zebonaut (140 posts)
It's time to rewrite the 2nd Amendment- How would YOU rewrite it?
Last edited Fri May 24, 2013, 01:07 AM USA/ET - Edit history (3)
Contrary to popular belief; the second amendment is not a religious tenet written in stone. I can be changed; rewritten or repealed. How would you rephrase it?
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.
How about
"A well regulated militia; being necessary for the security of a free nation, has now been achieved with a modern military; so the right of the people to keep and bear small arms; shall only be infringed insofar as background checks, and required training for the public safety."
or something to that effect...
Any better ideas?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022894319I have a better idea, stay the **** away from our rights.
This notion that somehow a right that is spelled out in the constitution is not really a right is nothing but moonbat bullshit.
Hey DUmmies how about we take the 1st amendment, that isn't etched in stone either (using your logic), and changing it so we can ban DU?

NYC_SKP (48,896 posts)
1. "has now been achieved with a modern military" really? let's just let drones do our thinking?
wow.
Drones the weapon of choice of 0bama.
Tumbulu (3,249 posts)
2. Here is my wish:
Firearms are for the use of trained, licensed, insured and bonded individuals only for the sole purpose of serving the community. As such the community has the right to remove firearms from anyone it deems unsafe or unstable.

How about your community removes your right to own and operate a computer?
oldhippie (1,425 posts)
29. So, if a community of RWers, or ....
.... fundies, in, let's say, Texas, deems that all Muslims, Blacks, Latinos other minorities and gays in their community are "unstable", then they could be deprived of firearms? And the community sets the standards for training, licensing, insurance and bonding? That would, in fact, be democracy in action. Sure you like that?
It was democrats who started disarming the black man.
clarice (356 posts)
55. How does that keep the bad guys from getting guns? nt.
Good question.
defacto7 (3,355 posts)
3. Damn, I have to reply to this again....
I would repeal it.
Let the laws of the land rule the day. There is no need in this day and age to create a right to own a weapon or anything else in particular for that matter.
I want your computer, since you have no right to own anything what would stop me from just taking it?
LAGC (4,554 posts)
12. I like the Bill of Rights just fine as it is, thank you very much.
If we start tweaking with the Second Amendment, how long before the other side wants to start tweaking with the First Amendment, perhaps eliminating the separation of church and state?
No thanks.
The first amendment does not say anything about separation of church and state, it simply says you have freedom of religion. In other words the government can not force religion on anyone, but religious people can shape and influence policy just like any citizen is allowed to by the same amendment. This notion that you can not allow your religious beliefs to influence what you want for this country is pure nonsense.
jmowreader (23,946 posts)
23. I would much rather work on the Fourth than the Second
When the Founders wrote the line about being secure in your "papers and personal effects," it's reasonably clear, to me at least, they were trying to guarantee a degree of privacy. The lack of that actual word has caused untold grief, so...
"As the right to security in one's papers and personal effects is vital to a free society, privacy in one's personal affairs shall not be abridged."
While we're here, let's deal with church-state separation: "The state may not attempt to control or influence any recognized religious organization in any way, to include levying of federal income tax on the organization or pay received from the organization by its ministers. Recognized religious organizations may not attempt to control or influence the State in any way, to include making political contributions either directly or through a third-party political group or lobbying for or against legislative actions."
And as long as we are at it: "No corporation not expressly formed as a political party or a political action committee may participate in the political process in any fashion to include donating money to politicians or political corporations or forming a political corporation as a subsidiary corporation, and no corporation formed as a political party or political action committee may earn any money through any method other than political contributions only from citizens of the United States or from the manufacture and/or sale of articles to be used in political campaigns or articles used by citizens to display membership in or affinity toward the group."
Once again the DUmmies show their ignorance, the church has just as much of a right to lobby as the ACLU and other atheist groups do.
Lots of stupidity in this thread.
Once again they show that they have knowledge, but no understanding.