How would you amend the 2nd amendment

[sl7yz0r]

How would you amend he 2nd amendment to account for technological advancement and weapons of mass destruction? Should individuals (or states) be allowed to develop, produce, stockpile, trade nuclear weapons?

 

[Anti Federalist]

What are governments, but collections of individuals?

 

[DamianTV]

Maybe instead of "Congress shall pass no Law", but extend that to include EVERY form of govermnent, national down to city and county...

I dont know about the right of my neighbor to have a Nuke, but Im pretty sure that Nuclear Weapons dont exactly fall into anyone's definition of "firearm" or "gun".

 

[Elwar]

You're just as liabel for a nuke going off as you are for causing a fire that burns down the community.

No Constitutional requirement for it.

If you're going to have a nuke, you'd better be insured to the point that you can cover damages if it hurts anyone.

 

[angelatc]

I would put " not infringe" in all caps, and underline it a bunch of times.

 

[noxagol]

The right of the individual to keep and bear arms, and to keep and bear all things necessary for the proper working of said arms, shall not be infringed.

 

[fisharmor]

The answer is "I wouldn't".
Sorry to pick on the noob, but this is a stupid question.
Technically, ordinary boxcutters have a greater body count than nuclear weapons over the last 65 years.

Stop panicking over WMDs and think.
If they want to get you, they will.
Period, end of story.
No regulation can change this.
This is immutable law carved in stone.

So we can keep trying models that are proved not to work,
or we can rethink this, and realize that the only safety to be had consists of:
1) Not intentionally pissing anyone off
2) Allowing citizens to defend themselves.

BTW, citizens can't defend themselves against an invading army without the stuff you want to take away from them.

 

[JRegs85]

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by any federal, state, or local government. For the purposes of this Article, 'arms' refers to any firearm contemporaneously used or operated by any member of the United States military."

 

[Southron]

Why does every 2nd amendment question come down to nukes?

We can't even purchase new military firearms and you are worried about nukes?

 

[muzzled dogg]

Lol @ people thinking the amendment has anything to do with firearms and writing the militia out altogether

 

[fisharmor]

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by any federal, state, or local government. For the purposes of this Article, 'arms' refers to any firearm contemporaneously used or operated by any member of the United States military."

Great! So I'm President Ty Rant, and I'm one executive order away from funneling a bunch of money away from other projects into the alphabet soup agencies - perhaps I'll only use one... let's use the ATF, since they have such a great track record as defenders of liberty.
I spend a year militarizing them, and demilitarizing the military. Now all the military can carry is squirt guns.
But the ATF, which is a law enforcement organization, is militarily armed.
Now I can get the law passed which totally disarms citizens. But it doesn't really, since they can use the same squirt guns as the military.

 

[jtstellar]

in america even some bored-out-of-mind 80yr old grandma could stalk on you and trail your car if she thinks you're up to no good.. if you didn't have government sign "TRUST ME" on every doorway of institutions connected some way to military weapons and goods, you don't think americans will do lots of citizen's patrols on people they think might be stockpiling dangerous weapons?

i guess it's safer to let weapon companies take tax dollar money and design weapons and have them ultimately traded in the black market going to rogue nations and dictators.. what a stupid question

"is it better to give poor citizens the chance to technically purchase weapons he cannot afford" or "let weapons flow to third world countries like they already have"
tarded

 

[Elwar]

Should the founders have made adjustments for such weapons as cannons or weapon ships that could level a whole city if they knew such things would one day exist?


Oh wait...they had those back then. No such adjustment was made.

 

[buck000]

I would put " not infringe" in all caps, and underline it a bunch of times.

 

[Tonewah]

I wouldn't change it, but I'd like to put my $.02 in on what it means:

"A sufficiently-armed corps of non-military citizens being necessary for security in a free state, the right of every individual to keep and bear any arms needed to defend themselves against enemies foreign and domestic shall not be infringed."

 

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

As defense is the most basic and necessary of human rights, no government at any level of society may infringe upon individuals from keeping and bearing arms. As a militia is necessary to maintaining a free society, the right of individuals to form a militia shall not be infringed.

 

[fisharmor]

i guess it's safer to let weapon companies take tax dollar money and design weapons and have them ultimately traded in the black market going to rogue nations and dictators.. what a stupid question

"is it better to give poor citizens the chance to technically purchase weapons he cannot afford" or "let weapons flow to third world countries like they already have"
tarded

So, I guess you haven't seen the pictures from Egypt where the protesters are holding up tear gas canisters and making a point that they were MADE IN THE USA.
Yes, it's a stupid argument.
In order to get me concerned about tax dollars going to weapons for dictators, you have to prove that this is not exactly what is happening right now.
You can't scare me with the boogeyman of what might happen, when it's the current reality.

 

[chudrockz]

Great! So I'm President Ty Rant, and I'm one executive order away from funneling a bunch of money away from other projects into the alphabet soup agencies - perhaps I'll only use one... let's use the ATF, since they have such a great track record as defenders of liberty.
I spend a year militarizing them, and demilitarizing the military. Now all the military can carry is squirt guns.
But the ATF, which is a law enforcement organization, is militarily armed.
Now I can get the law passed which totally disarms citizens. But it doesn't really, since they can use the same squirt guns as the military.

Since what you quotes says absolutely nothing about "demilitarizing" the United States military, you might want to re-read it and re-think your analysis.

 

[Pericles]

There shall be no law restricting the manufacture, sale, possession, or bearing of any type of arms.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

As defense is the most basic and necessary of human rights, no government at any level of society may infringe upon individuals from keeping and bearing arms. As a militia is necessary to maintaining a free society, the right of individuals to form a militia shall not be infringed.

Pretty good.