The Second Admendment should have been better written.

[Limbo Pete]

The living document interpretation doesn't mean you can add amendments, that's ok. It basically means you can change your interpretation of already existing text.

I'm very familiar with this subject

 

[Lord Coke]

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.

The second amendment is about having arms necessary for militia activity. By definition that means bearable arms.
I.e. Arms designed for use by the individual militiaman that is there to augment the regular forces.
Historically cannons and crewed served weapons were given to you by the government once you showed up and people did not train with them at home.

 

[faustian]

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.

Agreed, but the SCOTUS is tasked with a particular devotion to the US Constitution as the supreme law of the land. Constitutional tests require the highest standard of legal testing in the United States

Then on top of that you have the 9th A

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
​

Broad interpretation in favor of the people is the explicit intent. Ambiguous language wasn't a mistake; it was in every case designed specifically to protect the people. Attempts to contradict that are simply wrong from an objective legal standpoint. But to your point, it is nonetheless possible.

I suppose you could say it was a risk the Framers took, but one which offered the greatest likelihood of success.

 

[SammyJar88]

The reason for the second amendment is so people can resist a tyrannical government, so access to guns like the AR-15 and AK-47 are obviously covered. The average citizen should have legal access to the same variations of small arms used by our military, and state governments should determine what they restrict after that.

The idea that the second amendment is outdated because it can't go up against our modern military is ridiculous. With guns we have the ability to start an insurrection if things ever escalate to that point. If public opinion is split it would be reflected in our military as well.

 

[grimballer]

Constitution was written 200 years ago...

There's your problem

It's like Isis guys trying to implement laws of 7th century arabia to today's world.

Things change over time

What made sense 1500 years ago or 200 years ago might not in 2017

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

As I recall, that is what the Judiciary branch of government (Supreme Court) does. Has that changed? Was I not informed? Did a whole branch of Government disappear overnight?

Judges should be viewed as umpires calling balls and strikes. They're allowed their best perspective and we expect some human inconsistency, but "reinterpreting" the strikezone isn't part of the job. Well, it shouldn't be. Certainly not when it comes to rights and matters of life and death.

I disagree that the Second Amendment is crystal clear due to the fact that there are such wide interpretations of the Second Amendment. However, I strongly agree with you that many people have attempted to alter/limit the the Second Amendment without actually amending the Constitution. They are attempting to do so because it is a tactic that has been used many times. The easiest way to alter the Constitution is to offer a new interpretation.

There's not wide interpretations. There's the informed and the ignorant who disregard all context and reason. We the People said that it's not the fed's job to have a say on this. Of course they've become involved thanks to the incorporation of the 14th, but that newly created restriction on the states doesn't mean the feds have more power. It means the citizens have it all. Lots of people just can't seem to fathom that not everything was intended to be under federal purview.

 

[grimballer]

The reason for the second amendment is so people can resist a tyrannical government, so access to guns like the AR-15 and AK-47 are obviously covered. The average citizen should have legal access to the same variations of small arms used by our military, and state governments should determine what they restrict after that.

The idea that the second amendment is outdated because it can't go up against our modern military is ridiculous. With guns we have the ability to start an insurrection if things ever escalate to that point. If public opinion is split it would be reflected in our military as well.

That's all good in theory, but in reality majority of ppl will give up their arms if the government starts collecting them.

There's gonna be few guys that will resist the government n will get shot n killed n that's gonna be the end of that story

 

[faustian]

The second amendment is about having arms necessary for militia activity. By definition that means bearable arms.
I.e. Arms designed for use by the individual militiaman that is there to augment the regular forces.
Historically cannons and crewed served weapons were given to you by the government once you showed up and people did not train with them at home.

Keep and bear arms

This suggests a broader interpretation than simply arms intended to be used by an individual for militia activity

So then the question becomes what are "arms" and when can they be kept and beared. Common military weaponry and common individual self-defense weaponry such as handguns are two different things, and keeping arms at home and bearing arms on one's personal possession in public are two different things

 

[colby25]

 

[Ling Ling]

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!

Yeah because ordinary people with light arms could never be a problem for an advanced army right ? Like the Viet Cong, the Taliban, ISIS, the list goes on and on. None of these groups had aircraft, armor, or many heavy weapons yet they seemed to be quite a problem. Keep cracking up.

 

[Dolomite]

Phr3121 pretty much nailed on the previous page.

Did any of you guys read his posts?

 

[Bargey]

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!

If every able bodied citizen was armed with an assault rifle do you think the military would beat them?

Not a chance - putting aside the fact that 99.9% of the military have non military family they would never use lethal force against, they would still struggle. Unless they used nukes which would mean both sides would lose.

The 2nd amendment is very much relevant in a constitutionally textual context as well as other factors interpreted by both SCOTUS and other branches of US govt over many years.

It is basically the envy of the civilized world. It’s partially the reason that America is so great and will likely never be defeated - by enemies within or external.

 

[Fugazy]

Yeah, it's just too bad that some of the most enlightened minds in human history, who wrote one of the greatest and most powerful documents ever, weren't also psychics.

Damn.

 

[InternetHero]

If an idea is sound enough and well enough argued, I hear there is a possibility of changing key points of the Constitution.

 

[LiveFreeorDie]

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.

Thank You!

The 2nd Amendment was written to protect the people AGAINST government. The country WAS a republic of states, with limited Federal power.

 

[LiveFreeorDie]

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!

You should be the Secretary of War so we can bring peace to the Middle East with our fighter jets.

 

[LiveFreeorDie]

If an idea is sound enough and well enough argued, I hear there is a possibility of changing key points of the Constitution.

The 2nd Amendment exist so the argument can exist.

 

[InternetHero]

The 2nd Amendment exist so the argument can exist.

If you want to change or adjust the Constitution, by all means.

We might say... but the right is racist and stupid and does not understand the truth... or the left are evil liars and never tell the truth... and want to pave over the letter and intent of the law for whatever makes sense to our feeble emotions of the day.

Or, we might wake up one morning and wonder why we demonized and deluded each other so much that "common sense" anything is impossible.

 

[lilelvis]

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

Should the first amendment be changed too? After all, they didn't have TV, phones, radios or computers..
The "things have changed" BS gets pretty shaky when you apply it to the entire bill of rights..
What hasnt changed? Your enaliable rights do not come from the government.

 

[LiveFreeorDie]

If you want to change or adjust the Constitution, by all means.

We might say... but the right is racist and stupid and does not understand the truth... or the left are evil liars and never tell the truth... and want to pave over the letter and intent of the law for whatever makes sense to our feeble emotions of the day.

Or, we might wake up one morning and wonder why we demonized and deluded each other so much that "common sense" anything is impossible.

....And people will start holding each other accountable as individuals.