Did the thread title get people's attention? Are some of you already feeling the first stirrings of righteous anger?

Sorry, I'm not out to get rid of individual gun rights. Actually, I just find the wording of the second amendment to be too open to differing interpretation. Should only those in a militia have the right to bear arms? Does the second amendment make a militia a constitutional requirement, since it clearly states a militia is necessary? So I am asking this hypothetical question, to see if anyone would agree with the change I'd like to see.

The simplest change would be to remove the first half. The amendment could read 'The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' Or, if you feel reasoning must be included, as it was originally, how about a similar wording of 'An armed citizenry, being a necessary check on the power of government, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'

The amendment was written in a different time, when regular citizens had access to similar weapons as the military and could be expected to have a reasonable chance at fighting the military if it came to it. Now, of course, the situation is different. That's why I would like to see the militia reference removed; it doesn't fit in modern times as it did then. There is certainly still reason for Americans to have the right to own guns, be it for self defense or to at least give those in government pause before attempting anything radical. I believe certain amounts of regulation are a good thing (average citizens should not, IMO, have access to things like SAMs or land-mines or what have you) but if there was ever a time to consider removing our right to own guns, I think it long ago passed. They are far too prevalent. At this point removing gun rights would simply assure only criminals are armed.

I didn't plan on this being so long, sorry I've rambled on so much. I'm just looking to see if anyone has opinions about this, I thought it could be a fun discussion. I realize the alterations I proposed could still be interpreted differently, but that's intentional, both to stir discussion and to keep it simple.

No change is necessary. In the event the people must fight a tyrannical government the Constitution merely makes it lawful for a standing peoples army.
Monty, I believe our forefathers had a unique perspective on this fresh from fighting a war for independence. We haven't had the need since the War Between the States.

I don't trust our government to do anything involving the Constitution.

I side with Crusader here. Not agreeing with the writings (Constitution) but agreeing what a militia is. This is why we need to change the laws that were written. This is (contradicting myself a little maybe?) how easy it is to read it and think it means something else. Are liberals squeezing the juice out of it when the Republicans say they are violating it, or is it vice-versa?

Don't take the question too seriously Sure, the government might screw things up if they tried to change it. I'm not really advocating changing it, or at least not now. This was, as I said, a hypothetical question, what if it could read just as you want it to? How do you think it could be worded to get the point across best?

The Constitution says what it says, and means what it means. I think it was specifically written so that it couldn't, and wouldn't be misunderstood.

Monty, I do appreciate the topic, and it does bring some good "talk".

I don't think a great job was done then Det! Sure, a lot of what the constitution is interpreted to mean is people pushing their own agendas or morals; it's the fact that there is such disagreement about various things that makes me wonder if parts could be reworded to more clearly define the intent. With the second amendment particularly, the connection between the right to bear arms and the existence of a militia has always bothered me and seemed easily open to different interpretations.

You must go by the vernacular, circumstances, and source matericlas - Federalist Papers, to understand the thinking of how and why the Constitution was drafted.

Don't let the militia part of the Second Amendment stump you Montrovant,.....just understand the part that says, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

In the military, one does not have the right to bear arms except when ordered to. I once lived in military housing and I would have been brought up on charges under the UCMJ if I had any weapon in my housing (even a BB gun!).

So, this makes me ask,...if anyone remembers, ....was the Michigan Militia a bunch of white supremacists, or a well organized group who were in keeping with the US Constitution?

I have nothing against the second amendment, but what good are guns going to be against a government that has guided bombs and nukes?

I think a quietist/defeatist stance toward the government and guns (in more ways than one) in this day and age is the only way to go.

The only good thing a gun is for now days is shooting people in the club, breaking into someone's home and holding them up, and hunting.

*sigh*

What is it you say "sigh" about Monty? Debate it, prove it wrong, that is what I keep waiting for from anyone who questions it. I hope it is wrong, that is why I ask you to refute it.

Is the KGB civilian police?

The parallels with the National Socialist Party continues....