37place
Propose Amendments to the Constitution All the ideas and discussions
21 votes Vote

Revision of the 2nd Amendment

It seems to me that the problem with the 2nd amendment is that it is grammatically vague and, therefore, open to two very different interpretations. The limits and freedoms around "bearing arms" needs to clarified.

luvmusic, 01.10.2011, 00:54
Idea status: under consideration

Comments

Ara Rubyan, 17.10.2011, 10:04
Leave the 2nd amendment as is; make it illegal, however, to take your guns beyond the boundaries of your home's property lines. In other words, no guns allowed in any public space. No guns in bars, no guns in church, no guns in schools, no guns in the library, no guns anywhere -- except within the boundaries of your own private property. Protect your home against the jack-booted thugs if you will; just don't bring them out into the public square.
Reply
woodmantech, 04.05.2012, 17:40
Right, because our founding fathers clearly didn't believe that you should be able to defend yourself against other people, animals, or any other threat anywhere but on your own property. Give me a break. Look, if you don't want to carry a gun in public, don't. You can feel free to leave yourself defenseless. In a free country, I will choose differently.
Reply
DMFairchild, 21.10.2011, 06:11
I presume that means no guns for hunting in field... I can appreciate the problem of guns in cities, schools, etc. And I agree we need a solution to that problem, but this isn't it.
Reply
Ara Rubyan, 21.10.2011, 11:01
You've got a hunting license right? Carry it. Shoot all the deer, duck and gators you want. But if you're found with a handgun in a bar, a church, a school, a library or anything like that, you're going to jail. The End.
Reply
Dana, 10.11.2012, 16:08
Wow. And all this time I thought is was illegal to carry a weapon in such places.
Reply
woodmantech, 04.05.2012, 17:42
There is ONE and only one solution for criminals having guns in cities, schools, etc. That solution is to arm those who are not criminals. Pass whatever law you want to ban guns wherever you want. Trust me, the criminals don't care about your laws. They will take guns wherever they want, and when they know no one else is armed, they are in complete control.
Reply
edward machnik, 17.12.2011, 17:57
The language of the Founding Fathers is precise and unambiguous. Put more faith in them. The courts have no trouble interpreting that the People shall have the right to have GUNS. Period.
Reply
RevJack, 16.02.2012, 16:49
I just want to know that whatever form the ban on guns takes how that will possibly affect the criminal element from possessing, carrying anywhere they choose and using a weapon. Please don't give me the argument about jail time period. Criminals don't care about jail time they are criminals. As for me I'd much rather be able to return fire to protect myself and others than try to outrun a round or through a rock. NO leave the 2nd alone.
Reply
sirhotalot, 30.03.2012, 23:17
The 2nd amendment needs to be expanded. It needs to protect the rights of gun ownership from the states. Every person needs to be allowed to own any firearm without any restriction.

For those of you here against gun ownership, criminals don't obey the law. Law abiding citizens don't shoot people except by accident, and more people die from falls than from gun accidents. If you had a magic wand and made every gun in the world disappear and made it illegal to own them, there would still be guns. Criminals would make them and sell them on the black market. Those unable to get proper guns would use knives or make their own pen guns.

Prohibition never works.
Reply
sirhotalot, 30.03.2012, 23:19
Also, in Sweden, every person over the age of 18 is required to serve in the military draft and owns a military rifle. It has no problem with shootings.
Reply
luvmusic, 31.03.2012, 13:30
My whole point is to eliminate the ambiguity in the grammar of the existing 2nd amendment. It isn't clear if the right to bear arms applies to all people for all reasons or if it only to support state managed militias. That, to me, is the reason there is so much debate over this amendment. All I'm suggesting is that there need to be a national debate on what the country wants (whatever that is) and clearly spell it out in an improved amendment.
Reply
anonymous, 19.08.2013, 04:08
Sirhotalot -- Do you maybe mean Switzerland? All Swiss males between the ages of 20 and 30 are required to "enlist" in the militia, and maintain a selective fire (fully automatic) Sig Sauer SG 550 battle rifle in their home. Switzerland has a very low incidence of gun violence.
Reply

Leave a comment