A well regulated, non-federal militia, which is necessary to the security of a free State, shall at all times exist for all States and Territories. The right of the people to Keep and Bear arms shall not be regulated or removed.
Perhaps.
I still think this version is more to the point.
8 comments:
How about, "All governments shall keep their damn hands off the arms of the people."
But Mike's terse statement is better. I paraphrase: Come for them and die!
The right of the individual to keep and bear arms, ammunition, transportation, and weapons of war, for the purposes of defense of self, household, community, enterprise, State, Nation, or Republic, shall be sacrosanct, as shall the right to such defense, and no Government, corporation, artificial entity, or private individual shall infringe upon these rights, nor shall any Government regulate, tax, impede, prohibit, survey, or in any other manner interfere in the free possession, transport, import, export, sale, or keeping of arms, ammunition, transportation or devices or publications involved in maintaining these rights.
how about if the constitution just didn't create a federal government? then the bill of rights might say anything positive it cares to.
the state's monopoly of force is all it knows. even if you write a constitution that creates a government which can do only one thing -- let's call it "taxing" since that is familiar -- over time, you will end up with a government where its agents call everything they want to get away with a "tax," in accordance with that constitution.
government is force, and force does not reason, nor care much for the meaning of words.
what does infringed mean?
Here's a better question:
If the Bill of Rights had not been created, would we still have a right to keep and bear arms?
(Answer: Yes!)
I disagree with the quote, though. The militia is not a government agency, so framing it as public property doesn't make any sense. It may be "federal" while it is equipped by Congress and directed by the Commander in Chief--to perform its constitutional obligation to put down insurrections and repel invasions. However, this has no bearing at all other times, when the People decide when to equip, who are the officers, and when to train.
"Because a Very Effective, Armed, Population is Essential in order for America to stay Free and safe, the Absolute Right of Everyone to Own and to Carry any type of Weapon they choose, in any way they wish, anywhere they see fit, cannot be regulated, licensed, or even questioned in the smallest way!"
Still too wordy, Kent.
How about " The right of the people to kill those who would disarm them shall not be infringed."?
How about: "Don't touch my guns!"
My other one was the result of going to the dictionary and finding the definition of each and every word in the original. Obvioulsy that results in a wordy paragraph.
It doesn't matter what phraseology was or could have been used, because the people who are ignoring what was already written are defining the terms to suit themselves and would have done the same no matter how written.
igoring the real meaning of words works for them. Wonder if ignoring fast moving solids trying to occupy the same space they do will be as easy to ignore. I suspect they know they would not, therefore the War on Words, if they win that one, they think they won't need to win the War on Guns.
Post a Comment