I have been thinking recently about the debate regarding the wording of the 2nd Amendment. While to me, and I am sure many of you on this forum, the wording is not all the unclear especially when taken in the context of the rest of the document and history that has not prevented people from debating what it means.

The main question I am asking is that if there were a way to reword the 2nd Amendment to ensure that all those who read it would know for a certainty that it protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. I would like to know if anyone else has thought about this and if they have any suggestions about what that rewording would look like. I have put the original text below as well as what I would potentially think we be a more clear and concise version of it.

Original:
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.

My Proposal:
The individual, inalienable, and natural right of all persons to keep and bear arms for whatever purpose they shall see fit shall never be denied, restricted, or limited by the government of the United States, the Several States, or any political body therein for any reason.

The 2nd does not rewording. What we need is to teach our history so everyone understands it clearly.

Quote from: Solar on November 11, 2020, 01:09:43 PM
The 2nd does not rewording. What we need is to teach our history so everyone understands it clearly.

Quote from: Solar on November 11, 2020, 01:09:43 PM
The 2nd does not rewording. What we need is to teach our history so everyone understands it clearly.

Out of all the amendments, it is the simplest, most clearly worded, and straightforward.....

Quote from: Owebo on November 11, 2020, 03:49:03 PM
Out of all the amendments, it is the simplest, most clearly worded, and straightforward.....

Exactly the point! The moment we screw with the wording, opens up every Amendment to shredding.
It was a given that every able bodied man be armed and prepared to defend their state, against the tyranny of an over bearing Govt, which was the exact reason for our God Given Rights.

I kind of agree with him. States keep making laws that interfere with our 2nd Amendment.

We have our right to own guns. We have right to fight back against a bad government, by assembling a force with our neighbors not associated with the country's military. But that seems to depend on which state you live in.

Quote from: Sick Of Silence on November 11, 2020, 04:32:47 PM
I kind of agree with him. States keep making laws that interfere with our 2nd Amendment.

We have our right to own guns. We have right to fight back against a bad government, by assembling a force with our neighbors not associated with the country's military. But that seems to depend on which state you live in.

The 2nd is clear and concise as to it's intentions, assuming you understand our history. I think that's where the issue lies, most don't know our history and how the Ten Amendments came to be.
God gave us these Rights, not the govt.

Quote from: Sick Of Silence on November 11, 2020, 04:32:47 PM
I kind of agree with him. States keep making laws that interfere with our 2nd Amendment.

We have our right to own guns. We have right to fight back against a bad government, by assembling a force with our neighbors not associated with the country's military. But that seems to depend on which state you live in.

It's not the 2A that's the problem...it's socialists....

Quote from: Solar on November 11, 2020, 04:55:42 PM
The 2nd is clear and concise as to it's intentions, assuming you understand our history. I think that's where the issue lies, most don't know our history and how the Ten Amendments came to be.
God gave us these Rights, not the govt.

Again: states keeping making gun laws. If every state made gun laws, it would have the same effect as if the federal government made those same gun laws. Both would ultimately have the same effect: infringement on my gun rights.

Quote from: Sick Of Silence on November 11, 2020, 05:13:22 PM
Again: states keeping making gun laws. If every state made gun laws, it would have the same effect as if the federal government made those same gun laws. Both would ultimately have the same effect: infringement on my gun rights.

Yes, and in truth, they're all unconstitutional. But it isn't the Fed doing it.

Quote from: Solar on November 11, 2020, 05:19:21 PM
Yes, and in truth, they're all unconstitutional. But it isn't the Fed doing it.

I know that. You know that. But the people on charge don't care. Democrats (with the help of RINOs) want to ultimately ban guns.

The point I was trying to show was that while there are people who understand what it means the fact that we have to debate the meaning of it in the Supreme Court and other places shows that it is not on face value clear to everyone that reads it. I would definitely not say that it is the most straightforward of all the amendments and the surrounding context needs to be explained for people to understand it clearly which I agree is an issue we face since people are not taught this.

That being said I was posing to the group if there was a way that it could be worded such that no explanation of any history or context was required and instead the words alone would be enough such that the same point came across. The example I put in my first post was what I thought would be a good way. Is there anyone that objects to that wording as not accomplishing the same thing?

Quote from: Centinel on November 11, 2020, 05:27:06 PM
The point I was trying to show was that while there are people who understand what it means the fact that we have to debate the meaning of it in the Supreme Court and other places shows that it is not on face value clear to everyone that reads it. I would definitely not say that it is the most straightforward of all the amendments and the surrounding context needs to be explained for people to understand it clearly which I agree is an issue we face since people are not taught this.

That being said I was posing to the group if there was a way that it could be worded such that no explanation of any history or context was required and instead the words alone would be enough such that the same point came across. The example I put in my first post was what I thought would be a good way. Is there anyone that objects to that wording as not accomplishing the same thing?

It's not that they don't understand it, it's crystal clear...it's that they no longer fear it...which means it's getting close to the time to use it....

Quote from: Centinel on November 11, 2020, 05:27:06 PM
The point I was trying to show was that while there are people who understand what it means the fact that we have to debate the meaning of it in the Supreme Court and other places shows that it is not on face value clear to everyone that reads it. I would definitely not say that it is the most straightforward of all the amendments and the surrounding context needs to be explained for people to understand it clearly which I agree is an issue we face since people are not taught this.

That being said I was posing to the group if there was a way that it could be worded such that no explanation of any history or context was required and instead the words alone would be enough such that the same point came across. The example I put in my first post was what I thought would be a good way. Is there anyone that objects to that wording as not accomplishing the same thing?

Quoteact that we have to debate the meaning of it in the Supreme Court

IF you change it.  There will always be someone debating every word from the Dem's side.  So it will end up in the Supreme

Quote from: Centinel on November 11, 2020, 05:27:06 PM
The point I was trying to show was that while there are people who understand what it means the fact that we have to debate the meaning of it in the Supreme Court and other places shows that it is not on face value clear to everyone that reads it. I would definitely not say that it is the most straightforward of all the amendments and the surrounding context needs to be explained for people to understand it clearly which I agree is an issue we face since people are not taught this.

That being said I was posing to the group if there was a way that it could be worded such that no explanation of any history or context was required and instead the words alone would be enough such that the same point came across. The example I put in my first post was what I thought would be a good way. Is there anyone that objects to that wording as not accomplishing the same thing?

I knew what you meant and many over the course of time have presented the idea. However, maybe a compromise can be in order.
With every Amendment, a very short summary as to its true meaning, shorter than the Amendment itself. (God Gave us These Rights, Not Govt.)

This would be extremely challenging, in that the Amendments were concise straight forward in the first place.
They were written so everyone could understand them, Right down to the comma, when everyone knew good grammar at the time of its writing.

This is why the Federalist papers are sooo important, they explain the thought that went into them and why they are so necessary.
It's the caveat that these were a prohibition against govt, that these 10 Amendments barred the govt from interfering with Rights granted by God.
It is that knowledge that makes each and everyone self explanatory. God gave us the Right to arm ourselves, speak freely etc, period!