The Second Admendment should have been better written.

[Jkillah]

"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."

Regardless of whether you are an untra leftwing person that believes no one should be armed with anything more deadly than a butter knife, or a hardcore gun enthusiast that thinks the government shouldn't be able in any way to limit access to weaponry, the Second Amendment should have been better written.

My point is there should not be very much left to interpretation. I disagree with people who think that it is a virtue that the Constitution is a "living document" that can be reinterpreted many different ways based on the whims and feelings of the people living in a particular era. I consider that a flaw. The Constitution should have been written in such a way that there would be no ambiguity, no room for widely varied opinions on what it meant.

There should not be a scenario where it is necessary to have highly trained legal scholars explain a short government document, and it certainly should not be the case that many different highly trained legal scholars end up with very different interpretations. It should be very clearly defined so that even the lowest lay person would understand what the document meant. Any debate about the document should be about the merits of its principals rather than what the document actually means.

Some parts of the Constitution are clearly defined such as the minimal age requirements of members of Congress. Other parts though, including the Second Amendment, are up to interpretation, and I think it has less to do with the genius of the Founding Fathers wanting a living document that will morph with the sentiments of the changing times and more to do with our Founding Fathers intentionally making it vague enough so that they could get the damn thing ratified without too many objections, and it leads to the kinds of debates that we have today.

The Second Amendment should have clearly defined the following items:

• Is it intended for the maintenance of a militia only?
• Is it intended to still provide protections in the event that militias have been rendered obsolete by modern permanent armies?
  
• Is it intended for protection against a foreign enemy?
• Is it intended for protection against an internal enemy (i.e., the local, state, or federal government itself)?
• Is it intended for home defense against petty criminals?
• Is it intended to provide ALL people with the right to bear arms (i.e., convicted criminals, children, the mentally ill etc...)
• Does the Second Amendment allow local governments to pass any type of regulation or restriction on the sale or manufacturer of firearms?
  
• Does the right to bear arms extend to every location (i.e., court rooms, private businesses, public transportation, schools, churches etc...)?
• Which types of arms are actually we allowed to bear? (i.e., rifles, handguns, hand held rocket launchers, cannons etc...)?

 

[Fluffernutter]

$700,000,000,000

 

[Rav1nHunter]

It was made over 200 years ago bump stocks weren't even imagined.

Give em a break they couldn't see the future. What is needed is updating and smart regulations.

 

[RerouteToRemain]

"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."

Regardless of whether you are an untra leftwing person that believes no one should be armed with anything more deadly than a butter knife, or a hardcore gun enthusiast that thinks the government shouldn't be able in any way to limit access to weaponry, the Second Amendment should have been better written.

My point is there should not be very much left to interpretation. I disagree with people who think that it is a virtue that the Constitution is a "living document" that can be reinterpreted many different ways based on the whims and feelings of the people living in a particular era. I consider that a flaw. The Constitution should have been written in such a way that there would be no ambiguity, no room for widely varied opinions on what it meant.

There should not be a scenario where it is necessary to have highly trained legal scholars explain a short government document, and it certainly should not be the case that many different highly trained legal scholars end up with very different interpretations. It should be very clearly defined so that even the lowest lay person would understand what the document meant. Any debate about the document should be about the merits of its principals rather than what the document actually means.

Some parts of the Constitution are clearly defined such as the minimal age requirements of members of Congress. Other parts though, including the Second Amendment, are up to interpretation, and I think it has less to do with the genius of the Founding Fathers wanting a living document that will morph with the sentiments of the changing times and more to do with our Founding Fathers intentionally making it vague enough so that they could get the damn thing ratified without too many objections, and it leads to the kinds of debates that we have today.

The Second Amendment should have clearly defined the following items:

• Is it intended for the maintenance of a militia only?
• Is it intended to still provide protections in the event that militias have been rendered obsolete by modern permanent armies?
  
• Is it intended for protection against a foreign enemy?
• Is it intended for protection against an internal enemy; i.e. the local, state, or federal government itself?
• Is it intended for home defense against petty criminals?
• Is it intended to provide ALL people with the right to bear arms; i.e. convicted criminals, children, the mentally ill etc...
• Does the Second Amendment allow local governments to pass any type of regulation or restriction on the sale or manufacturer of firearms?
  
• Does the right to bear arms extend to every location i.e. are the potential locations such as court rooms, private businesses, public transportation, schools, churches etc...where arms are not permitted?
• Which types of arms are actually we allowed to bear? Does the Second Amendment grant the right to keep and bear any possible type of arms? i.e. any potential rifle, any potential handgun, hand held rocket launchers, cannons etc...

The full answer to this with proof so to speak is very long and has been discussed on here showing real (very important distinction as there are tons of fake) quotes from them. I don't feel like putting the pretty extensive work in to do so again. Maybe someone will or you might be able to find some things through the search bar.

Here is a quick answer.

Private citizens owned warships, cannons, puckle guns, all different kinds of hand held guns, etc.

The militia is the people, all able bodied citizens.

It was for threats foreign and domestic (free state).

Shall not be infringed and was intended to let citizens have what an army would have.

 

[faustian]

The point of the amendments are to protect the citizenry. When you start getting too specific you begin to narrow things. Vagueness allows for broad interpretation, and, therefore, broad protection

 

[the ambush]

The original document was drafted well over 200 years ago. Therefore it is open to personal interpretation.

 

[Jkillah]

To me, a clear example of why the Second Amendment should have been better defined is that Judge Scalia interpreted the Second Amendment to apply to any weapon that you could physically carry. By his interpretation, cannons are not protected by the Second Amendment, but handheld rocket launchers are protected. Basically, if you are physically strong enough to carry the weapon it is given protection under the Second Amendment by his interpretation. Even if his interpretation is precisely 100% correct, the Second Amendment still should have been better defined because there are so many plausible arguments against interpreting arms protections given by the Second Amendment as being what you can physically bear/carry in your arms.

 

[second sight]

there is no since of clarity with leftist, they overturn the first amendment and it could not be written any clearer

 

[SomebodyElse]

I'm not certain where we are going with this.

Isn't the OP akin to stating something like; "Penicillin should have been discovered sooner"?

These men wrote those laws in an era where you ACTUALLY wore a powdered wig to work, and arrived by horse. They were veterans, philosophers, and politicians, not psychics. Considering they did have the foresight to include an amendment process that could accommodate change and the unforeseeable, I'd say they did a f#$king fantastic job ... it's the legislatures that followed them to which we should turn our criticisms.

 

[91 seconds]

Back in the days where a well regulated militia pretty much had the same weapons as the government.

If we can't have a militia with fighter jets, drones, tanks etc..then I don't want to be in any militia going against the fucking government. This nation crumbles if they even try to implement anything that's too drastic. That's why they chip away slowly. I'm not even sure how much of a first ammendment we have anymore with "hate speech" now a thing. The second was to protect the first so it's all a clusterfuck to me.

 

[tdluxon]

It was made over 200 years ago bump stocks weren't even imagined.

Give em a break they couldn't see the future. What is needed is updating and smart regulations.

Exactly. Things have changed so much since it was written you could make a strong argument that it is obsolete at this point and should be entirely reconsidered

 

[tdluxon]

Back in the days where a well regulated militia pretty much had the same weapons as the government.

If we can't have a militia with fighter jets, drones, tanks etc..then I don't want to be in any militia going against the fucking government. This nation crumbles if they even try to implement anything that's too drastic. That's why they chip away slowly. I'm not even sure how much of a first ammendment we have anymore with "hate speech" now a thing. The second was to protect the first so it's all a clusterfuck to me.

It cracks me up that there's gun nut guys that have argued with me that a militia of armed citizens could somehow protect the people if the government became oppressive.

Good luck shooting down a fighter jet with your ar!

 

[hillelslovak87]

To me, a clear example of why the Second Amendment should have been better defined is that Judge Scalia interpreted the Second Amendment to apply to any weapon that you could physically carry. By his interpretation, cannons are not protected by the Second Amendment, but handheld rocket launchers are protected. Basically, if you are physically strong enough to carry the weapon it is given protection under the Second Amendment by his interpretation. Even if his interpretation is precisely 100% correct, the Second Amendment still should have been better defined because there are so many plausible arguments against interpreting arms protections given by the Second Amendment as being what you can physically bear/carry in your arms.

Goddamn, Scalia was a maniac. The idea that the founding fathers could see a grenade launcher and go "Well, he can carry it, so we're good!!" is absurd.

 

[Limbo Pete]

I disagree with people who think that it is a virtue that the Constitution is a "living document" that can be reinterpreted many different ways based on the whims and feelings of the people living in a particular era.

You're literally talking about an amendment to the document while saying it shouldn't be viewed as a "living document".

For god sake what is wrong with this world

 

[Jkillah]

The point of the amendments are to protect the citizenry. When you start getting too specific you begin to narrow things. Vagueness allows for broad interpretation, and, therefore, broad protection

I am familiar with that argument, and I agree with it to an extent. To me the First Amendment is an example of why you can't be too narrow because then it would only protect free speech in certain limited circumstances.

That being said, defining protections too loosely also causes harm because then the protection is open to being reduced or altered by varying interpretation.

 

[hillelslovak87]

It cracks me up that there's gun nut guys that have argued with me that a militia of armed citizens could somehow protect the people if the government became oppressive.

Good luck shooting down a fighter jet with your ar!

Or tanks, or aircraft carriers, or high altitude drones, or appache helicopters, or MRAPS, etc etc.

From what I have noticed, the "Gotsk to fight tyrunnee!!" Crowd will trot out the fighting the tyrannical government with our guns argument, then when pressed, will insist that the men and women in the military would dissent, refuse to fight, and make the tyrannical overreach a null point. They dont seem to see the fallacy in the argument.

 

[Fawlty]

I believe they were purposefully ambiguous. Often. Excruciatingly often. And it was brilliant.

 

[Rav1nHunter]

Exactly. Things have changed so much since it was written you could make a strong argument that it is obsolete at this point and should be entirely reconsidered

An amendment to the amendment you might say.

But seriously I love guns amd don't want bans but no one needs bump stock, automatics (maybe for fun at ranges), silencers or binary triggers semi auto perfecly fine for hunting and protection.

 

[44nutman]

The right to Bear Arms.

 

[RerouteToRemain]

It cracks me up that there's gun nut guys that have argued with me that a militia of armed citizens could somehow protect the people if the government became oppressive.

Good luck shooting down a fighter jet with your ar!

That is such a stupid statement.

There are 120 million gun owners spread across every County in the US. It would be guerrilla warfare.

Are they going to carpet bomb the entire country with those fighter jets?