How would leftists write the Second Ammendment?

[Esdraelon]

This is a trick question, right? Hard Lefty/Marxists would effectively write it out altogether. Fortunately, they aren't the majority of the Democrat party. Other than those in the deep blue cesspools, average Dems won't easily allow serious infringement beyond what we have now. Those who want America to devolve into true, widespread violence and bloodshed will get what they want if they try to enforce such power-grabs.
WE WILL NOT COMPLY
WE WILL NOT BE DISARMED...

 

[Esdraelon]

Let me remind us all the verbiage of the 2nd Ammendment.

“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.”

This seems fine to me. Lefties, what do you want it to say? Be specific and write the words.

Like this:

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

www.law.cornell.edu

Even SCOTUS dare not go any further at the national level. If they DO, there will be "repercussions and consequences". The sick aspect of these gun-grabbing Marxists is that while they wail and moan about the dead from mass shootings, they'd CHEERFULLY watch thousands more die to be able to impose their will on those they hate. Imagine their surprise and dismay when they realize that THEY might just have to put some skin in the game to accomplish THIS theft. Coward scum that they are...

 

[progressive hunter]

The right to own projectile weapons shall carry an enhanced level of personal responsibility regarding use, competence, safety, quantity and utility of weapons. The federal government shall have the responsibility to promote the responsible ownership, use and trade of firearms and ammunition and have broad powers to prohibit their use in criminal activity, terrorism and insurgency.

your premise is a lie,,,

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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 by the federal government.

I think that was the original intent.

The 14th Amendment kinda fucks that up.

 

[progressive hunter]

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 by the federal government.

I think that was the original intent.

The 14th Amendment kinda fucks that up.

if that was their intent they would have written it that way,,

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I'll help.

Congress shall make no law concerning the possession, ownership, or use, any weapons of any kind. The power to regulate weapons of any kind shall be left to the states, subject to the requirement that states allow and require each adult individual to possess state-of-the-art and other weapons equivalent to the common foot soldier or commando. no federal government or state government shall have a standing army other than a militia made up of ordinary citizens on a voluntary basis. Any cocksucking idiot leftist or authoritarian who tries to interpret this amendment in any way other than giving absolute equivalent or greater firepower to individuals, without exception, shall be executed by firing squad. And fuck Mac1958.

 

[Chillicothe]

The right to own projectile weapons shall carry an enhanced level of personal responsibility regarding use, competence, safety, quantity and utility of weapons.

Well, I have no idea how a "lefty" would write the new 2nd A (v.2.1?)

But I would suggest here, as I have before, an 'enhanced level of personal responsibility' would be mandated.

With the 'right' comes a responsibility to ensure that the unique tool you have introduced into our social reality, well, you own any harm that tool is instrumental in causing. Period.

As long as you are the titled-owner, if that unique tool kills the 4yr old who found it in the sock drawer, or the diqhead who stole it from under your truck seat.....well, the harm is on you. A share of of the harm. To be sure, the trigger puller bears the lion's share of responsibility (I ain't gonna go all wonkery on the 4yr old though).....but the owner of that 4-year old's gun sure will get the lions' share of responsibility.)

Firearms are unique instruments.
So is poison.
So are explosives.

Their uniqueness inherently imbues them with the potentiality of great harm. And the owner-of-record shoulders a significant share of that burden. That liability. If you own the gun, you own the harm it causes.

 

[progressive hunter]

I'll help.

Congress shall make no law concerning the possession, ownership, or use, any weapons of any kind. The power to regulate weapons of any kind shall be left to the states, subject to the requirement that states allow and require each adult individual to possess stete-of-the-art and other weapons equivalent to the common foot soldier or commando. no federal government or state government shall have a standing army other than a militia made up of ordinary citizens on a voluntary basis. Any cocksucking idiot leftist or authoritarian who tries to interpret this amendment in any way other than giving absolute equivalent or greater firepower to individuals, without exception, shall be executed by firing squad. And fuck Mac1958.

the second already says that a lot easier to understand,,

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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 by the federal government.

I think that was the original intent.

The 14th Amendment kinda fucks that up.

if that was their intent they would have written it that way,,

There's a strong argument that failure to state "Congress shall make no law" indicates that no government will be allowed to infringe. At a bare-ass minimum, it was a limit on FedGov power. Minimum!

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I'll help.

Congress shall make no law concerning the possession, ownership, or use, any weapons of any kind. The power to regulate weapons of any kind shall be left to the states, subject to the requirement that states allow and require each adult individual to possess stete-of-the-art and other weapons equivalent to the common foot soldier or commando. no federal government or state government shall have a standing army other than a militia made up of ordinary citizens on a voluntary basis. Any cocksucking idiot leftist or authoritarian who tries to interpret this amendment in any way other than giving absolute equivalent or greater firepower to individuals, without exception, shall be executed by firing squad. And fuck Mac1958.

the second already says that a lot easier to understand,,

Tell that to these fucking idiots

 

[progressive hunter]

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 by the federal government.

I think that was the original intent.

The 14th Amendment kinda fucks that up.

if that was their intent they would have written it that way,,

There's a strong argument that failure to state "Congress shall make no law" indicates that no government will be allowed to infringe. At a bare-ass minimum, it was a limit on FedGov power. Minimum!

if thats what it meant it would have said that,, shall not be infringed works just fine unless youre a tyrant,,

and one could make the argument that "congress shall make no laws" meant only the fed congress

better to look at it in context and all will be revealed,, it was meant to be for weapons of war,,

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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 by the federal government.

I think that was the original intent.

The 14th Amendment kinda fucks that up.

if that was their intent they would have written it that way,,

There's a strong argument that failure to state "Congress shall make no law" indicates that no government will be allowed to infringe. At a bare-ass minimum, it was a limit on FedGov power. Minimum!

if thats what it meant it would have said that,, shall not be infringed works just fine unless youre a tyrant,,

and one could make the argument that "congress shall make no laws" meant only the fed congress

better to look at it in context and all will be revealed,, it was meant to be for weapons of war,,

Agreed.

States had all already created constitutions. No state left out a 2A-type constitutional provision. The intent to not infringe on the natural, pre-existing right to weapons of war is expressly evident in all state constitutions.

 

[Rigby5]

As the most leftist person here, the correct way is to not try to give any reason why, just simply state, "The federal government shall make no law regarding any weapons."

 

[progressive hunter]

As the most leftist person here, the correct way is to not try to give any reason why, just simply state, "The federal government shall make no law regarding any weapons."

its fine how it is,,

in fact it already says that and more,, no one can make any laws on anytype of weapon

 

[Rigby5]

As the most leftist person here, the correct way is to not try to give any reason why, just simply state, "The federal government shall make no law regarding any weapons."

its fine how it is,,

in fact it already says that and more,, no one can make any laws on any type of weapon

But is it adds the confusion of a "well regulated militia", which many incorrectly assumed means you can restrict with laws, and that only the National Guard needs to be armed.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

No federal, state or local law shall restrict the purchase, sale, transfer, use, or carry of any weapon, period. End of story. Those who attempt to do so shall be guilty of high treason and shall be executed by draw and quarter.

 

[Fueri]

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 by the federal government.

the states can be a threat just like the feds,,

It is easy as heck to get a CCW permit in Florida. Nearly impossible in New York. You make a great point.

Lefties want you to have no guns and no police. I think they want you to defend yourself with a shoe.

This should cover it.

 

[Pellinore]

There's actually an answer to this. None other than Michael Moore—who I think you'll all agree is quite the leftist—proposed a 28th Amendment about four years ago, to supersede the Second. I'm sure you will all enjoy reading this:

" A well regulated State National Guard, being helpful to the safety and security of a State in times of need, along with the strictly regulated right of the people to keep and bear a limited number of non-automatic Arms for sport and hunting, with respect to the primary right of all people to be free from gun violence, this shall not be infringed."

Change Constitution, Restrict Gun Rights: Michael Moore

The filmmaker wants to repeal the Second Amendment. And he's not the only one.

www.newsweek.com

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

No federal, state or local law shall restrict the purchase, sale, transfer, use, or carry of any weapon, period. End of story. Those who attempt to do so shall be guilty of high treason and shall be executed by draw and quarter.

Really?

Who the fuck do you think wrote the 2nd amendment, the government, they can change laws all the time and they do.
No one is missing the tommy gun.
You think you be able to own a fully functional, howitzer?

 

[FA_Q2]

There's actually an answer to this. None other than Michael Moore—who I think you'll all agree is quite the leftist—proposed a 28th Amendment about four years ago, to supersede the Second. I'm sure you will all enjoy reading this:

" A well regulated State National Guard, being helpful to the safety and security of a State in times of need, along with the strictly regulated right of the people to keep and bear a limited number of non-automatic Arms for sport and hunting, with respect to the primary right of all people to be free from gun violence, this shall not be infringed."

Change Constitution, Restrict Gun Rights: Michael Moore

The filmmaker wants to repeal the Second Amendment. And he's not the only one.

www.newsweek.com

LOL.


That is a lot of words that say virtually nothing.