Obama Whitehouse rewords the Second Amendment

[Windpower]

The Obama Whitehouse has decided to dumb down and reword the Bill of Rights

Here's the link

http://www.whitehouse.gov/our-government/the-constitution#bill

Quote

The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms.

Unquote


Does anyone here have a problem with this ?

[StinkerBell]

That is indeed scary.  He is dismissing the right to KEEP them as well.

[MountainDon]

The whitehouse.gov doc does not limit itself to rewording just the 2nd amendment. It rewords the whole shebang.

I don't see much of a problem. The Constitution along with the Bill of Rights in it's original and constitutionally amended form is still the basis of the law. The text on the whitehouse.gov site is somewhat like reading a modern day version of the Bible to understand what is stated in say, the King James' version. Translating things like this is always dangerous though, as what the translator believes or wants can alter the choice or words to be included or excluded.

Unless there would be an attempt to actually re-word the official document I believe there are other things that deserve more immediate worry.

I do agree that I believe the word "keep" should have been included in the whitehouse.gov website wording.

You can keep an army of lawyers busy all year discussing how one can bear arms without keeping them.

It is good to have this brought to our attention.

[glenn kangiser]

My problem with it is, why was it important enough to rewrite a reference to minimize the importance of the wording to casual searchers? 

Electronic text is cheap.  Removing it tends to produce no thought, so it looks as though it is aimed at reducing citizens values on the matter to me.

[peternap]

I really don't care what the idiot rewords. I have arms and am gonna keep them. If he doesn't like it, I have the right to bear them according to his version.

[MountainDon]

I believe it is an honest attempt to make things more understandable to people.

Take the 4th amendment...
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

It is explained...
The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizure. The government may not conduct any searches without a warrant, and such warrants must be issued by a judge and based on probable cause.

Government should be easy to understand. Most of the time it is not.

[StinkerBell]

Mountain Don, I would generally agree with you but not on this one. He omitted a very important word. A singular word. This is a passage thar does not need to be made imo more understandable. DId not need to be shortened down by omitting a key word. IMO this is the begining attempts to reteach a version of the constitution to this administrations ideology.

[glenn kangiser]

From Wikipedia -

There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with slight capitalization and punctuation differences, found in the official documents surrounding the adoption of the Bill of Rights.[4] One such version was passed by the Congress, which reads:[5]
"    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.    "

Another version is found in the copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, which had this capitalization and punctuation:[6]
"    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.    "

No need to shorten or modify it to make it understandable.  "Not be INFRINGED"

[Windpower]

"The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms."


The second amendment to the Bill of Rights most emphatically DOES NOT give any right what so ever to 'citizens'

Your right to defend yourself is unalienable.

The second amendment limits the Federal government and guarantees that the Federal government will not infringe on that right.

This rewording is deliberate and meant to further stupify the already stupid American sheeple.

This is how people are dumbed down


IMO anyone NOT having a BIG problem with this Orwellian new speak coming from the Obama Whitehouse has already succumbed to the systematic destruction of their mental accuity. 

[ScottA]

You have only those rights you can enforce. The government knows this and will do whatever it wants since it has more power than you do. The law is irrelevent. Welcome to Amerika comrade.

[John Raabe]

We are a country of laws, with the constitutional rights being the most foundational. We have courts, that we generally respect, to provide the specific applications of law.

Government actions have been and continue to be restricted by such courts. The legal system and the representative governance system (where you elect those representatives who represent your postion) are the way citizens make their will into laws.

When we stop putting faith in such a system of law, then we may have an uprising that might lead to anarchy (for a short period of time) most likely followed by fascism.

Thankfully, we are a very long way from that now. Most of us would not want the throw the baby out with the bathwater, but would rather change the bathwater to something more to our (and the baby's) liking.

[Windpower]

"Thankfully, we are a very long way from that now."


I hope you are correct John

sadly not everone thinks it is so far off

Naomi Wolfe

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjALf12PAWc&feature=player_embedded

[StinkerBell]

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess of the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
-- Sir Alexander Fraser Tyler

[Squirl]

It is interesting.  This clearly stated that "The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms."

Many legal opinions and arguments for gun control never drop the "A well regulated militia" clause of the amendment.  Many legal arguments are made and won in favor of gun control based upon that phrase.  The argument being that people in state militia or the military are the ones protected to bear arms and not citizens. And that this was the original intent of the framers of the constitution. Another argument is made that we have a well regulated militia (standing army and national guard) and that the amendment becomes moot.

Unequivocally stating that The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms, is a severe deviation from normal gun control positions.

IMO, this was just someone's dumbing down of the original document.  This was probably written by a low level staffer and never crossed the desk of anyone of any significance.

[StinkerBell]

Hopefully I have read what you posted correctly.

How would the group who believe that the right is for the regulated militia (standing army and national guard), explain the word "keep" . I think that word makes it explicit for it's citizens. Cause the military would not need a call out to "keep" its armour.

[MountainDon]

Many legal opinions and arguments for gun control never drop the "A well regulated militia" clause of the amendment.  Many legal arguments are made and won in favor of gun control based upon that phrase. 

For many years I have wished that that phrase "A well regulated militia" had never been used by the authors of the 2nd amendment. Squirl is right in that many arguments against the right to bear arms are twisted by the inclusion of those words. At least in my view they are twisted because I believe the intent was to allow the general population to bear arms, to keep arms, to possess arms and to use them in responsible manners.

To that I'll add that I also believe it is correct and proper to disallow the keeping, bearing, possession of arms to those who fall afoul of the felony laws and those who have been perpetrators of domestic violence. The constitution does not address those exclusions but I believe they are valid.

[Squirl]

Stink,
The argument is that a citizen's right to keep arms outlined in the second amendment is made moot when a standing army is formed because the right is contingent only to keep a well regulated militia.  Once the well regulated militia is formed the right is gone.

Repeating this legal theory, even if I do not share it, will probably outrage some here.

I agree with Don's statements.  All rights in this country can be taken away with due process.

[StinkerBell]

Now with Don's comment I would think it is a condition of release from Prison. You do not agree to the condition you do not get released!

What one has to do is to take a dictionary from the time the constitution was written and have a understanding of what it means. My hubs is a Brit and English and American language is truly two different langauges. I think it is forgotten how Brittish the forefathers where. Kinda like the bible, for example the word "meek" people define that word as whimp now adays, when its real meanings is a man under his own control or a person with great control.

[Virginia Gent]

The problem here is everyone is assuming that the Constitution grants you the right to "X". The Constitution, in fact, grants you nothing. It reaffirms your rights and puts, in writing, limitations on the government. Your rights come from God; no one can take, or give, them to you. Your rights are inalienable.

[StinkerBell]

I also want to add it would make no sense that the second amendment is made moot by having a standing malitia. If the government is out of control and you have surrendered your arms how do you then get arms to fight the government when it becomes a dictatorship? I am sure they (governement) are not going to say "Ah yes, you can have your guns back to fight us"

[MountainDon]

The argument makes sense if you believe the intent of the 2nd amendment was to guarantee the states ability to have an armed militia, and not the individual to be armed. That group of believers simply does not want arms in the hands of the general population. Period.

And they are wrong, IMO. I believe the second amendment has two meanings. The first is the right of each state to maintain a militia. Today that would be the National Guard. The second would be the right of the individual to possess (keep) and use (bear) arms as necessary.



In a moment of dyslexia some time ago, I came across this book.   

[StinkerBell]

Thats ok MD...Sometimes when I read my ramblings (ok not sometimes alot of times..and no I do not think you ramble) I think ...Gee that really made sense in my head when I was typing it.

[OlJarhead]

It is interesting.  This clearly stated that "The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms."

Many legal opinions and arguments for gun control never drop the "A well regulated militia" clause of the amendment.  Many legal arguments are made and won in favor of gun control based upon that phrase.  The argument being that people in state militia or the military are the ones protected to bear arms and not citizens. And that this was the original intent of the framers of the constitution. Another argument is made that we have a well regulated militia (standing army and national guard) and that the amendment becomes moot.

Unequivocally stating that The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms, is a severe deviation from normal gun control positions.

IMO, this was just someone's dumbing down of the original document.  This was probably written by a low level staffer and never crossed the desk of anyone of any significance.

I promised myself I'd stay out of political discussions  but I will just comment on this one with:

The Supreme Court has ruled in DC vs Hellar that the 2nd Amendment does protect a Citizens right to 'keep and bear' arms and that indeed means to defend oneself in case of home invasion among other things.  In fact it went a long ways in making a point in stating the militia clause is really irrelevant in so many ways and the founders would not and did not mean to exclude anyone who was not militia.  At one point during the argument phase some of the justices argued that the founding fathers clearly intended that the crippled who could not serve in the militia would still be able to defend themselves with the firearms that they were not prevented from owning.

The key is the last clause not the militia clause and indeed the 'shall not be infringed' which indeed may be the downfall of ALL gun control should the justices be honest.

Making a law which prevents you from buying a M2 50 cal is 'infringing' on your right to keep an bear arms.  Period. 

Lastly, gun control folks always say things like "you don't need a machine gun" (like they even know what that means) but every time you hear that you should be telling them "yes we do".

Why?  The 2nd Amendment was not adopted to allow you to hunt, that was a natural right, it was adopted to allow you to overthrow your government which absolutely would require machine guns.

Period.

Never mind if you don't like it by the way -- it's just the way it is.  For those who are willing to give up a little of their liberty for a little safety deserve neither (one of the founding fathers made that statement -- I'm paraphrasing...I'm thinking Jefferson).

[IronRanger]

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."  -  Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790), Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759


A group of us, in class, were discussing gun control.  The concensus was concealed carry on college campuses and armed teachers (responsible adults) within the public schools K-12 would reduce and deter the likes of Columbine. 

One of the guys was astounded that I was in agreement.  He asked me "I thought you were a Liberal?"  I told him "Nope.  I believe in the Constitution."  He's still in awe that I haven't "picked a side" (Liberal or Conservative).  I told him I have- I side with the Constitution.  Maybe he'll come around to my side.   

[MountainDon]

A group of us, in class, were discussing gun control.  The consensus was concealed carry on college campuses and armed teachers (responsible adults) within the public schools K-12 would reduce and deter the likes of Columbine.  

Absolutely right!!  To illustrate how crazy wrong the anti-gun crowd can get, until 2 years ago the Albuquerque Public Schools Police were not allowed to carry their guns on school property during school hours. They had to have them locked away in the car trunk.


At the same time I support the right for anyone, individual or business owner, to decide they do not want firearms on their property, and to post signage to that effect. If it's a business I won't support them if I can find another place to deal with.


Back to the topic though; as oljarhead pointed out, the 2nd amendment guarantee to bear arms was upheld or reinforced by the Supreme Court this past summer. It matters not how the 2nd amendment may be simplified by a whitehouse.gov website blurb, or by some anti-gun group.  What really matters is the 2nd amendment and how it is upheld. There are enough problems created by certain state, city or local anti-gun groups without worrying about what some unofficial website states. In fact I like the fact that they left out any reference to the militia.

At least that's my constitutionally guaranteed, non libelous, non slanderous, opinion.