"The 2nd Amendment, being Meaningless, should be Amended" should be left open...

"The 2nd Amendment, being Meaningless, should be Amended" should be left open...

This is a discussion on "The 2nd Amendment, being Meaningless, should be Amended" should be left open... within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; It's my opinion that that thread should be left open, it wasn't harming anyone and it had some very good counter arguments. Don't be like ...

Results 1 to 9 of 9
Like Tree22Likes
  • 1 Post By TheGurgeMan
  • 5 Post By SouthernBoyVA
  • 2 Post By patkelly4370
  • 2 Post By SWsouthpaw
  • 3 Post By M1911A1
  • 2 Post By SouthernBoyVA
  • 7 Post By OD*

Thread: "The 2nd Amendment, being Meaningless, should be Amended" should be left open...

  1. #1
    Member Array oldIthink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    188

    "The 2nd Amendment, being Meaningless, should be Amended" should be left open...

    It's my opinion that that thread should be left open, it wasn't harming anyone and it had some very good counter arguments. Don't be like the libs and silence dissent.

  2. #2
    Member Array TheGurgeMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    48
    It should be amended to guarantee definite rights. Such as the right to own any weapon and any attachment without having to pay the taxman. I would say the only line to be drawn would be using explosives such as clay mores, grenades, and rocket launchers, those are the only weapons I would not see as being needed by the average civilian. Anything else that fires a projectile? Why not.
    airslot likes this.

  3. #3
    VIP Member Array SouthernBoyVA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    2,961
    I think the wording of the Second Amendment is fine the way it is. It is grammatically correct; remember the Founders were far better writers than what passes for lawmakers today. The only problem with the 2A is contemporary interpretation. But then, the Bill of Rights has been getting faux interpretation for a long time on all of its articles.
    airslot, TimBob, BentLink and 2 others like this.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    America First!

  4. Remove Advertisements
    DefensiveCarry.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #4
    Distinguished Member Array patkelly4370's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,776
    When looking at the meaning of how the 2A was written one must refer to the Oxford English dictionary, not Websters.

    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
    airslot and SouthernBoyVA like this.

  6. #5
    Member Array SWsouthpaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    Desert State
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by TheGurgeMan View Post
    It should be amended to guarantee definite rights. Such as the right to own any weapon and any attachment without having to pay the taxman. I would say the only line to be drawn would be using explosives such as clay mores, grenades, and rocket launchers, those are the only weapons I would not see as being needed by the average civilian. Anything else that fires a projectile? Why not.
    I'm not sure that amending the 2A to be more specific as to what you can and cannot own is such a good idea. I think this is a case where law being a bit vague protects more rights than it takes away.

    Why? Because weapons have constantly evolved over the centuries. Let's say you amend the 2A to include "any device capable of propelling a metal projectile at high speed". Well, that sounds like a pretty open statement that could cover a lot of handguns and rifles, right?

    Now consider what would happen decades from now if and/or when metal projectiles are replaced by some other technology, such as a Star Wars-style energy weapon.

    By being rather specific about permitted weapons, you have now forced the following:

    1. A requirement to pass another amendment to the Constitution to include the new type of weapon, and...

    2. Given anti-weapon people a solid legal footing to ban anything that is not specifically listed in the 2A.
    Merovius and rotorhead1026 like this.

  7. #6
    Senior Member Array M1911A1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Washington State
    Posts
    588
    I suggest that the thread in question, about the Second Amendment being "Meaningless," should be left closed.

    The thread was opened by someone who solicited our opinions on an essay that he'd written, and who then proceeded to nastily insult anyone whose opinion was in disagreement with his thesis.
    Thus, he was not soliciting our opinions, but rather he was looking for validation and sycophantic approval.
    His behavior in doing so was impolite and unpleasant, and the points he made in his essay, and in his rebuttals of our opinions, were too incestuously silly to bear reasonable discussion.

    The OP proved himself to be a narcissistic troll, and the thread he started leads nowhere useful.

    If we want to discuss the natural rights enumerated in our Constitution, or only one particular natural right, the discussion should take place elsewhere than in the troll's thread, or even in this one.

    YMMV, of course.
    Steve
    Retired Leathersmith and Practical Shooter

    "Qui desiderat pacem, prśparet bellum."

  8. #7
    VIP Member Array SouthernBoyVA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    2,961
    Quote Originally Posted by patkelly4370 View Post
    When looking at the meaning of how the 2A was written one must refer to the Oxford English dictionary, not Websters.

    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
    Yes but even then, the grammatical structure of the sentence is not only sound but classically correct. The first phrase, up to the comma, is an appositive phrase which acts as a modifier for the subject. It could just as easily have been written as...

    The right of the People to bear arms, via a well regulated militia which is necessary for the security of a free state, shall not be infringed.

    While the meaning would be the same, the structure of putting the appositive phrase first certainly reads better and is more classically elegant. But it is from this structure which those who wish to misinterpret the amendment, draw their most ire and from which they attempt to twist the meaning into something which Madison never intended. Madison simply shortened the text of Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution and used that as the text of the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

    One has to keep in mind that the Framers were classical wordsmiths. They were well educated, very literate, and very well read men. After all, they didn't have movies, TV, radio, the internet, and a host of other entertainments and inputs to poison their classically educated minds. For their entertainment, they read. And they met in pubs, homes, churches, and public areas to discuss, debate, and trade opinions on numerous affairs. These men were literary geniuses compared to what rambles around in state capital buildings and the national capital in Washington, DC. They would laugh at our collection questioning of what they wrote in the later 18th century.
    PPS1980 and Merovius like this.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    America First!

  9. #8
    Member Array Mjolnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by patkelly4370 View Post
    When looking at the meaning of how the 2A was written one must refer to the Oxford English dictionary, not Websters.

    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
    Wrong.

    One needs to read a BLACKíS LAW DICTIONARY (FROM THAT TIME PERIOD)!




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  10. #9
    OD*
    OD* is offline
    Senior Moderator
    Array OD*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Staff lounge
    Posts
    21,421
    Quote Originally Posted by oldIthink View Post
    It's my opinion that that thread should be left open, it wasn't harming anyone and it had some very good counter arguments. Don't be like the libs and silence dissent.
    Trolling threads are always closed, that's the way it is.

    And we are not going to continue it here either.
    "The pistol, learn it well, carry it always ..." ~ Jeff Cooper

    "Terrorists: They hated you yesterday, they hate you today, and they will hate you tomorrow.
    End the cycle of hatred, donít give them a tomorrow."




    NRA Patron Member

Sponsored 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
  •