There, I fixed it!

[ScatPackLife]

Article in the second
a. This is absolute in all borders of the United States of America: The right of the people to keep and bear armament shall not be infringed - unless an individual has been convicted of a felony or violent misdemeanor and be deemed a violent and dangerous person by a court and a mental health professional such as, but not limited to, a phycologist who is not influenced by the government. Armaments include any and all firearms regardless of features, firearm parts, ammunition of all kind, firearm accessories, sound suppression devices, firearm feeding devices of any capacity or type, armor of any kind, knifes, swords, non-lethal defensive tools, and any tool being used for defensive, offensive, or protective use (this list is not inclusive), and advancement in arms technology shall have zero effect on legality.

b. A well regulated militia, by the people, of the people, is necessary for the security of a free state - regardless of police force or national military - to protect the interests of the people in any county or state. The government may have no influence over local militias and any militia may have at their disposal any and all weapons of war that the federal government has. No person's or business shall have influence. No individual shall have gains from these militia. If any militia has been deemed corrupt by the people it shall immediately be dismantled. Businesses and individuals may donate armaments to any militia, so as their interests remain those of the people. No militia shall ever raise arms against another. No police force or Federal military shall raise arms against these militias.

c. insert something about chain of command for militias. Insert something here about who can be in a militia. (This is all above my pay grade)

d. Firearm sales may not be subject to tax of any kind, nor shall it be subject to any commerce restrictions, nor shall any business in the firearm industry be liable for the actions of others. No other laws may be established in contradiction. No government, nor the people, shall change these absolute statutes. No amendment shall infringe on these statutes.

——————END ADDENDUM—————————


I agree with many that the constitution is a living document. However, the changes should only be made to give more rights to the people or restrict more rights of the government. One thing I see too much is when states are more than willing to ignore or manipulate the bill of rights.


I'm proposing we rewrite the second amendment to this. Or something along these lines. I left out things like grenades, tanks, cannons, fighter jets, etc. for individuals because I don't think we need them if we have a local militia that has them. There are obviously a million way this could be written, could be condensed out expanded on, this was just what I came up with off the top of my head that might address a lot of our rights that the current corrupt government has been trying to erode since the 1930s. I really believe we should be allowed to have local county militias for when the police and local government become corrupt and a means to legal say "you have become corrupt and now you are fired" that is run by the people so we don't have to run it through a potentially corrupt court that sided with the corrupt government.

I wrote this in lamesmen terms because, one, I'm not a lawyer, two, punctuation is not my specialty. But you can't say most of it isn't clear what the intention is.

Different subject: I also believe there should not be life terms and there should not be career politicians. Politicians should be reimbursed for their time, but they shouldn't become millionaires or billionaires. And they shouldn't be allowed to use policy for their personal gain, this should be highly illegal. Using policy to become a millionaire or taking money out of others pockets, that's corruption. Rant over for now.

Read More

 

[CamoDeafie]

Let me make it even simpler.

Government shall not restrict the Right of free individuals to be as well armed as the militaries of today. (In perpetuity)

 

[Andy54Hawken]

And here I thought it was written just fine in 1791...
Too bad many folks since then , have had trouble understanding the English language.

Point being here...
The 2nd Amendment don't need fixin'....some people's understanding of it does.
Andy

 

[CamoDeafie]

And here I thought it was written just fine in 1791...
Too bad many folks since then , have had trouble understanding the English language.
Andy

Like I've said before...a lot of people really seem to think it is this... somewhat paraphrased to reflect the thinking of anti-2A people

"A well-regulated (by laws passed by Congress), militia (the military) being necessary for the security of a free State (the nation); the right of the People (only the Government) to keep (buy/sell/store) and bear (issue, use, carry) arms shall not be infringed (but restrictions on civilians are completely fine) "

 

[Andy54Hawken]

It is interesting to me at least , with what the 2nd Amendment does not say.
As in :
"...the right to keep and bear Arms , but only Arms of specific types and only for particular uses , shall not be infringed."

Reading the 2nd Amendment shows , again to me at least , that there are no limits to be placed on just who can keep and bear arms....as well as no limit on what type of arms one can keep and bear.

We have come a long way from the days when one could be fined if one showed up to Militia Muster with substandard arms and equipment.
Nowadays it seems as if there are nothing but limits on what arms and equipment one can own , sad to say.
Andy

 

[CountryGent]

Well said @Andy54Hawken.

I seem to recall the phrase "... shall not be infringed". Not ".... well, a fee, a license, a tax, a mountain of paperwork, a wait time, a ban on this that and the other thing ..." (sigh)

 

[Caveman Jim]

The Constitution is a NOT a living document!!!
Come on man, only the leftist think like that.

 

[lucusloc]

Edit: original quote is gone. The context is if the Constitution is a living document or not. The rest should be self explanatory. /Edit

I mean, in the strictest sense it is. It even has provisions for editing and updates. Our founders explicitly meant for our Constitution to be a living document. They expressed in their writings that they expected new amendments to be ratified every new congress or so. They even expressed the possibility that some of those new amendments would be near total rewrites of the existing document. If that is not a "living document" I do not know what is.

However, what the left mean when they say "living document" is the reinterpretation of the existing text to impart new legal meaning without having to jump through those Constitutionally mandated hurdles for edits and updates. That is absolutely a violation of the meaning and intent of the "Living Constitution" doctrine set up by the founders, not to mention being an anathema to the very foundational principles of our legal system. If the meaning of a legal document can change simply by the evolution of language without any intent of the original authors then everything becomes naught but random chaos.

If, for example, we are to use a "modern" future definition of "lease" for a document singed today and intended to be in effect for 100 years, then there is no telling what you would be actually agreeing to at the end of the stipulated time. For all you know the tables could turn and the "owner" could wind up owing everything they posses to the "leasee", should the evolution of the term take a bad turn somewhere during that history. It would be absolute legal stupidity to sign any document that could last longer than a fad or slang (or in modern parlance, a meme) could come into being and become adopted into widespread use.

The need for a stable, well understood legal system is exactly why our judiciary needs to enforce the "original meaning and intent" doctrine in everything, not just our founding documents. The left, in endorsing this idea of a "evolving language living document" is not only trying to undermine our rights, but also the very principles by which we adjudicate the law itself. We should point this out to every nitwit that espouses this philosophy and make them admit that if they actually want the meaning of the Constitution to change, they need to do so using the properly established channels and get an amendment passed. Any other way is cultural suicide (not that that is not a probably goal for many a leftist out there, but that is another giant topic itself).

 

[P7M13]

Ugh, makes my head hurt.
When I was younger and thought like a liberal, I hated the notion of 'strict constructionists'.
Too many parties, from both sides of perspective, have twisted interpretation to their benefit. Over decades, America has been overcome by the chaos created by that reinterpretation.
I have become a strict constructionist.
Simpler is better.
Though, I would add, term limits for Congress.

 

[Jay Walk]

Infringement needs no addendum.

Infringement ---> 1 : the act of infringing : violation 2 : an encroachment or trespass on a right or privilege.
3 : to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another

 

[Stomper]

Politics (and "religion") is just another tool to gain power, influence and to steal other people's money and property.

 

[Certaindeaf]

Their ultimate goal is to limit keyboards to two letters.. R and E.

 

[oremike]

"Fixing" the Constitution is part of the problem. Stop being part of the problem and start being part of the solution.

 

[Stomper]

"Fixing" the Constitution is part of the problem. Stop being part of the problem and start being part of the solution.

FYI- He left out not taxing ammo….. we always think that we thought of "everything"….. DOH!!

 

[Caveman Jim]

Wow, just WOW. Some people have drank a lot of kool-aid.

Bub bye you cartoon character avatar.

 

[sobo]

The Constitution is a NOT a living document!!!
Come on man, only the leftist think like that.

 

[hongkong2]

And here I thought it was written just fine in 1791...
Too bad many folks since then , have had trouble understanding the English language.

Point being here...
The 2nd Amendment don't need fixin'....some people's understanding of it does.
Andy

 

[sobo]

I mean, in the strictest sense it is. It even has provisions for editing and updates. Our founders explicitly meant for our Constitution to be a living document. They expressed in their writings that they expected new amendments to be ratified every new congress or so. They even expressed the possibility that some of those new amendments would be near total rewrites of the existing document. If that is not a "living document" I do not know what is.

However, what the left mean when they say "living document" is the reinterpretation of the existing text to impart new legal meaning without having to jump through those Constitutionally mandated hurdles for edits and updates. That is absolutely a violation of the meaning and intend of the "Living Constitution" doctrine set up by the founders, not to mention being an anathema to the very foundational principles of our legal system. If the meaning of a legal document can change simply by the evolution of language without any intent of the original authors then everything becomes naught but random chaos.

If, for example, we are to use a "modern" future definition of "lease" for a document singed today and intended to be in effect for 100 years, then there is no telling what you would be actually agreeing to at the end of the stipulated time. For all you know the tables could turn and the "owner" could wind up owing everything they posses to the "leasee", should the evolution of the term take a bad turn somewhere during that history. It would be absolute legal stupidity to sign any document that could last longer than a fad or slang (or in modern parlance, a meme) could come into being and become adopted into widespread use.

The need for a stable, well understood legal system is exactly why our judiciary needs to enforce the "original meaning and intent" doctrine in everything, not just our founding documents. The left, in endorsing this idea of a "evolving language living document" is not only trying to undermine our rights, but also the very principles by which we adjudicate the law itself. We should point this out to every nitwit that espouses this philosophy and make them admit that if they actually want the meaning of the Constitution to change, they need to do so using the properly established channels and get an amendment passed. Any other way is cultural suicide (not that that is not a probably goal for many a leftist out there, but that is another giant topic itself).

I get the entirety of what you're saying, but from the get-go, the Constitution is not a "living document" by the current use of the term. The Constitution having the ability to be amended does NOT make it a living document, according to the standard use of the phrase. The Framers were quite specific that to amend the Constitution, a Constitutional Convention must be called, and the proposed amendment must be ratified within a certain amount of time, and by not less than 3/4 of the several States. The Leftists' idea of a "living document" is not consistent with the Framers' written intentions. The Leftists feel that the Constitution can be changed by passing a law(s) in Congress, by changing the definition of words, or even by a decision of the SCOTUS (see Roe v. Wade for an excellent example where the SCOTUS blew it and "created a right" where none existed). What they SHOULD HAVE done, 50 years ago, was to remand the case to the several States. That is precisely why the Framers gave us the 10th Amendment.

 

[Stomper]

Wow, just WOW. Some people have drank a lot of kool-aid.

Bub bye you cartoon character avatar.

View attachment 1489680

Just hold on a danged minute…. MY avatar has friken "LASERS" shooting from its eyes, that ain't no cartoon, man!!!

 

[Flopsweat]

There is no phrase anywhere in the Constitution more adamant than "shall not be infringed". I don't believe you can actually come up with a phrase that is more resolute in protecting a right. It is beautiful in its simplicity and crystal clear in its meaning.

The law does not change because someone wants to interpret it differently. The law means what it meant when it was written.