It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Let's Rewrite the 2nd Amendment!

page: 1
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 01:37 AM
link   
The American people MUST have
the means to defend the Life and
Liberty of themselves and their
fellow citizens from ALL those
who wish to remove even the
tiniest semblance of true liberty
and a Just Government that is
By the People and For The People.

To GUARANTEE such ability to defend
our Liberty, I propose a revision of the
2nd Amendment which currently reads
as follows:

"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."

...to the following wording as the new
REVISION OF THE 2nd AMENDMENT:


The Life and Liberty of the American
Individual and of the Greater American
Populace is to be kept and upheld by
the possession of and application of
the force of Personal Arms and the
Arms Held by a County or State Militia.

It is the inalienable right of all persons,
and the right of the local governing bodies
within all counties, territories and states
within or held by the United States to raise,
organize and train a militia to oppose and
counter any person, governing body or
other forceful entity that seeks to engage
or act upon the populace in any manner
that is either oppressive or counter to the
principles and amendments outlined within
the Constitution of the United States of America.
.
Therefore, it is the duty and obligation
of the people to act, using any and all
such personally-held and militia-held
arms of any type or means as required,
in order to remove and/or destroy any
agency or entity that acts as an unjust
or oppressive governing body which is
no longer By The People and
For The People.
.
And being necessary to the security
of a Free State and a Free People,
the inalienable right of all persons
to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed even in times of county,
state or federal emergency, or during
any external threat, or during any
natural or man-made disaster, riot,
insurrection or war.

And No Private Person or Private Entity,
nor any County, State or Federal Agency
and Governing Body shall remove or seize
any or all arms from any individual or
militia where that person or entity is
not legally imprisoned or is not barred
from possession of arms by a lawful court
order due to a felony conviction by a jury
of their peers. Any such legal bar against
possession of arms is rendered null and
void upon the completion and fulfilment
of any lawfully ordered court sentence
and after any court-ordered
probationary period.
.
It is lawful for all persons to defend
themselves with the application of
enough force of arms as required
in order to protect and save themselves,
their property, their home, their family,
their friends and others nearby from
immediate threat or harm caused by
acts of forceful intrusion, acts of nature,
criminality, riot, insurrection and war.

----

THERE THAT SHOULD DO IT!

The above is your NEW 2nd Amendment.

What do you think?

What alternative wording would
YOU use for a revised 2nd Amendment

edit on 2015/8/29 by StargateSG7 because: sp

edit on 2015/8/29 by StargateSG7 because: sp




posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 01:47 AM
link   
a reply to: StargateSG7

Let's not.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 01:48 AM
link   
a reply to: StargateSG7

I'm partial to the original, myself.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 01:51 AM
link   
a reply to: StargateSG7

Touchy subject these days and it really doesnt have to be, but for various reasons it is. In all reality cars are right up there in terms of responsibility necessary and destructive power!

Interested to see what comments may follow.



edit on 29-8-2015 by OneGoal because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 01:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: OneGoal
a reply to: StargateSG7

Touchy subject these days and it really doesnt have to be, but for various reasons it is. In all reality cars are right up there in terms of responsibility necessary and destructive power!

Interested to see what comments may follow.

S and F



Yes, and food workers, pharmacists, doctors, etc...

Vague as it is, the second amendment can be interpreted to mean that people may defend themselves.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 01:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: StargateSG7

I'm partial to the original, myself.


I had fewer characters.

But, not as much style.
edit on 29-8-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 01:59 AM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

I made my version much more explicit
Regarding the OBLIGATION of Americans
to be able to possess the means and will
to. Defend themselves against and
REMOVE an oppressive goverment
That no longer listens to the people.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 02:01 AM
link   
a reply to: StargateSG7

If that was your point, then why didn't you include tanks, drones, fighter jets, aircraft carriers and nuclear bombs? Because if your point is to go up against Uncle Sam - that's the stuff he's bringing to the party.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 02:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: StargateSG7
a reply to: greencmp

I made my version much more explicit
Regarding the OBLIGATION of Americans
to be able to possess the means and will
to. Defend themselves against and
REMOVE an oppressive goverment
That no longer listens to the people.


I hear you but, the founders thought of this and provided the non-violent means of prevention of consolidation of power in the competitive branches, concurrent majorities, and federal balance of power with the last resort being armed correction and it was intended for local corruption a la Sheriff of Nottingham.

We aren't even close to the latter at the national level.
edit on 29-8-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 02:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: StargateSG7

If that was your point, then why didn't you include tanks, drones, fighter jets, aircraft carriers and nuclear bombs? Because if your point is to go up against Uncle Sam - that's the stuff he's bringing to the party.



Precisely, that is what I want, the ability to defend ourselves.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 02:07 AM
link   
Yeah, civilian guns are no match for what the army has. They'd look at us with our little pistols and assault rifles and laugh, then they'd bring a tank over the hill and laugh even louder. If they want to kill us or take away our rights, our guns won't do anything to stop them. Unless you plan on dying of course, in which case more power to ya.

I don't think it'll ever get to that point though, at least I hope not.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 02:09 AM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

No way they're going to allow us to have tanks and planes. LOL

He beat me to the punch but his point was the same as mine. If they want to take our rights away there's nothing I guns will do to stop them. They have much better weaponry than we do.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 02:10 AM
link   
a reply to: StargateSG7

"if it ain't broke - don't fix it"

You already have all the tools necessary to see out the theme behind your "rewrite".

For instance - in 2010, Hordur Torfason led an amazing revolution in Iceland in that resulted in jailing all the Bankers and replacing all the politicians.

He then rewrote the constitution via Facebook and Twitter with the population.

No shots fired, no-one killed.

The difference here is that he had an awake population.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 02:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Hefficide

Goverments are MADE UP of people
Ergo they don't necesarily listen or abide
By the rules set out by the laws of the land.

That means we STILL have a chance that
The "poisonous head of the snake" can be
removed the rest of the body by groups or individuals who wish to take up arms
Against an oppressive regime.

While unlikely at this time, 1940's Germany
And today's North Korea are apt examples
Of what can happen if a people are left disarmed.

As a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment,
I do believe some refinements are in order to
MORE EXPICITLY state its purpose and intended
Interpretation and application across this land!



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 02:15 AM
link   
a reply to: StargateSG7

" self defense, being an inherent inalienable right, granted by life itself, all Americans, except those under legal probation parole or as part of a sentence for felony conviction, or mental inability as help by the general populace, shall have a right keep and at all times without exception bare arms of the type and manner of all governing bodies at all times.

This inherent right, being a natural right, cannot be infringed by any governing body, any attempt to infringe this right by any governing body for any but the two reasons outlined above, can be met with as much force as required to defend against said infringement.

No charges may be brought against any person or group of people for exercising this right. "


Or some version similar

ETA-but remember, the more words you add the more open to interpretation it becomes.

Hence the original being short sweet and directly to the point.
edit on 29-8-2015 by johnwick because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-8-2015 by johnwick because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 02:19 AM
link   
a reply to: StargateSG7

I do still believe in the process of Voting and
Using the means of the Judicial branch to
Ensure that any oppressive regime is nipped
In the bud, but again, if necessary I wish to
Illustrate and ensure that the American
people still have means to take drastic
Steps to remove any totalitarian agency!



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 02:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: greencmp

No way they're going to allow us to have tanks and planes. LOL

He beat me to the punch but his point was the same as mine. If they want to take our rights away there's nothing I guns will do to stop them. They have much better weaponry than we do.


It's a principled argument.

If the intent was for defense, defense should be the measure.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 02:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: StargateSG7
a reply to: StargateSG7

I do still believe in the process of Voting and
Using the means of the Judicial branch to
Ensure that any oppressive regime is nipped
In the bud, but again, if necessary I wish to
Illustrate and ensure that the American
people still have means to take drastic
Steps to remove any totalitarian agency!


By the way, I just don't trust the politicians or the states to conduct a convention without stripping more from the carcass of our constitution.

In order of importance, I say repealing the 16th and 17th amendments are the priority.
edit on 29-8-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 02:33 AM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

I know the current wording is short and sweet
But a rather like ensuring the wording i
Propose fora NEW 2nd Amendmen is so
much more explicit as a guarantor of life
and liberty for the American people.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 02:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: StargateSG7
a reply to: greencmp

I know the current wording is short and sweet
But a rather like ensuring the wording i
Propose fora NEW 2nd Amendmen is so
much more explicit as a guarantor of life
and liberty for the American people.



Right on but, a plebiscite (carefully crafted) could repeal those amendments without endangering what few incontestable rights we retain.

The idea being that some limitation of the scope of the changes allowed would be predetermined so as to prevent misbehavior by the delegates at the convention.
edit on 29-8-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join