How would leftists write the Second Ammendment?

[toobfreak]

How would leftists write the Second Amendment?

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.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the DESIRE of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of OUR free States, the DESIRE of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of OUR free States, the NEED of the POPULOUS to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
A very well-regulated military being necessary to the security of OUR States, the NEED to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
Our very well-regulated military being necessary to keep and bear arms, the security of our State shall not be infringed.

 

[j-mac]

Leftists would abolish the right altogether, in favor of some board where you’d have to justify your very existence.

 

[justinacolmena]

You don't care about your state government - nobody does.

It is always the states that prosecute serious crimes such as murder, not the feds.

 

[justinacolmena]

DESIRE

That doesn't sound like the Passion of Jesus Christ there, Mister.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

It seems fine to me to. There is nothing ambiguous or unclear in any way.

 

[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 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.

only for idiots that cant read and understand what a qualifier is in a sentence,, those people need to be educated or killed,,

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

only for idiots that cant read and understand what a qualifier is in a sentence,, those people need to be educated or killed,,

the latter

 

[$ecular#eckler]

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.

Yes, it looks like the 14th Amendment did a lot of damage to the original intent of a union of states.

 

[$ecular#eckler]

only for idiots that cant read and understand what a qualifier is in a sentence,, those people need to be educated or killed,,

Get it on. Stop the idle threats. Stop Joe Biden and the leftists before they do what they want to do.

 

[$ecular#eckler]

That is a lot of words that say virtually nothing.

Very few people can compose good directives.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Founding Fathers did an most Excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land. There is nothing ambiguous or unclear. It is "object-oriented" before that technical term was invented.

 

[progressive hunter]

only for idiots that cant read and understand what a qualifier is in a sentence,, those people need to be educated or killed,,

Get it on. Stop the idle threats. Stop Joe Biden and the leftists before they do what they want to do.

friday,,

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

only for idiots that cant read and understand what a qualifier is in a sentence,, those people need to be educated or killed,,

Get it on. Stop the idle threats. Stop Joe Biden and the leftists before they do what they want to do.

friday,,

The founders should never have included the language about militia being necessary, even though any person with a brain knows that the intent was the operative clause. The prefatory clause should have been considered a given. It has acted to open the door for communist shits to make up nonsense. Of course, the founders could never have foreseen this insanity. I would amend to remove all but "the right of the people keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" and be done with it.

 

[progressive hunter]

only for idiots that cant read and understand what a qualifier is in a sentence,, those people need to be educated or killed,,

Get it on. Stop the idle threats. Stop Joe Biden and the leftists before they do what they want to do.

friday,,

The founders should never have included the language about militia being necessary, even though any person with a brain knows that the intent was the operative clause. The prefatory clause should have been considered a given. It has acted to open the door for communist shits to make up nonsense. Of course, the founders could never have foreseen this insanity. I would amend to remove all but "the right of the people keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" and be done with it.

possibly true,, but if we just used the 2nd as intended when they shot of their mouths this wouldnt be an issue

 

[$ecular#eckler]

Of course, the founders could never have foreseen this insanity.

Yes, they did. There are some anecdotes that the founders warned that the government would need to be reorganized (reorder the constitution) upon expansion of the government. And it is an absurdity that conservatives cannot recognize this, and believe that the expansion of government has been well constructed.

The problem has been that nobody until I, has been able to reveal a better separation of government theory and an orderly convention process to advance the theory to a serviceable charter.

If the “checks and balances” worked, then we would not endure corruption and flawed policy, because that is what the “checks and balances” are supposed to prevent. If it is because, “they are not following the Constitution,” that means the checks and balances do not work, because the checks and balances are supposed to prevent that, as well. The checks and balances do not work, and it is probably because the three-part separation theory is improperly deployed. The three-part separation theory is probably a valid theory, but if there is any error in its deployment, then the distribution of government powers is probably not balanced, and the checks on power are probably not in accordance with expectations. It is very unlikely that the checks and balances are going to work correctly if the separation of government is not properly constructed.

The United States Constitution, and subsequent state constitutions, are not the products of divine revelation and incarnation of Blind Justice that virtuously allows nefarious persons to interpret and exploit inadequate aspects of the charters. The American charter system is of an antiquated design with indefinite terminologies, and was never secured by a practical system of checks and balances. “Fuzzy” is the term that we use to describe such vague rules, boundaries, and incomplete systems. It is the founders’ half-truth that they could not avoid, because although some of them could imagine the unfurling of some services, like a central bank, they did not have all of the information necessary for ordering a reliable charter, and the unformulated expansion of the government is proof of the lack of information.

I would amend to remove all but "the right of the people keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" and be done with it.

The question was not what would conservatives have composed. The question was how would leftists write it.

 

[$ecular#eckler]

possibly true,, but if we just used the 2nd as intended when they shot of their mouths this wouldnt be an issue

Get it on - don't wait for someone else to be the leader.

 

[dblack]

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,,

But the threat posed by a state is approximately one-fiftieth that of the federal government. I'd prefer a state with its own version of the Second Amendment, but if others prefer to live in a state which restricts gun ownership, that's their call. Same with local governments.

 

[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.

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

But the threat posed by a state is approximately one-fiftieth that of the federal government. I'd prefer a state with its own version of the Second Amendment, but if others prefer to live in a state which restricts gun ownership, that's their call. Same with local governments.

that all depends on what side of the aisle youre on,, and beings that I am an outsider and dont trust either of them fucks I am OK with it staying a fed issue and the state abiding the constitution,,

and of course if a state bans them and the feds go rogue they are fucked and of no use to the rest of us,,

 

[$ecular#eckler]

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,,

But the threat posed by a state is approximately one-fiftieth that of the federal government. I'd prefer a state with its own version of the Second Amendment, but if others prefer to live in a state which restricts gun ownership, that's their call. Same with local governments.

that all depends on what side of the aisle youre on,, and beings that I am an outsider and dont trust either of them fucks I am OK with it staying a fed issue and the state abiding the constitution,,

and of course if a state bans them and the feds go rogue they are fucked and of no use to the rest of us,,

The founders' theory was that a person would be free to immigrate to a state of their choosing with a culture and law system that satisfies their sense of "pursuit of happiness." But that was all deconstructed with the 14th Amendment that prescribes that all states have the same civil rights, or something.

 

[Chillicothe]

"Of course, the founders could never have foreseen this insanity....."

And, I suppose, the Founders could never have foreseen Adam Lanza killing twenty 6 & 7yr- olds at school. Nor, Lanza carrying a rapid fire weapon and 10 magazines of 30rounds each to kill a total of 26 in less than 5 minutes.

Nor, I suppose, the Founders could never have foreseen Stephen Paddock killing 61, injuring another 411 by gunfire, for a total injured of almost 900. And do it in about 12 minutes.
All from the 32nd floor of a casino.

Yeah, we may need to re-examine what those old Founders could comprehend about the future of the 'right-to-bear-arms'.

IMHO