Changing or Scraping the Constitution and Bill of Rightsw?

[ICU 812]

Posters in a previous thread about Firearms brought up the topic of altering or scrsapping The Constitution and Bill of Rights. We awere warned about hijacking and dropped that, but the topic is pertinent. So here is a thread that poses the questions brought up in that other thread.

• Should the Constitution be scrapped, as one poster suggested?
  
• Should the Second Amendment be abolished as another poster suggested?

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by ICU 812

Posters in a previous thread about Firearms brought up the topic of altering or scrsapping The Constitution and Bill of Rights. We awere warned about hijacking and dropped that, but the topic is pertinent. So here is a thread that poses the questions brought up in that other thread.

• Should the Constitution be scrapped, as one poster suggested?
  
• Should the Second Amendment be abolished as another poster suggested?

No. But I would not be against rewriting the 2nd Amendment so it was 100% clear what the intent is.

[Jackie S]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

No. But I would not be against rewriting the 2nd Amendment so it was 100% clear what the intent is.

If the Government rewrote the 2d Amendment now, it would read like this:

Section 1.
“An armed Government and disarmed citizenry being essential to peace, stability and the maintaining order, the possession of arms by the people shall be prohibited.”
Section 2.
Any persons found to be in possession of arms without due Government consent shall be guilty of insurrection and or treason against the Government.
Section 3.
In all areas of Law governed by this Amendment , the persons found in violation of the Amendment shall also forfeit their rights under the 4th and 5th Amendments.

[nevergaveitathought]

the second amendment is grammatical and clear

it is however written in 18th century english and uses syntax of the time that flummoxes some or maybe many who, when reading it, affix an interpretation not in accord with its meaning.

a subordinate clause precedes the main clause and each clause has a different subject

that syntax is no longer used but was in use when written

in reading the main clause, there should not be any question as it its meaning even with todays sorry state of education

just like when reading shakespeare some people need footnotes as to meaning, the second amendment likewise flummoxes some, but, when explained, hopefully obstinacy isnt the rule

as very likely there are present day speakers who refuse to acknowledge
the ever changing syntax and word use in the english language, for purposes of their own i would imagine

[ICU 812]

I invite those who contributed to the other thread and proposed altering or scraping the Constitution or Second Amendment to explain their position.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

If the Government rewrote the 2d Amendment now, it would read like this:

Section 1.
“An armed Government and disarmed citizenry being essential to peace, stability and the maintaining order, the possession of arms by the people shall be prohibited.”
Section 2.
Any persons found to be in possession of arms without due Government consent shall be guilty of insurrection and or treason against the Government.
Section 3.
In all areas of Law governed by this Amendment , the persons found in violation of the Amendment shall also forfeit their rights under the 4th and 5th Amendments.

Those are beliefs held by very few in this country. Probably much fewer than those who believe that a citizen should have the right to any weapon in order to protect themselves against whatever they feel they need to be protected against.

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

No. But I would not be against rewriting the 2nd Amendment so it was 100% clear what the intent is.

The Second Amendment is clear. It doesn't need to be rewritten for individual preference.

[ICU 812]

Whast about scrapping the Constitution?

Anyone . . .???

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by Levianon17

The Second Amendment is clear. It doesn't need to be rewritten for individual preference.

So what do YOU think the 2nd Amendment really means? My guess is you believe it allows any citizen of any age to own and carry any weapon as they see fit.

Even when court cases on the 2nd Amendment reach the Supreme Court we never have a unanimous decision regarding rights laid out in the 2nd Amendment yet YOU know exactly what is stated.

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

So what do YOU think the 2nd Amendment really means? My guess is you believe it allows any citizen of any age to own and carry any weapon as they see fit.

Even when court cases on the 2nd Amendment reach the Supreme Court we never have a unanimous decision regarding rights laid out in the 2nd Amendment yet YOU know exactly what is stated.

The second Amendment is not necessarily about citizens carrying a gun around. The Second Amendment is really about Government tyranny and the right of the people to defend themselves against it. The Constitution is for the Government to adhere too, not the people.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by Levianon17

The second Amendment is not necessarily about citizens carrying a gun around. The Second Amendment is really about Government tyranny and the right of the people to defend themselves against it. The Constitution is for the Government to adhere too, not the people.

That is an interesting comment. To the best of my memory, all the lawsuits brought to the court system regarding the 2nd Amdendment have dealt with a citizen's right to own or carry a weapon.

https://www.preventdvgunviolence.org...c-violence.pdf

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

That is an interesting comment. To the best of my memory, all the lawsuits brought to the court system regarding the 2nd Amdendment have dealt with a citizen's right to own or carry a weapon.

https://www.preventdvgunviolence.org...c-violence.pdf

The article you posted is about crime specifically Domestic Violence. Essentially a person who is convicted of certain crimes is forfeiting his or her Second Amendment Right.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by Levianon17

The article you posted is about crime specifically Domestic Violence. Essentially a person who is convicted of certain crimes is forfeiting his or her Second Amendment Right.

Some of the caases are as you stated. How about District of Columbia v. Heller and McDOnald v. Chicago which are considered to be landmark 2nd Amendment cases. And there is this case pending: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen.

"it’ll be the first time they’ve (SCOTUS) directly addressed a major issue regarding an individual’s right to bear arms since McDonald v. City of Chicago."

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Some of the caases are as you stated. How about District of Columbia v. Heller and McDOnald v. Chicago which are considered to be landmark 2nd Amendment cases. And there is this case pending: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen.

"it’ll be the first time they’ve (SCOTUS) directly addressed a major issue regarding an individual’s right to bear arms since McDonald v. City of Chicago."

Lets put it simply this way. If in the event the 2nd Amendment is scrapped it will be to the advantage of the Government not the Law Abiding citizens of this country.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by Levianon17

Lets put it simply this way. If in the event the 2nd Amendment is scrapped it will be to the advantage of the Government not the Law Abiding citizens of this country.

I never said "scrap" the 2nd Amendment. I said I would not be opposed to rewriting the 2nd Amendment to clarify what is meant by its words. But it will never happen. So we will continue to rely on the states to enact gun laws as they see fit and for citizens to bring court cases to challenge those laws, as was done in McDonald v. Chicago and District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen. And depending on which way the specific court leans, Conservative or Liberal, the decision will tend to favor one side or the other.