2-a) because it assures the "individual right" part of the argument.

    [Art.] 2-a. [The Bearing of Arms.] All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.
    The sad truth is that there are always going to be people that are either a) evil or b) misguided who want to take strip rights away for any number of reasons regardless of how any given law is worded.

  6. #6
    Member Array denverd0n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    388
    Quote Originally Posted by 4my son View Post
    I guess it kind of relates to the "loose construction" of the Constitution, not just for 2A, but all isues, constant review, and adjustments, do they help or hurt?
    The world is an ever-changing place. Good or bad, help or hurt, it doesn't really matter. Changes will happen, and people will argue about the changes.

    The Founding Fathers were brilliantly literate and eloquent men. They knew how to say exactly what they meant. The vagueness is there for a reason, and it's the same reason that the ability to change the Constitution was written right into it. They knew that there would have to be debate and adaptations as time went on, and so they allowed for it. That doesn't mean that it helps or hurts, it just is.

    On an only very slight tangent, I always have to laugh at the people who argue that the 2A really only protects the states' right to assemble a militia. What they are saying, in essence, is that the framers of the Constitution were a bunch of semi-literate boobs who didn't know how to put together a sentence that said what they really meant. Uhhh.... Yeah, sure. These were among the most intelligent, literate, and well-educated men in the world at the time. They were, unquestionably, far more intelligent than anyone who now would be dumb enough to suggest that the 2A doesn't say exactly and precisely what they meant for it to say!

  7. #7
    Member Array osanmike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Crestview, FL
    Posts
    397
    The problem as I see it is that people have taken a document that says what it means, and turned it into a "Living Document" that you can make say what you want. The FF knew what they were doing when they wrote it, and allowed for future generations to change it if needed, by adding or taking away from it, but not by re-interpreting what they wrote like what is happening today.
    "No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the Congress is in session."
    Mark Twain
    S&W M&P 40

  8. #8
    VIP Member Array SammyIamToday's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    2,087
    The wording is great as long as you don't willfully refuse to understand basic English. Oh wait, we have a problem.
    ...He suggested that "every American citizen" should own a rifle and train with it on firing ranges "at every courthouse." -Chesty Puller

  9. #9
    Ex Member Array one eyed fatman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    500
    Our forefathers were unaware we were going to invent lawyers that were going to be to stupid to understand what the word "if" means.

  10. #10
    VIP Member Array Redneck Repairs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    5,134
    As i recall .. every other right where " the people " has been mentioned it has been and indivigual right ... we dont have a " state " right to be secure from unreasonable searches ... well you can draw the lines for me from that .
    Make sure you get full value out of today , Do something worthwhile, because what you do today will cost you one day off the rest of your life .
    We only begin to understand folks after we stop and think .

    Criminals are looking for victims, not opponents.

  11. #11
    Member Array BushidoMarine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Kawasaki, Japan
    Posts
    233
    My version of the 2nd Amendment would be something like this:

    "The inalienable basic human right of Citizens and other legal residents of the United States of America to own, possess, and carry in public; firearms, ammunition, and other lethal and non-lethal arms and weapons suitable for personal self defense or defense of one's state or nation, SHALL NEVER be restricted, banned or infringed upon in any manner whatsoever by any government entity of the United States of America. Any law, regulation, judicial ruling or Constitutional Amendment or governmental body that runs counter to this is automatically declared null and void; and the people have the absolute right to resist and remove such legistative, judicial or regulatory bodies using lethal force. Citizens and and other legal residents of the United States of America may only be dispossesed of this right while in custody pending trial, or upon conviction by a jury of their peers or court martial for crimes of serious violence, treason, or mental illness. The guiding principle of this amendment is that the people will never be barred the use and ownership of personal weapons; but the government has the authority to enact very limited legislation aimed at keeping jails and prisons secure, and disarming violent criminals, traitors to the country, and people with mental health problems which make them a danger to others."
    "An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it."
    - Col. Jeff Cooper, USMC

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Good thing for body armour.
    By f8lranger4x4 in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: December 16th, 2008, 12:46 PM
  2. Can take only so much of a good thing...
    By artz in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: December 10th, 2008, 05:55 PM
  3. Good thing this happened in AZ
    By havegunjoe in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: October 27th, 2008, 05:22 PM
  4. Good thing I only had to eat those nachos once!
    By mikeb in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: April 8th, 2007, 04:23 PM
  5. Good thing for GITMO
    By OPFOR in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: March 16th, 2007, 09:24 PM

Search tags for this page

2a wording

Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors