How Should We Rewrite the Second Amendment?

We argue so vociferously about the meaning of the Second Amendment because it doesn’t really mean anything any more. We should replace it with a new amendment protecting freedoms that matter to us today.

Whenever you pick up an article about gun control — pro or con — you can be virtually certain of one thing: The author believes that the Second Amendment has a unique and definite meaning, which he or she knows with certainty.

So the Amendment either clearly supports an individual right to own and use guns, or it was intended purely to prevent the federal government from disarming state militias (i.e., the National Guard). If it does indeed protect an individual right, the “arms” we are allowed to bear include only the guns appropriate for defending our homes — which leaves out military weapons — or else the Founders wanted us to have the means to overthrow the federal government should it prove tyrannical, making military-grade weapons not only permitted, but absolutely necessary. And so on.

I want to turn that conversation upside-down: Our arguments about the Second Amendment are so dogmatic because we are arguing about shadows in the dark. Each of us projects our own desired meaning onto the Amendment, because the Second Amendment no longer has any meaning of its own. With regard to the role of guns in society, so much has changed in the last 200 years that whatever the Founders intended when they wrote the Amendment is entirely inapplicable to us.

We argue so intensely because there is no answer. We’re like middle-aged siblings arguing about what Dad wants, when Dad has advanced Alzheimer’s and doesn’t know where he is or who we are. Rather than looking at the world as it is and deciding what we want to do with it, we sit around a Ouija board trying to contact the ghosts of the Founders — and then we complain that somebody else is pushing the planchette rather than letting the spectral vibrations work their will.

How meaning gets lost. Any text is vulnerable to having the world change out from under it, and the Founders gave us the power of amendment precisely because they never intended their words to stand as eternal truths. Is, say, the First Amendment’s protection of “freedom of speech” intended to protect your right to set up bots to spread disinformation on social media? What, exactly, was James Madison’s opinion on that issue? What would George Washington say about using facial recognition software to identify individuals as they move through a world whose public spaces are covered by networked surveillance cameras?

Judges make decisions about such issues because they have to; cases come to their courts and something must be done with them. And so old laws become encrusted with layers and layers of debatable interpretations. If judges do their jobs well, the public may retain confidence that some “spirit” of the law lives on, even as it applies to novel and unforeseen situations.

But at some point, we need to accept that the original meaning has been entirely lost, and so it’s time to shake off the encrustations and reconsider the relevant issues from scratch. That’s where we find ourselves with respect to the Second Amendment. Anyone who says he knows what the Second Amendment really means today is either fantasizing or lying, because it doesn’t mean anything any more.

Consider how different the world was when the First Congress wrote the Bill of Rights.

  • State militias were the first line of national defense. Political leaders of the Founding era were afraid of the tyrannical potential of a centrally controlled professional army, and imagined that the new nation would have either no army in peacetime or a very small one. [1] That army would grow in wartime, but wars were supposed to be rare, because early American foreign policy intended to avoid “entangling alliances” that would pull the United States into European wars. [2] A state militia (perhaps with help from the militias of neighboring states) would be adequate to deal with Indian raids, slave revolts, riots, criminal gangs, and other challenges that might occur more frequently. In Federalist 29, Alexander Hamilton described a “well-regulated militia” in detail, and judged it to be “the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.”
  • Private citizens played a much larger role in law enforcement. American cities wouldn’t start organizing modern police forces until more than half a century later.
  • Guns were single-shot weapons that took time and skill to reload. Modern re-enactors can reload 18th-century muskets in about 15 seconds, assuming no one is trying to interfere with them. An attack like the recent Dayton shooting, in which one man killed nine people and wounded 14 others in half a minute, would have been unimaginable.
  • The Bill of Rights did not apply to state and local governments. [3] Prior to the Supreme Court’s Heller decision in 2008, state and local governments could and often did regulate guns. About a century after the Second Amendment, the gunfight at the O.K. Corral was a dispute about gun control: The Earp brothers were lawmen enforcing the laws of Tombstone, Arizona, which required visitors to disarm. Many towns in the Old West had some form of gun control. They passed those laws for the same reasons people want such laws today: Law-abiding citizens should be able to go to a store or to church or send their children to school without worrying about getting caught in a crossfire.

Today, we have entangling alliances, fight more-or-less constant wars, and live in the midst of the large standing army that the militias were supposed to make unnecessary. Even small towns have professional police forces, and state and county police forces cover rural areas. The vast majority of citizens do not at any point in their lives belong to a well-regulated militia. (And no, self-appointed bands of armed yahoos running around in the woods bear no resemblance to the Founders’ vision.)

In short, the original reasons citizens needed to be armed no longer apply, the weapons themselves have changed beyond recognition, and the notion that no one can restrict weaponry is entirely new. Given all that, how can anyone interpret the Second Amendment with confidence?

Why mess with it? Currently, both sides deal with the Second Amendment’s fundamental emptiness in the same way: Decide what you want the Amendment to mean, and then try to win elections so that you can appoint judges who will pretend it says what you want it to say.

Two things are wrong with this approach. First, it’s dishonest and undermines respect for the law. The right way to change laws is to pass new laws, and the right way to change the Constitution is to amend it. Each side may claim that it is restoring the “true” meaning of the Second Amendment. But, as I have argued above, there is no longer any true meaning to recover. The society that gave the Second Amendment its meaning is gone forever.

Second, both sides in this argument need a credible goal, even if that goal is politically impractical at the present moment. The current approach of gun-control advocates (of whom I am one) is, “Can you just give us this much?” So we ask for background checks or assault-weapon bans or limits on bump stocks or large magazines. All those proposals are very reasonable, but even in combination they are not a solution to America’s gun problem. So even if those restrictions become law, sooner or later we’ll be back to ask for more.

This smallball strategy plays into the NRA’s slippery-slope argument, which claims that the ultimate unspoken goal is complete confiscation. I know of very few people who advocate complete confiscation, even in private. But as long as the gun-control movement has no stated goal, the NRA has complete freedom to assign us whatever goal most frightens its members. The response “No, I just want background checks” isn’t credible, so gun owners who want to protect any gun rights at all will want to hold the line.

Conversely, the NRA’s strategy of disrupting any potentially political conversation about guns — it opposes even studying the public-health implications of widespread gun ownership, as well as developing technology to make guns safer — is similarly untenable and provokes similar paranoia on the left: They won’t be satisfied until we’re all dodging bullets every day.

On each side, rewriting the Second Amendment is a worthy goal. It will force gun control advocates to grapple with the question of confiscation, and challenge gun-rights advocates to justify exactly which rights are worth protecting and why. The conversation about what the Second Amendment means can never reach consensus, because there is no meaning to converge on. But a conversation about what it should say has more potential.

The rest of this article describes and justifies my own attempt to rewrite the Second Amendment.

What rights don’t need constitutional protection? To be perfectly blunt, a lot of the reasons people want to own guns are frivolous. Those reasons might be perfectly fine in their own ways, but they don’t rise to the level of a right that needs constitutional protection.

Guns, I admit, are very clever mechanisms; they even can be said to have a certain kind of beauty. So I understand why someone might want to own a collection of them, just as someone else might collect the pocket watches of various eras. But the Constitution doesn’t protect any other collections; it shouldn’t protect this one either..

Similarly, target shooting is a worthy sport. It demands skill and concentration. Some people are particularly gifted at it, just as some are gifted at pole-vaulting or throwing footballs. But if a community decides that public safety demands restricting this sport, so be it. Ditto for the sport of hunting. It may be traditional and so forth, but it’s a sport. Baseball is also traditional, and raises similar sentiments about passing down interests from father to son. But my right to play baseball should not be enshrined in the Constitution, and neither should hunting.

What about overthrowing a tyrannical government? Then we come to the most contentious issue: resisting or overthrowing the government, should it turn tyrannical. A disarmed populace, according to this argument, is the precondition for tyranny, and gun control is often a precursor to taking away other rights.

The are a few things to note about this point: First, if you believe that an unarmed populace is an invitation to tyranny, I have two suggestions: Reconsider the history you think you know, and go visit the Netherlands. The Dutch have only 2.6 weapons for every 100 people (compared to our 120), and very strict gun-control laws. They also have a higher democracy index than we do: 8.89 to our 7.96.

Second, if retaining the ability to fight the government is the justification for the right to bear arms, then it’s hard to argue for any restrictions on armaments at all. Red State founder Erick Erickson made this explicit:

You may think a 30 round magazine is too big. Under the real purpose of the second amendment, a 30 round magazine might be too small.

Indeed, if my purpose in owning guns is to preserve my option to join a Red Dawn resistance and fight the U.S. Army, then I need a lot more than just an AR-15. I need grenade launchers and anti-tank weapons and shoulder-fired Stinger missiles that can take down helicopters (or airliners as they take off or land).

Do you really want to go there? I don’t. As much as I fear the current administration, I’d rather take my chances with the American government than get on a plane knowing that Stingers are available at Walmart.

And that leads to what I see as the biggest problem with this vision:  In the NRA fantasy, the American people are unified in their resistance to a vicious cabal at the top, and must fight to restore democracy. Second Amendment proponents like to think about the Minutemen or the French Resistance in World War II. But those aren’t the most likely scenarios.

You know what’s much more likely? A violent minority tries to impose its will on the rest of us through terrorism. That, in fact, is what we’re seeing now from armed white supremacists like the El Paso and Pittsburgh shooters. Their problem is that they don’t represent the American people and so they can’t achieve their white-homeland vision through the democratic process. That’s why they need guns.

The US has seen this pattern in the past as well. The Atlantic’s Mark Nuckols offers two examples:

  • Bleeding Kansas of the 1850s, where pro- and anti-slavery marauders tried to drive each other’s supporters out of the territory.
  • The post-Civil-War South, where the KKK and other white-supremacist groups terrorized blacks out of voting. The resulting white-supremacist governments eventually disenfranchised blacks legally and instituted Jim Crow.

In short, the situation we have now, in which a decreasing minority of people owns an increasing numbers of guns, doesn’t secure our democracy, it endangers our democracy. [4]

The right to self defense should be protected from federal interference. So far it sounds like I’m making a confiscation argument, because I haven’t identified any type of gun-ownership that deserves constitutional protection. But I believe self-defense qualifies on a number of grounds:

  • Self-defense is a fundamental human right. If someone attacks you, you shouldn’t have to just stand there and die. Depending on the severity of the attack, you may be justified in using lethal force. Few things are more horrifying than the thought that someone is coming for you or your loved ones, but there’s nothing you can do about it.
  • Americans broadly believe in a right to self-defense, whether or not they personally own weapons or get self-defense training.
  • Despite the risks that come with gun ownership, many people have in fact driven off or captured or killed attackers by using their own guns. The risk/reward balance of owning a gun varies from place to place and individual to individual, so judgments about it should not be made on the federal level.

Some of these considerations also apply on the city and state level, so the federal government shouldn’t prevent a lower-level government from equipping a force to defend the public safety or enforce the laws.

That said, there are some legitimate roles for the federal government to play. Self-defense is not an open door for any kind of weaponry at all. No one needs a tank or a nuclear bomb to defend their home or person, or to drive coyotes away from their sheep. Likewise, no one needs an assault rifle with a 100-round magazine or an armory with dozens of weapons. A closer analysis of what means of self-defense might be necessary in one place or another is better done at the state level, but the federal government should be able to make some broad restrictions.

Additionally, states that want to control guns more tightly need protection against their laws being undermined by neighboring states with looser laws. So in addition to its general power to regulate interstate commerce, the federal government’s power to regulate, police, or completely ban the interstate transportation or sale of firearms should be spelled out.

A few final considerations. The Constitution sets up a federal government whose powers are limited to those expressly granted. [5] But history has shown that the government can leverage the powers the Constitution grants to wield other powers that it doesn’t grant. A relatively harmless example was the 55-MPH speed limit set in 1974 as an energy-conservation measure. The Constitution doesn’t grant any speed-limit-setting powers to Congress, so it passed a law that denied federal highway funds to states that didn’t enact a 55-mph limit. Before the Supreme Court struck it down, the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion was another attempt at using federal funds to force state action.

So any amendment that limits federal power to regulate guns, but allows state and local powers more extensive powers, should also guard against federal coercion of the states.

Conversely, the federal government needs the power to regulate anything that otherwise would work around restrictions it can legally make. So, for example, if Congress can ban automatic weapons, it should also be able to ban kits for converting semi-automatic weapons to fully automatic ones.

What should it say? Here’s my proposal:

1. The Second Amendment to this Constitution is hereby repealed.

2. Congress shall make no law preventing individuals from securing adequate means to defend their homes and persons, or preventing state or local governments from equipping police forces adequate to enforce their laws and ensure public safety.

3. Congress shall have the power to regulate the interstate transportation and sale of weapons, ammunition, and other weapon-related items.

4. States shall have the power to regulate the use, manufacture, ownership, and transfer of weapons within their borders, or to delegate such powers to local governments.

5. No federal expenditure or regulation shall be contingent on a state or local government using its power to regulate weapons in a manner specified by federal law.

What does it mean? Several things:

  • In order to pass a gun restriction, Congress would need to establish that individuals still have the means to defend their homes and persons. So Congress could ban assault weapons, but not handguns. It could limit the size of your arsenal, but not disarm you completely.
  • More detailed gun laws would have to be passed at the state level, so states could implement wildly divergent visions. If Texas believes that guns-everywhere makes the public safer, it can try that. But if Illinois wants to let Chicago ban guns completely, it can try that too. People who feel unsafe in one state or the other don’t have to go there. (Texans who come to Chicago would have to check their guns, just as they would have when entering Tombstone.) Colorado might decide to allow a wide range of guns, but regulate guns and their users in a similar way to cars and drivers. This state-by-state diversity would be healthy; we would see clearly what does and doesn’t work.
  • State and local governments would keep the ability to enforce their own laws, and would not have to depend on a federal force. This was one of the main tyranny-restraining pieces of the Founders’ vision, and one of the few implications of the Second Amendment that still makes sense today.

Or write your own. The main advantage my amendment would have over the current Second Amendment is that it would mean something, independent of everyone’s hopes and fears. As a result, both sides could have more confidence about its interpretation. We could lessen the paranoia that now attends every presidential election or Supreme Court nomination.

The choices I have made are far from the only ones possible. I have left a lot of decisions to the states; you may wish to have a more uniform policy across the country. I have allowed outright bans on the local level; you may not want that. I have left room for interpretation by using the word “adequate” rather than spelling out exactly how I expect future generations to defend themselves. And so on.

But if you write your own version and we each promote our favorite, look how the discussion has changed: We are no longer arguing about something unknowable, such as what was in the minds of people centuries ago, or what they would want if they could see us now. Instead, we are arguing about the world we live in and what we want for our future. Anyone can participate in that discussion by drawing on their own experiences; you don’t have to be (or pretend to be) a historian or legal scholar.

That is a conversation that has potential for growth and change and compromise.

Conversely, no one who considers the recent history of Second-Amendment interpretation should have any confidence that they know what it will “mean” a generation from now. The Supreme Court’s current interpretation was considered a fringe position a generation ago. [6] Unless we replace the Amendment with one that has clear meaning to people of our era, no one can say what ideas on the fringe today might be constitutional doctrine tomorrow.

[1] After the Treaty of Paris ended the Revolutionary War, the Continental Army was reduced to a single regiment of about 700 men stationed on the western frontier.

[2] President Washington said in his Farewell Address:

Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

[3] In general, constitutional restrictions didn’t apply to the states until the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were passed after the Civil War. The 14th Amendment says:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Over time, the Supreme Court came to interpret “liberty” to include the rights described in the Bill of Rights. This doctrine is known as the “incorporation of the Bill of Rights“. The incorporation of the Second Amendment wasn’t fully recognized until 2010.

[4] People who are honestly worried about the future of American democracy should focus instead on making it work: End gerrymandering and voter suppression. Limit the influence of big-money donors, corporate lobbyists, and hostile foreign governments.

As long as the American people retain the ability to vote out governments that don’t serve their interests, the resort to guns won’t be necessary.

[5] For this reason, in Federalist 84, Alexander Hamilton argued against including a Bill of Rights in the Constitution because he believed it would be unnecessary.

For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?

[6] As Jeffrey Toobin writes in the current New Yorker: “The Court changed the Second Amendment, and the Court can change it back again.” But unfettered by a text with any actual meaning, it could also go somewhere else entirely.


I was kind of overwhelmed by the quantity and negativity of the comments, so I decided not to answer them one by one. Instead, I wrote a sequel that summarizes a lot of the points commenters made and answers the ones that seem to need or deserve answering.

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  • madelonw1011  On August 19, 2019 at 10:11 am

    This particular post underlines why I read your blog at all. It is well conceived and reasonable. I keep saying I wouldn’t mind if the Second Amerndment was repealed in its entirety. This is a far better solution.

    • Eric  On August 19, 2019 at 8:23 pm

      Why stop with the Second Amendment? Why not re write all of the amendments? You could re write the First to include hate speech. You could re write the Third amendment to re define quartering. You could re write the Fourth Amendment to delete reasonable.

      The Second Amendment defends all of the other amendments. Without it, we are merely subjects.

      Finally, do the police get to have assault weapons and if yes; why?

      • Wm.  On August 19, 2019 at 8:57 pm

        Eric…indeed! Most of the amendments probably could use some updating and refreshing.After all, they didn’t come down from the heavens.
        But I’d also suggest that the 2nd doesn’t defend all the other amendments. That seems a bit hyperbolic. I believe our vote and participation in the democratic process is much more powerful than the veiled threat of gun ownership.

      • Deogi  On August 20, 2019 at 6:13 am

        I agree, if we rewrite one amendment which one is next and who is going to rewrite the 13th amendment abolishing slavery or the 14th?

      • Lee  On August 20, 2019 at 7:52 am

        You missed one item.

        No restriction is allowed to exempt any person in it’s jurisdiction, except the Presidential and Vice Presidential Security Detail and on duty Military personnel.

      • J. Best  On August 20, 2019 at 9:39 am

        By leaving it alone.
        Do you want to rewrite the first amendment?
        With the advent of radio, TV, computers, cell phones and the INTERNET, shouldn’t the first amendment be changed???

      • Eric  On August 20, 2019 at 11:47 am

        I do not believe that any of the Bill of Rights should be re-written. They have served our Republic well for 243 years. It was a failed attempt at sarcasm on my part. I apologize if I was being obtuse.

      • Robert Walker  On August 20, 2019 at 2:08 pm

        Well said

      • love  On August 20, 2019 at 3:13 pm

        No one should mess with any of the 10 amendments..bill of right..if one ever believes in human freedom and rights.

      • Eric  On August 20, 2019 at 6:10 pm


      • Fed up  On August 21, 2019 at 8:36 am

        This was a horrible article. No . we shouldn’t rewrite any ammendment. They are there for a reason and I don’t understand the unyealding trust for police and the obviously criminal government. I also enjoyed the part about white supremacist males and all that garbage. War on whites is what’s happening in this country not the other way around and the race baiting tactics aren’t fooling those who can think and see through the bs. Guns are the only reason we aren’t suffering further abuses from the police and government. Gmos ..rediation towers… Arosol assault from above . ECT. Use your head. There is a reason they want you without adiquit fire power.

      • George Washington, Jr.  On August 21, 2019 at 9:46 am

        The idea that guns in private hands confers some kind of protection against government tyranny is magical thinking that verges on guns being some kind of fetish object. The government has aircraft and heavy artillery, and more importantly, logistical expertise; a bunch of guys with AR-15s aren’t going to be able to stand up to that. Look at the Bundy Ranch and Malheur Reserve standoffs, not to mention Waco and Ruby Ridge. The second two ended in devastation, and the only reason the first two didn’t is because the government forces decided to wait out the “resistance.”

        It also depends on where you’re sitting whether “resistance to tyranny” is legitimate or just criminal. I think we can agree that a drug gang shooting up a police station wouldn’t be a legitimate use of firearms. But the people defending the Bundys, who essentially were doing the same thing, gave them the benefit of doubt because they’re conservatives, and let’s be blunt, they’re white. A Latino gang attacking a border detention facility to free the children locked in cages would be viewed as criminal or legitimate resistance based on political considerations and not any kind of absolute standard.

        If you’re saying that you need to own firearms because you might have to shoot a government agent someday, I think you should have to clarify why your grievance is more legitimate than someone else’s, and if you can’t do that, then you don’t have any right to own guns for that purpose than a drug gang or any other criminal organization does.

      • Eric  On August 21, 2019 at 11:38 am

        I am a Menonite. My religion prohibits me from owning a fire arm. I am against all forms of violence. All protests and assembly are ok, as long as they are peaceful. That stated, no Bill of Right in the constitution is an absolute right, nor is that my position. Plagiarism, libel and verbal assault are not constitutionally protected forms of expression by the 1st amendment. In Heller vs DC the last time the Supreme court ruled on guns, the decision was that it was an Individual not a collective right that in itsellf is a limit. I.E. Home defense is absolutely constitutional according to the Supreme Court. That stated, the Second Amendment is not an absolute right, nor is it immunable from certain types of restrictions as long as they are not infringements to ownership my position. Most of the constitutional gun laws in this country are not enforced. A citizen does not have a 2A right to aggressively brandish a fire arm in a crowded theater.

        We can debate indefinitely whether certain forms of speech or protest would exist with or without the Second Amendment.

        I find it difficult to believe that the Black Panthers would have made much head way without the 2A in the 1960s. Would Black Lives matter exist today without the 2A. I doubt in their current structure.

    • jh  On August 19, 2019 at 8:48 pm

      It’s a nice post. But the problem is that conservatives think the US Constitution and the various amendments are written in stone. (I don’t think they understand what “amendment” means in English.)

      The only interpretations they will accept, just like the only interpretations that a conservative christian would accept, are whatever advances their personal power. It’s a very selfish world they live in and a rather simplistic childish “terrible two” sort of mentality. The conservative stopped mentally developing at the toddler age and simply cannot consider other people’s existence or their needs in any way shape or form. It’s all about “me me me”. Notice that even now, they claim that they are the most persecuted group in the US. While they gleefully mock others, they then are upset when others call them out as the racists and bigots and truly evil people they are. They are very very superficial people. This is why they get upset when Trump curses but they don’t get upset at children being sexually abused at ICE “detainment” camps. This is why they get upset when people compare the detainment camps with Nazi concentration camps. They simply do not think conceptually. For them, everything is literal. A pink rose is not a red rose. You cannot just use the words “rose” or “flower” to describe it. The conservative would be very upset if you called a pink rose a flower. (Yes, that’s a rather silly analogy but look at how often the conservative’s arguments boil down to a “but hillary” as if two wrongs equal a right or a “I have a black friend” as if that somehow disproves the overall racist sentiment that guides them.)

      We won’t be getting any revisions to the US Constitutions and that’s why the US will fall. I like to make this point very clear – our liberal progressive founders wanted a living document and a growing relationship between governance and the governed.

      “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

      Conservatives think that perfection was achieved in the past. They do not understand that perfection is a thing to aspire to and it is always in the future. It will always be at the very edge of our existence and it will always be a goal we strive for. This is why they fall for cheap “MAGA” nonsense because they fundamentally do not understand what it means to be an American. Our founding fathers wanted a well informed electorate who would mold the government so that for each generation, it would become a better, more perfect union.

      We will never “amend” an amendment nor will we have the guts to repeal an amendment. Prohibition was the last repeal. I sometimes wonder if conservatives were sexually or physically or mentally abused as children. They lack the courage to face the future and the unknown. Instead, they cling to childish things and hurl insults at the real Americans.

      Conservatives have been babbling about how they are real Americans. I reject that claim. I do not think it is possible for a conservative to be a real American. Optimism, a desire to be better in the future, breaking the mold, being brave enough to stand against tradition.. these are not conservative traits. These are liberal progressive traits. They are not American. They just got lucky to be born here.

      • Issac Westbrook  On August 19, 2019 at 9:30 pm

        I think your reply does dishonor to the author. He was articulate and open minded to both points of view. I could sit down and talk about amending the wording of the 2A to a modern understanding while trying to maintain the principle of liberty but you couldnt write a half dozen paragraghs without throwing 2 dozen insults, sterotypes and generalization. You will never be able to be part of any solution with an attitude like yours.

      • Anonymous  On August 19, 2019 at 10:26 pm

        Alcohol was never a “right” to be amended, the first 10 are called “The Bill of Rights”, I believe.

      • Paul Wilmot  On August 20, 2019 at 8:46 am

        For someone who spouts about optimism, you just wrote a very pessimistic article about half of your countrymen. I’m a conservative,and without knowing a thing about me,you showed your disdain for what I believe in. If you were put in control, and got your wish, I’m almost certain you would further strip me of my rights.

      • Anonymous  On August 20, 2019 at 9:18 am

        The bill of rights is a set of rules placed on the government, you can add to, but cannot take away. To take them away is to declare war on the people. America is about freedom, and the bill of rights is about America!

      • Craig M.  On August 20, 2019 at 10:29 am

        “conservatives think the US Constitution and the various amendments are written in stone.” Speaking as a conservative who came to the comments to commend and (in places) agree with the author, allow me to request that you avoid bigotry in the starting sentence of your reply. Not all conservatives are one thing, just as not all of any group are one thing.

        There is nothing in the start of your second paragraph that many conservatives haven’t thought of many liberals, as an example. The, “terrible two mentality” comment in particular, and let’s be honest, the terrible twos are half childish selfishness and half emotionalism over logic. While i acknowledge that selfishness is a fundamental trait of most national-level leadership the world over and so too throughout history, if one party were to claim the championing of emotion over logic, it cannot be the political right.

        ” they fundamentally do not understand what it means to be an American.” Again, stay away from bigoted subjective statements that can be used verbatim against you by (false-minded) people on the right. What it means to be American to me is to invite and be excited by many ideas, and to test those ideas across a wide expanse of circumstances. To never settle for “good enough”, and always reach for better. The whole premise is that the term is subjective, we all define for ourselves what it is to be American. The difference (again, to me) between conservative and liberal is that conservatives look to the past and see good and bad, and try to learn from both. To disabuse you of your really offensive notion of conservative literalism – A conservative comes across a fence, and asks why the fence is there, and then keeps it, improves it, or removes it as new circumstances require. A liberal comes across a fence they don’t understand, and does whatever suits their purpose in the moment, regardless of consequence.

        ” that’s why the US will fall.” If the US falls it will be because of closed minded bigotry. If that bigotry is right or left is irrelevant, you bigot.

        “I do not think it is possible for a conservative to be a real American. ” That’s your right, I’ll just humbly suggest that I don’t think it’s possible for a bigot to be a real American.

        Open your heart and your mind just a little. Different ideas aren’t all bad, I promise. Having a little more love and trust in humanity is probably a good thing. Belief that most people, and I mean just about everybody is out there trying to leave the world a little better than they found it, makes my day better. I disagree sometimes with policies, but there’s a lot of ways to get past a wall, and my way isn’t always the best. We live in an on-going experiment that is America. It’s a pretty exciting place to live, and does require us to always question what is, but good science also requires we look at the successes of the past. Or to paraphrase Newton’s comments, to climb up on the shoulders of the giants before us in order to always see a little farther.

        Good luck jh, I hope you find some open-mindedness someday.

      • Jimmy N. Wright  On August 20, 2019 at 10:58 am

        I don’t believe that most democrats can read plain English. There is nothing mysterious in the U.S. Constitution of any of the amendments that can’t be read and understood by an eighth grader.

      • Anonymous  On August 20, 2019 at 12:09 pm

        Nice try, what you don’t understand that once one gets update,there will be stopping Congress on anything, you believe that Gov is the answer, I do not . Do you feel free? I don’t everywhere I turn I have Gov in my ass

      • Anonymous  On August 20, 2019 at 12:13 pm

        Very brave behind a key board. I bet you will not say same thing in front of someone. Coward

      • Dirk McGirk  On August 20, 2019 at 1:06 pm

        Wow. You are exactly what the problem with this country is. Some piece of human debris sitting on his/her/don’t assume your gender high horse thinking he knows what’s best for America. Looking down your nose. You like to lump all conservatives into a pile and say we’re horrible people, the enemy. What’s perfect to you may not be perfect for me. What’s perfect for me, may not be perfect for the next person. That’s why we need to have conversations and come to a compromise, but how can that be done when you’ve already labeled us an enemy that’s unwilling to negotiate. We must have been abused to think the way we think? What’s the matter with you? Snide liberal jerks like you are the reason this country is sliding into the toilet and you wonder why we don’t want to let you decide what we can arm ourselves with. You’d take away all the rights of people who disagreed with you if you could. You must feel so enlightened, talking down to people. Now, why don’t you go back to touching your girlfriends testicles and leave us real Americans alone. I know, I’m transphobic for making that joke, but honestly, people like me don’t really care about things like that. People can claim to be whatever they want. That’s their right. It’s my right to not believe their claims. Welcome to America. Quit trying to destroy it, liberal progressive.

      • Logan  On August 20, 2019 at 2:12 pm

        The constitution is absolutely written in stone. You are simply able to write new stones to replace the old ones. That requires a 2/3 majority in house and Senate or of the states themselves convening to write said stones.

        You personally have an issue because you don’t like the law and you can’t get the 2/3 majority to agree with you.

      • Anonymous  On August 20, 2019 at 4:21 pm

        I am quite certain you are talking about democrats and liberals not conservative patriots. Seems you are the ones trying to force all Americans into believing your way.

      • Larry  On August 21, 2019 at 12:01 am

        You are exactly what the author was saying about a dug in point of view. Your view. Everything you stated wrong about the Republican view is the nearly identical to what the Republicans say is wrong with yours. Stalemate! Waiting to vote your party into the majority to get your way will only be changed back when you lose the majority. Back and forth nothing gets changed for the good. This country is like a golf game. If you want to win you can’t hit the ball to the left or right.Its got to be down the middle. Compromise for the good of all the people gets the job done.

    • Anonymous  On August 19, 2019 at 11:31 pm

      You’re do full of it with your sntgun rhetoric BS. Talking like you’re giving a view of both points of view but ONLY PUSHING your view. There’s nothing wrong with the Second Anendment except people like you.

      • Anonymous  On August 20, 2019 at 7:07 am


    • Clayton Smith  On August 20, 2019 at 7:27 am

      The second still has meaning as to protect us from a tyrannical government that the Democrats prefer and for self protection since the police can not protect us at all times.

    • Joe  On August 20, 2019 at 9:33 am

      Take this article, crumble it up nice and tight and shove it up your ass. It was written aa such, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!! Take your liberal ignorance else where

      • George Washington, Jr.  On August 21, 2019 at 9:51 am

        If it cannot be “infringed,” then I should be able to own a machine gun or rocket launcher and take them anywhere I want.

    • Dirk McGirk  On August 20, 2019 at 12:15 pm

      Should we replace the 1st amendment too. There are so many new mediums used for speech, that we should bring it up to date to match technology. Which other rights do you deem should be alter to fit your needs and desires?

    • Rob John  On August 20, 2019 at 12:59 pm

      Repealing the amendment would not eliminate the right to self defense.

    • Logan  On August 20, 2019 at 2:30 pm

      That can’t be true. The writer said that nobody wants to repeal the second amendment. Despite millions of people saying exactly the same fascist nonsense that you say. Get out of my country and you can have your gun bans.

  • Rob  On August 19, 2019 at 11:19 am

    The second amendment isn’t about the right to self-defense, and it is not concerned with, and does not mention, guns. It’s not the only amendment in the Bill of Rights to grant a “right” to states to have their own little armies, either. It simply codifies the right of persons to be armed.

    The 2A hasn’t somehow become meaningless or dishonest. I suggest that people, and you’re a good example of this, have become ignorant, perhaps willfully, about why the founders thought this right was significant enough to treat it to its very own amendment, and illiterate as regards the context in which they couched their arguments.

    Gun control advocates need for this right to seem obscure, or to have been outrun by history, or societal context, or whatever, so that they can change the nature of this right to a conversation about specific types of weaponry (which you’ve done here) and about rights not addressed by this amendment (the right to collect guns, or hunt, or defend one’s home, etc. ad nauseum). That sort of rhetoric is dishonest, and people know it is. It should surprise nobody who deploys such that they have trust issues, and that groups like the NRA are going to have a field day with what they’ve said.

    The 2A doesn’t need to be changed, but if it were to be, I’d be okay with “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” This might be helpful because of the fact that as per my second paragraph, people in our time don’t know that the founders and their contemporaries defined “militia” as being all the people, armed. That was a good idea then, and it’s an especially good one now.

    • Bill  On August 19, 2019 at 12:02 pm

      Rob…I think you’ve confirmed the authors primary point. Twice in your post you refer to people not understanding what the founders originally intended. So…I guess that would include you as well?

      • Rob  On August 19, 2019 at 1:02 pm

        I don’t think so, Bill. Perhaps you can show me how I’ve erred.

      • Eric  On August 19, 2019 at 8:29 pm

        Why stop with the Second Amendment? Why not re write all of the amendments? You could re write the First to include hate speech. You could re write the Third amendment to re define quartering. You could re write the Fourth Amendment to delete reasonable.

        The Second Amendment defends all of the other amendments. Without it, we are merely subjects.

        Finally, do the police get to have assault weapons and if yes; why?

    • AC  On August 19, 2019 at 5:28 pm

      The article is asking us to set aside talking about the founders and the 2nd amendment for a while and instead discuss what an ideal legal environment would be. In that spirit, do you see the number of gun deaths in the US as a problem? Why or why not? And, if so, how would you address it?

      • Anonymous  On August 19, 2019 at 10:28 pm

        No. Governments have killed more people than all individuals combined.

      • Dirk McGirk  On August 20, 2019 at 12:41 pm

        I do see the number of gun deaths as a problem. Most gun deaths are caused by handguns. See the violence in inner cities as evidence of that. Many studies also include self inflicted gun shot wounds in their statistics, probably to help push a political agenda. That’s why I think a ban on “assault weapons” otherwise known as “scary guns”, would really not help at alleviating the problem. America needs an overhaul of its culture and values more than it needs gun laws. I’d be for improved background checks, as long as it doesn’t create a registry. That, in my opinion, would lead to confiscation and tyranny. Surprisingly, most gun owners have already been through background checks. I know I have. I also had a waiting period after each purchase before I could pick it up. The behest problem with more laws is, surprise, criminals really don’t care about breaking laws. It’d just be something else to charge them with when they get caught. Maybe extend their prison sentence some? If done right, red flag laws would also be something to look at. That would have to be worded perfectly. Many gun owners are afraid their crazy neighbor or loopy aunt would report them for nothing and the police would be raiding their house and confiscating weapons. I share that concern, but would be willing to accept something like that, if done right. What would you suggest?

      • Logan  On August 20, 2019 at 2:39 pm

        30k “gun deaths” a year. 40k suicides. Half of suicides and 2/3 of gun deaths are the same thing. So, you only have 10k gun deaths. Actually, about half of that are legal uses of firearms and about the other half are violent criminals doing with guns what they do with knives and bombs in other countries where guns are banned.

        5k people are murdered with guns in the US every year.

        12-60k die every year of flu.
        30k die each year because they are too stupid to drive a car.
        300k die from heart disease due to following the modern American food guidelines.
        100k deaths from cancer and cdc estimates 40% of all cancers can be prevented by not making terrible life choices.

        If you are anti-gun it absolutely has nothing to do with saving lives because you don’t care at all about the rest of those stats.

      • AC  On August 20, 2019 at 6:17 pm

        Anonymous, I think I see what you’re getting at, but I’m not sure. Let me see if I can summarize your point of view: you don’t see the number of gun deaths as a problem, because they’re worth it. If we had fewer guns, eventually more people would die because the government would turn on us. Does that sound right?

        Dirk, there does seem to be a disconnect on “scary guns” and I see the point on that. In general it’s a mistake to make policy while focused on rare, newsworthy events. I do think suicide is worth talking about when we talk about guns, since suicide rate correlates with gun availability, and it is one of those everyday tragedies that should be taken into account.

        Since you (Dirk) seem like a reasonable person who’s willing to engage, but with a different viewpoint, I’m curious to hear more about what you think about an armed populace and tyranny. For instance, what would it really take to build a private army capable of taking on the US government? Who would or could do it? What are the chances, as Doug says, of such a thing being used by a violent minority vs to overthrow a tyrannical government? What are the chances of a tyrannical government being overthrown by a private army vs the people getting the US armed forces to turn on a government that has become corrupt/tyrannical (military coup)?

        Some things I think would help reduce gun deaths (homicide, suicide, accident): First, more data on what works and what doesn’t from a public health perspective. I’m just a person spouting off on the internet 🙂 but real policy should have better underpinnings than that. It appears that the CDC has gotten clarification that they are allowed to study guns, as of last year. Other than that: Universal health care, including good mental health care. Red flag laws (and I get the concern, but I’ve also seen the need for them in a situation with an acquaintance who threatened himself and others, but completely able to buy guns). Taking domestic violence very, very seriously.

        Logan, I’m having a hard time parsing your first few sentences and I’m not sure where you’re getting your numbers. Here’s a Pew report that cites about 14k homicides and 24k suicides using guns in 2017.

        The US puts tons of money and policy effort into reducing deaths from all those other things, and they should do the same for guns.

      • Mark McCall  On August 20, 2019 at 6:38 pm

        Are the other “things” Constitutional Rights???

      • AC  On August 21, 2019 at 12:06 pm

        Mark: nope, they’re not, and gun ownership is. But our host has invited us into a conversation where appeal to the constitution isn’t sufficient. What should our constitutional rights around guns look like? I’d especially love to hear thoughts from all angles on my third paragraph above (on what, exactly, it would look like to have a private army that defeated a tyrannical government, how that would play out).

    • Sl  On August 19, 2019 at 7:47 pm

      You do realize the second amendment does reference guns the word (arms) meant guns back in that day

      • Anonymous  On August 20, 2019 at 7:18 am

        Arms means armaments which is any and all things you can arm yourself with, they had a much better grasp on language then.

    • Dirk McGirk  On August 20, 2019 at 12:18 pm

      People need to read the Federalist Papers to see where the actually mindset of the founding fathers was, instead of spouting out communist poo-poo that they heard from one of their liberal professors at university.

  • Barb  On August 19, 2019 at 11:46 am

    I think that a full review of the history of the Second Amendment involves a very clear purpose that nobody seems to remember, which is, the Southern slave states pushed the amendment very hard not because they feared a tyrannical federal government, but because they feared losing their right to form groups of armed white men who could come at a moment’s notice and put down a slave rebellion. They feared that much more than a standing army. So all the shrieking about the high minded reasoning behind the Second Amendment (and I do not dispute that there was concern about states having the right to defend themselves against an out of control central government) needs to also acknowledge the very not so high minded purpose of keeping people enslaved.

    • Joey Driver  On August 19, 2019 at 8:25 pm

      And yet those same Southern states did actually fight a civil war against a perceived tyrannical government in the civil war; that they lost by being outnumbered and economically disadvantaged.

      But they actually did resist the perceived tyranny as they fought for state rights using their Second Amendment rights.

      So how is that just for fighting slave rebellions? Oh, reality gets in the way of fake facts again… and the white body count proves it as it is America’s deadliest war fought using their second amendment rights to fight perceived tyranny on both sides.

      • Anton  On August 20, 2019 at 1:13 am

        The South had an actual army in the Civil War, not just armed citizenry or a militia as the 2nd is describing. This wasn’t a citizens revolt a la the French Revolution, this was a war. So even the only example of an attempt is weak at best and irrelevant at most. The Civil War was probably the last time in history that the “revolters” we’re on equal footing in regard to weapons technology.

    • Paul Wilmot  On August 20, 2019 at 8:48 am

      Why do you hate men?

      • Kim Cooper  On August 21, 2019 at 4:12 am

        Why not?

  • Josh  On August 19, 2019 at 12:43 pm

    Exactly right. Down with the deification of the Founding Fathers. Why spend all this time grappling with what they intended this language to mean?

  • Bill  On August 19, 2019 at 7:33 pm

    Wow with the second, you can’t have the first.

    • Bill  On August 19, 2019 at 7:34 pm

      I meant without the second.

      • Wm.  On August 19, 2019 at 8:01 pm

        I believe there are a number of countries that don’t have a second ammendment but still have free speech. Yes/no?

      • Anonymous  On August 20, 2019 at 2:40 am

        No actually America is the only country in the World with free speech. I challenge you to prove me wrong maybe you’ll open your eyes.

        Also I will not acknowledge a replacement of my 2nd amendment right. You want the 2nd civil war, or a new American revolution?

      • Kim Cooper  On August 21, 2019 at 4:14 am

        Yes, there are a number of countries who have free speech but don’t have the second amendment. They do tend to define free speech slightly differently.

      • Anonymous  On August 21, 2019 at 3:56 pm

        @Kim Slightly differently meaning not actually free speech? No one else has free speech.

  • William George Andrews  On August 19, 2019 at 7:37 pm

    1st off, when you say “can you give us just this much?”, no politician is going to take just that much, they’ll keep going for more and more. 2nd, several politicians and presidential candidates have said they want to confiscate firearms, and 3rd, if you want to compare Denmark, then is the government going to reduce itself by 2/3 also?

    • Wm.  On August 19, 2019 at 8:17 pm

      Willliam…I respectfully disagree with your first sentence/statement and suggest it’s a bit hyperbolic. Facts indicate as much. 2nd statement,…. its true, some people have suggested “confiscation” of SOME types of weapons….something we already have in place…(machine guns, rpg’s, etc). I think that’s a good thing, don’t you? I’m kind of lost on your last statement regarding Denmark, seems like a non sequitur. Are you suggesting we reduce the US population by 2/3 also?

  • Sj  On August 19, 2019 at 7:44 pm

    You realize that our government has no power to change the second amendment

    • Anton  On August 20, 2019 at 1:16 am

      Erm, what? It absolutely does.

      • Anonymous  On August 20, 2019 at 2:43 am

        You’re not changing it without blood shed. The 2nd Amendment isn’t a government power. It’s the people saying this is our power.

      • Blue  On August 20, 2019 at 9:30 am

        No, the governments do NOT have the “power” to change the Bill of Rights. Read the 9th Amendment and the Declaration of Independence.

      • Jimmy N. Wright  On August 20, 2019 at 11:11 am

        The government absolutely does not have the authority on it’s own to change any part of the U.S. Constitution. There is two processes to amend the U.S. Constitution and both require approval of the states and the citizens.

      • Sj  On August 20, 2019 at 10:59 pm

        Hey anton guess you ERM got owned

      • AC  On August 21, 2019 at 12:13 pm

        Wait, people interpret the 9th amendment to mean that the constitution can’t be changed? Is this a common fringe interpretation?

        Other than that, there’s a terminology issue here. When I see “our government” I think the entire collection of US, state, local governments. So, yes, that system does have the power to change the constitution. Jimmy is also correct, if you’re thinking only of the federal government, because the federal government doesn’t have that power.

  • Andrew Hoeppner  On August 19, 2019 at 8:14 pm

    It’s fine just the way it is

  • Joey Driver  On August 19, 2019 at 8:17 pm

    Except, the right to bear arms is an immutable right that you can not grant or give away as it exists without Government permission or control.

    How differing minds interpret the words is irrelevant, as the right pre-exists your ability to think about it. You can choose not to exercise your right…but you cannot prevent it’s existence, or end it in any way.

    Because immutable rights are self evident truths, remember?

    The Constitution does not write government powers to regulate in the Bill of Rights; powers are granted in the Articles. You cannot interpret the Bill of Rights, which clearly states “shall not infringe” in plain English, into a regulator scheme to say it only applies to 1% of the country that the government says can have the guns for military purposes.

    That’s absurd, we are all created equal and to twist the bill of rights in such a manner violates the equal protection clause on its face as you twist the meaning to say:

    “Only government agents and assignees can have guns, and the right of the people shall not be infringed”

    That is not how the Constitution works.

  • Todd Rodgers  On August 19, 2019 at 8:18 pm

    The national guard is not the militia because it’s government run just like your local police department. Wether it’s big gov or small gov it’s still government.

  • Senior  On August 19, 2019 at 8:20 pm


    • Anonymous  On August 19, 2019 at 10:33 pm

      IT’S PERFECT THE THE WAY IT IS. Yes, I did mean this in all caps!

  • Keith  On August 19, 2019 at 8:22 pm

    What’s next rewrite the First one.

  • Wm.  On August 19, 2019 at 8:29 pm

    Joey….”an immutable right….that exists without government permission or control” . Where does this “right” come from? ….and doesn’t the government already currently somewhat control that right by outlawing certain types of guns/weapons?

    • Anonymous  On August 20, 2019 at 12:59 am

      As spoken in the preamble we are given inalienable rights from our Creator. Thus the 10 bill of rights.

    • Arthur Palmer  On August 20, 2019 at 2:59 pm

      Yes, the government does try to regulate certain arms, I maintain any law to infringe is infringement and is therefore Unconstitutional. ..

      • Wm.  On August 20, 2019 at 4:09 pm

        But the courts have ruled otherwise. So as a nation of laws, we abide by the laws until we change them. Yes/no?

  • Kevin W Smith  On August 19, 2019 at 8:42 pm

    And that folks is how you start a revolution.

  • Anon  On August 19, 2019 at 9:13 pm

    You say a lot of good things but what you aren’t considering is that no one in government employ has a responsibility to protect you. The police do not have to protect you. The military is not allowed to protect you. You are the only one who has a responsibility to protect yourself. If the police require “Assault weapons” to “Protect the public” which is arguable as to if they do or not (see Marjory Stoneman),, why would it not also be reasonable to say that the public require Assault weapons to protect themselves

  • Hogan Letts  On August 19, 2019 at 9:16 pm

    Cant believe you would publish this rubbish what part of shall not be infringed dont you people get… it’s not the technology it’s the inherent right given by our creator to defend our selfs with what ever means we want..

    • Wm.  On August 19, 2019 at 9:40 pm

      Hogan…it’s already infringed. You can’t currently legally own machine guns, rpg’s,etc. and I don’t know about you, but my creators were my mom and dad….and they didn’t bestow on me any inherent rights to defend myself with land mines or any other kind of weapon that I want. I’d like to think we’re trying to live in a civil society and not some mad-max dystopian Wild West.

      • Anonymous  On August 20, 2019 at 1:03 am

        The creator bestowed on you the right to keep and bear arms. Read the preamble. You of weak mind. See me for a reading list.

      • Anonymous  On August 20, 2019 at 2:50 am

        I can legally own those things you’ve listed, it just requires a lot of money to do so. All you’ve proven regardless is that the government is the give an inch take a mile type. We’re gonna take our right back, and currently we’re setting it in stone with the courts, we are giving faith to the checks and balances. But we’ve had enough you’re not getting another inch, but we will take back our mile!

      • American Patriot  On August 20, 2019 at 1:24 pm

        Yes, you CAN legally own “machine guns,” (full auto weapons.) $200 tax stamp, the usual background check, an application and a basketful of cash to buy it. Break my argument.

      • Wm.  On August 20, 2019 at 2:35 pm’re correct. Machine guns can be owned by the public…But as you mention, the process to do so is extremely expensive, drawn out and onerous.
        Consequently, there are few used illegally.
        And I’d say, that’s a good thing. Wouldn’t you? Why not apply those same standards to AR15/semi-auto type weapons?
        If the tool (guns) aren’t the root of the problem, it’s really people and society, then certainly the tool surely makes for easy facilitation and compounding of the problem.
        In the absence of solutions to fix people and society, are you suggesting the best we can do is simply all arm ourselves up to the teeth
        and be ready to shoot it out with the bad guys or a tyrannical government? Sad commentary.
        I think there’s middle ground. There are plenty of countries on planet earth that don’t have a fraction of the gun violence that we have, yet still have thriving democracy’s. I think there’s something we might learn from them. What do you think?

  • Issac Westbrook  On August 19, 2019 at 9:17 pm

    I agree that a conversation about rewriting the 2nd amendment would be a healthy conversation. Fear mongering on both sides is not the correct way to search for meaningful change. However, you fail to remember recent and current history. We have tried abolition on a multitude of issues. Alcohol, narcotics, abortion and even drunk driving. The question I pose to you is Are you willing to start putting Americans in federal prison for possession? Americans are put in prison for possession of narcotics, of which I disagree. Are you willing to imprison Americans for possession of an AR 15? You you outlaw AR 15’s and require thier confiscation then you better be prepared to imprison hundreds of thousands of Americans because without a doubt their will be multitudes that will not turn in their AR 15 or other gun you deam not relevant to personal protection. So again, are you willing to imprison Americans over possession?
    My solution to violence in America is this to imprison people for crimes everyone agrees are crimes. ie murder, burgerlary, robbery etc. No one complains when a murderer goes to prison. Certainly no one is willing to go to war with the state over it but if you imprison my wife, brother, sister, father or mother for possession of a gun then there would be hell to pay.
    So you have to ask yourself the most important question of Are you willing to imprison my wife or son for possession? If you are not willing then such changes to the second amendment are impossible for you to support. If you are willing then there in lies the tyrant. And its you.

    • Wm.  On August 19, 2019 at 9:53 pm

      Isaac…in a word, yes. We currently imprison people for automatic weapons. If weapons like the AR15 are added to the list, so be it. If it’s hundreds of thousands who won’t go through a “buy-back” program, then the law is the law.
      Because you label that “tyranny” doesn’t make it so. I could just as easily label it “adult common sense”.
      There are democratic societies on this planet that are functioning just fine without
      the largely unfettered high concentration of firepower in the public hands that we have here in the US. How come they can make it work?

      • Anonymous  On August 20, 2019 at 2:58 am

        They haven’t been making it work, people are still alive from WW2, that seems recent enough to me not to treat like ancient history. Did it work for the Jews?

  • Ben  On August 19, 2019 at 9:22 pm

    Much verbosity to say the same thing, “ban assault weapons”, whatever that means to a gun control advocate.

    Speaking of history, perhaps we could use historically accurate terms with real, definable meaning?

    What constitutes an “assault weapons”? The gun industry knows of assault rifles as a new category of weapon developed by WWII Germany as shorter, lighter, fully automatic rifles firing lower powered cartridges, but this magical boogie man of the nebulously termed “assault weapons” has no meaning. So asking to ban it makes no sense. If you mean assault rifles, these have been banned from civilian ownership, without great cost and background checks and waiting periods, since the National Firearms Act roughly 70+ years ago. So how much more shall we ban them?

    Part of the fear of the one side is based in the “good idea faeries” of the other side making up terms and speaking out of ignorance of the topic, in order to support so called “common sense” laws that have no causal relationships to any incident except that a gun was used. So while these great ideas are being tossed about by people who don’t know anything about firearms except that they don’t like them, the other side simply sees the future of where their rights to self defense are lost to well meaning ignorance.

    Perhaps, while we attempt to have a seemingly cooperative discussion on the issue, those without any knowledge of firearms should educate themselves or ask for help in learning about firearms, so that you have a snowball’s chance in hell of in fact proposing truly common sense solutions.

  • Michael  On August 19, 2019 at 9:33 pm

    Quite verbose,
    Yet, with no true meangful substance.
    A spurious tome at best. There is a reason they are called the bill of RIGHTS.
    Our founding fathers we’re men of concious forethought and great intelligence who forsaw such self serving arguments that you posit.
    Better luck next time.

  • Jeremy  On August 19, 2019 at 9:40 pm

    First: Automatic weapons are not illegal. You can own and shoot them. All it takes is $200 dollars and several months wait. Which is the same as buying a suppressor.

    Second: if you don’t understand what Natural Rights are read the declaration of Independence which borrows heavily from John Locke, a philosopher, who described that people aren’t given rights by the government but they are bestowed by God.

    Third: Self Defence is a nebulous term. What is required for self defense. It depends on who or what you are defending yourself from. Have you seen any security videos where 5-6 masked men knock and force there way into someone’s house. How many bullets do you need to stop that when they each have a gun. Do you have time to drop your 5 round magazine and load another?

    Fourth: it is well documented what makes up a militia pretty much every state and the federal government has the same definition. It is easy to find if you want to know.

    Fifth: Most of your reasoning for government acting with peers they were not granted in the Constitution are not supported by true conservatives. What we want is freedom. As a comment or above posted that were are not real Americans, I don’t know how you get any more American than that. I don’t want the government being my babysitter. I don’t want the government to make me wear a seatbelt, though I would if it wasn’t required. I don’t want them to tax my soda, though I don’t drink them. I want to live free of government intervention on a daily basis.

    • Kim Cooper  On August 21, 2019 at 4:36 am

      Why? Are you claiming the right to pay for scraping up people off of the pavement because they weren’t wearing a seatbelt? Are you enthused about the prospect of having your family shot by people who randomly shoot into crowds? Are you really looking forward to the freedom to having all the crazies around you also living without rules? Or do you just want everyone else to stop at stop signs, but you don’t have to?
      “freedom is like money; it isn’t worth anything until you spend it on something.”

  • Anonymous  On August 19, 2019 at 9:41 pm

    “The main foundations of every state, new states as well as ancient or composite ones, are good laws and good arms you cannot have good laws without good arms, and where there are good arms, good laws inevitably follow.”
    -Nicollo Machiavelli

    • Kim Cooper  On August 21, 2019 at 4:37 am

      Nicollo Machiavelli doesn’t have the best reputation.

  • Anonymous  On August 19, 2019 at 10:05 pm

    I think yall should leave the 2 amendment alone.

  • Gary Willis  On August 19, 2019 at 10:05 pm

    Obviously the author is biased towards the anti gun side. He endorses the antigun rhetoric regarding Heller, misunderstanding that Heller just extended the firesrms protected by US v. Miller. Military type firearms are already protected ao why should people who exercise their rights negotiate away what is already protected?
    At least I will give the author credit, most on his sude seek to end the right totally without bothering with an Amendment pricess.
    And let me add, the restrictions wanted by the antigun left are unreasonable. It’s not the 90 to 100 million households with firearms that are the problem, yet they are the ones who bear the brunt and punishment of the few guilty. As demonstrated by the Heller case, when cities and states have the power to regulate guns,they will regulate then out of existance. That’s what DC did and Chicago did and they were rewarded by the nation’s highest violent crime rates. It’s no surprise! Gun control laws increase violent crime every time. As for history and the federal government, governments murder hundreds of times more people than all the criminals combined. And gun control has preceeded every single genocide in the past century. So today the author wants ys to trust a federal government that was just caught spying and framing a political candidate for president because they didn’t agree with a dew policues of his. The feds have murdered before eg. eds of MexicabRuby Ridge and the Waco Branch Davidian Seige! Obama’s Dast and Furious program resulted in the murders of hundreds of Mexican citizens, just to create a falsse flag to disarm innocent American citizens.

  • Anonymous  On August 19, 2019 at 10:05 pm

    Well then its also time to modify the 1st to say you must obtain a license and provide empirical proof for any and all statement made.

  • dookieshoes  On August 19, 2019 at 10:10 pm

    Pathetically weak argument. Muskets were a weapon of war at the time the second amendment was written. Private citizens could also own cannons and bombs. The only thing that should be added to the second amendment is directly after the comma sitting in front of, Shall Not Be Infringed, “or the people will take up arms and kill you”.

    • Kim Cooper  On August 21, 2019 at 4:40 am

      If that is true, why don’t the responsible gun owners take up arms and kill the irresponsible gun owners?

      • Anonymous  On August 21, 2019 at 4:01 pm

        500,000 to 3,000,000 lives saved by guns a year. Pretty sure that means gun owners are standing up to criminals.

  • ameriproud  On August 19, 2019 at 10:10 pm

    Just leave our 2A alone. No one has a right or authority to change it!!

  • Anonymous  On August 19, 2019 at 10:14 pm

    What a dishonest article.

  • Concerned citizen  On August 19, 2019 at 10:37 pm

    Thank God nobody takes you seriously. Because what you outlined in your rambling nonsense was a plan to take away our rights because of your feelings. You feel like nobody needs guns so therefore we must take them away. Thank God there are protections in place to prevent what you want to happen. It’s not easy to overturn an amendment and that’s the way it was intended to be to protect the American public from people like you!

  • Jacob Oliver  On August 19, 2019 at 10:44 pm

    OMG, this is EXACTLY how I feel about the 2nd Amendment! This author wrote my thoughts and feelings as if they read my mind. Speaking as a veteran and owner of several guns, I would support a redrafting, redefining replacement of the 2A as it currently reads.
    One tiny distinction, though…. The mention of hunting refers to it only as a sport. I feel it needs to be mentioned that hunting is a legitimate food source. I do not hunt to put heads on my wall, I do it to put meat in my freezer.

    • Anonymous  On August 20, 2019 at 12:45 am

      Jacob Oliver, the only question I have for you, is when they say that people home from the military are not safe to own a gun due to PTSD, will you willingly give up your arms? I hope not.

  • Mr. Magoo  On August 19, 2019 at 11:03 pm

    Most murders and crime are committed with hand guns. Let manufacturers come out with smart guns that cannot be fired in vacinity of large crowds. Even Washington recognized gun ownership as an individual right. Create cameras with smart reader technology that identifies a suspect to override the safety feature on a smart gun so an innocent person may defend themselves against a violent suspect even in a crowded area or store where most conceal carry defensive gun shootings happen anyways. Punish violent offenders, like Mcglockton who forced an innocent man to draw his firearm in self defense. Add threat recognition training with live fire drills to conceal carry holders permit class and do not issue permit unless training is completed with a b grade or above.

    • Anonymous  On August 20, 2019 at 12:50 am

      Yeah, let’s make all reporters, blogger’s and anyone making a statement go through truth telling class, pass with 100 percent before they can use the first amendment. Sounds ridiculous huh?

      • Anton  On August 20, 2019 at 1:00 am

        But all the “good guys” with guns are John Wayne level marksmen, so the test shouldn’t be an issue.

  • Donita johnson  On August 19, 2019 at 11:12 pm

    Replace the second amendment with what matters today—-and who is deciding on what is important today? Don’t decide for me because I’ll make my own decisions and I want the Constitution to remain as it is. If you really want to make changes to our Constitution then do something about the 14th amendment which allows pregnant women who aren’t American citizens have a baby here and the baby becomes a citizen. Now that was never the intent of the 14th amendment. The 14th Amendment was about allowing the freed slaves to become citizens.

    • Anton  On August 20, 2019 at 12:58 am

      That would be the voters. We have a process for this. If 2/3 of the states (not population) want it, well, that’s how it’s supposed to work. The founding fathers thought we should rewrite or revise the Constitution every 10 years in order to keep it relevant (very optimistic!)

      As the author suggested, and many commenting here are completely ignoring, the amendment isn’t really relevant to modem life. No amount of hand guns and AR-15s can compete with even a contingent of the national guard, let alone a fully armed military with tanks and drones. If the government is so tyrannical that a large amount of people think they need guns to “stop” them, it’s far too late. That same government will be willing to wipe those people away. If we as a country ever get that far, it will have been through our own doing by voting or choosing not to vote.

      • Michael Weber  On August 20, 2019 at 10:38 am

        And your argument is just stupid where is the government going to get soldiers to fight the American people to kill their own people they don’t swear an oath to the government but to the Constitution a soldier doesn’t have to follow orders of a tyrannical government (unlawful orders)
        If there’s no one to drive a tank or fly a plane who’s it gonna kill?

      • American Patriot  On August 20, 2019 at 1:35 pm

        How well did the Russians do in the Afganistan war? The USA against the Viet Cong? When the Feds come for your guns and are willing to kill you, it doesn’t get any better.

      • AC  On August 21, 2019 at 12:21 pm

        Michael, to me that’s an argument that the 2nd Amendment is outdated as a bulwark against tyranny. Given the firepower involved, a tyrannical US government is unlikely to be defeated by weapons in the hands of individuals. It would be more likely to be defeated when parts of the military turn against it.

  • BD  On August 19, 2019 at 11:30 pm

    Total BS, doesn’t need changed.

  • John  On August 19, 2019 at 11:39 pm

    I am amazed at the cavalier attitude we refer to Constitutional rights. We mix examples of rights and privileges like they are the same. Founding fathers could not have imagined much of our modern world, but as much as we fantasize that if they saw the world today they would have rewritten the 2nd amendment, they assuredly would have rewritten the 1st as well with social media…etc. Sorry, but 243 years of uninterrupted gun ownership says to me 1) they intended the population to own and keep period effective common usage guns and 2) that it was believed that these rights are not given they were bestowed by our Creator.
    Not really seeing how it needs rewriting, we just need to quit lying and address the real reason for most gun deaths which about 3/4 are suicides and another about 22% are gang and criminal caused deaths. Of about 40, 000 gun deaths a year, over 29k were suicides, almost 9k were gang/drug/criminal activities, almost 1700 were law enforcement and about 250 were accidental discharges. So, you want to takeaway the 2nd Amendment as written because of mass shooters whom while despicable are barely a fraction of gun deaths. Where is your outrage and focus for the inner city war zones? Or suicide prevention? That’s right, just go with what’s politically sexy not anything of real substance. Hey let’s rename JFK’s book Profiles in Cowardice.

    • Kim Cooper  On August 21, 2019 at 4:49 am

      If the right to bear arms was bestowed by our creator, we wouldn’t have needed a second amendment at all. Our creator didn’t even give us fangs or claws or any deadly weapons when we were created. You can’t blame this on God — it’s entirely from men.

  • Blue  On August 19, 2019 at 11:46 pm

    How about we require licensing for journalists and bloggers as well as permits requiring universal background checks for every thing they write since so much has changed? Things didn’t get printed so fast in 1775. It took days and weeks. Now any asshole can publish in seconds.

    You talk Reed Dawn and forget the Viet Cong or that matter the Taliban. You also are blind to Hong Kong and Venezuela.

    • Pamela Dover Parrish  On August 20, 2019 at 12:47 am

      That is a good answer. The mainstream media has to report the news instead of just bashing Trump all day long. I don’t even know where to just get the news from

      • Anonymous  On August 20, 2019 at 3:16 am

        Louder with Crowder (definitely biased right but he admits it), Philip Defranco (pretty balanced)

        As far as mainstream who knows? Everyone is biased left or right to the point of lying Fox/CNN are both trash.

        When I say Crowder is biased it’s just the fact he injects his opinion very openly right, but I don’t see him editing things into lies or half truths.

  • Tony  On August 20, 2019 at 12:22 am

    Keep your hands off our Second Amendment.

  • Martin Lopez  On August 20, 2019 at 12:34 am

    The US Constitution is a living document. Like a living organism it have space to grow, construct, be adment, repeal in order to stay as the guide intented by our Founding Fathers.

  • Kevin B Skyles  On August 20, 2019 at 12:40 am

    It seems funny that of all the amendments, you choose the only one that protects my families lives. The government is suppose to protect live liberty and the pursuit of happiness, yet we are to leave it to others to decide if our pursuits are worthy. You also talk of the Netherlands having gun utopia. This tells me you don’t spend time there talking to the people. Many of the Dutch only do without things due to the tax structure. Many that I know would love to hunt. But we all know you can’t hunt the king’s animals in the king’s forest. You elitist make me sick. I would not even think of imposing my beliefs on you, yet I can’t say the same for you.

    • Kim Cooper  On August 21, 2019 at 4:50 am

      ” I would not even think of imposing my beliefs on you, yet I can’t say the same for you.” Somehow I doubt this.

  • Anonymous  On August 20, 2019 at 12:47 am

    Go Fuck yourself

  • Anonymous  On August 20, 2019 at 12:51 am

    Sweet you have just made the argument for leaving the second amendment and the rest of the bill of rights as is. My applause to you.

  • Ur mom  On August 20, 2019 at 1:05 am

    painful article to read. Ugh just ugh. Smh

  • Ur mom  On August 20, 2019 at 1:06 am

    painful article to read. Ugh Smh

    • Wm.  On August 20, 2019 at 9:09 am

      Wow Doug, You’ve stirred up quite a hornets nest with this article. A couple observations;
      -The vast majority of the (negative) responses are angry and maliciously insulting in tone. Kind of telling.
      -The vast majority also revolve around two primary concerns…1) fear of a tyrannical government and 2) the need for personal protection.
      Both concern are valid in principle. I thought your post acknowledged that.

      However, much of the criticisms leveled and the supporting arguments border on paranoia…..Banning forks and knives, half a dozen guys busting through your front door, you don’t know anything about guns, cars kill people, Ruby Ridge, Waco, etc…..all less than fully rational and certainly rooted in fear. (If in fact most of the gun killings are suicides, gang violence and the like, then those fears are by definition are pretty baseless.)
      -many of the criticisms made a direct jump to the assumption you were advocating banning ALL guns…which I thought you took pains to indicate otherwise. Again, either poor reading or critical thinking skills from the negative commenters of such.
      -Also a lot of talk about immutable rights or god/creator given rights. My creators, (mom and dad) didn’t bestow on me any special immutable rights that I’m aware of but I’m going to keep looking for them.
      In the mean time Doug, hang in there. I applaud your willingness to address this issue in a different way and the courage to challenge fear.

  • Ramon  On August 20, 2019 at 1:20 am

    What an unbelievable pile of garbage this article is ! The founding fathers would be rolling in their graves at this nonsense. Read the CDC gun defense statistics on how defensive gun uses greatly outnumber violent ones but of course these stories never make the headlines. You compare us to Denmark haha why not mention how Venezuelans were completely disarmed by Chavez in 2012 and Venezuela homicide & crime went through the roof to #1 in the world or how millions of jews were slaughtered after Hitler created a national gun registry to disarm the jews. I could on and on with more of these examples but I guess these stories dont bring in the tv ratings or clicks for articles like these

  • Brian Chambers  On August 20, 2019 at 1:27 am

    Its fine the way it is!

  • umrules58  On August 20, 2019 at 1:52 am

    The constitution should be treated as sacred as the bible is. Both to be held in the highest regard and NEVER changed or messed with in any way. The government should stay the hell away from it, and keep their fat traps shut. If this country would live by both, the bible being the most followed, then we wouldn’t be in the crap hole this country is in. But we shouldn’t be changing it as we see fit, but follow it as the founding fathers and GOD saw fit.

    • Anonymous  On August 20, 2019 at 2:42 pm

      Leave your imaginary friend out of the discussion

      • umrules58  On August 21, 2019 at 4:37 pm

        That cannot and will not happen. If it wasn’t for GOD, we would NOT be a nation. It was by his hand that we have thee freedoms we have, nit by the might of our military through the last 240+ years. Even the founding fathers knew that without the Lord God Almighty we would not have a nation like this.

        George Washington said, “You do well to wish to Learn. Above all, the religion of Jesus Christ in our schools.” as well as “It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the bible.”

        “We Have staked our future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the ten commandments of God.” James Madison, father of the constitution

        They knew you could not have a nation like this one without God as the whole discussion. It is because we have rejected him that we are in the mess we are in. I don’t give a crap if you believe me or not, but it is the truth. And
        So NO, I will not leave him out of the discussion. He is the discussion. you cannot have a discussion about American freedom without talking about God. he is the reason we have this great nation. You choice, but choose wisely before you take your final breath. And I am entitles to my opinion as your are yours, though I highly disagree with you.

        I hope to GOD that you get your heart right with him though his son, Jesus Christ before you take your final breath on earth, because you won’t just fade into nothing. The bible says that if you do not receive his son as savior you will be in hell for eternity. And no, you won’t be partying. You will be torment, which will never end.

        2nd Thessalonians 1:5-9

        5 All this is evidence that God’s judgment is right, and as a result you will be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are suffering. 6 God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you 7 and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. 8 He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might.

  • Brandon  On August 20, 2019 at 2:02 am

    Why is it that every time someone mentions a new drafting of some amendment they always focus on the tech of the day? Single-shot muskets sure existed and were the norm. But you know what else was the norm in the militaries and with private citizen ownership? Artillery pieces, canons, and the standard load of the average rifleman for their single-shot weapons. Don’t you think that if they were so concerned with the tech of the era that they would have limited the access to these “military-grade” weapon pieces and kit loadouts as well? Tech of the day has nothing to do with it. The idea is to allow an individual to own similar munitions to that of the existing armies. By those standards I should have a nuke.

  • Louis Marschalko  On August 20, 2019 at 2:15 am

    Restricting guns makes no sense at all.
    Here is a “thought experiment” we can use to prove it.

    Imagine that you, an adult, were spending the day visiting a summer children’s camp for boys and girls aged 8 to 16 years old. All of the campers are wonderful children and teenagers, polite, well mannered and neatly groomed.
    At lunch time you notice that they serve the youngsters soup and sandwiches, with chocolate pudding for dessert. Therefore, only spoons are provided at the table. For dinner there is chili con carne, corn niblets, mixed green veggies and apple pie with vanilla ice cream for dessert. Again, only spoons are provided to the campers.

    While everything being served them can be consumed by using one of the provided spoons, you find the lack of the usual knives and forks to be extremely odd, to say the least. After the meal, and before leaving the camp, you make it a point to look up the camp’s director and mention to him that you found the dinning situation at his camp to be highly unusual regarding the lack of the customary eating implements.

    He answers your question about the lack of knives and forks in his camp’s dinning hall directly, by informing you that while all of the children are wonderful people, and will surely grow into strong, useful and caring adults, that if they were to be provided with knives and forks they would surely commence cutting and stabbing each other with them on short order. “We keep the children safe by not providing them with anything they could possibly use to harm each other or themselves”, he informs you. “We do it for the children”, are his parting words.

    So, gentle reader, is the problem that we have too many knives and forks in society, or is it that there must be something desperately wrong with the children attending a camp where common eating implements must be banned? We don’t have a gun problem in 1950’s America. Anyone can buy a gun here just about anywhere or through the mail and have the United States Post Office deliver it to their door.

    We have a problem with our society, which has resulted in problems with our people. Gun crime is just one symptom of the destruction of the traditional American values and culture which kept us safe, happy and productive. Shootings are like the “canary in the coal mine”, whose demise warns the miners of the presence of deadly carbon monoxide gas. Just as the canary’s death is a warning to the mine workers to, “Get out quick!”, mass shootings are a warning to Americans to return to the culture, values and faith that worked so well to make us the envy of the entire world.

    I don’t grieve for the tiny percentage of our citizens who get shot. I grieve for the destruction of the culture and unique civilization which my ancestors planted on the North American continent.

  • Reddog  On August 20, 2019 at 2:21 am

    U r a stupid ass.
    Get Real…

  • Steve Hamilton  On August 20, 2019 at 2:32 am

    Never happen. It would require the approval of 2/3’s of Congress and the legislatures and governors of 38 states. How likely is that?

  • Nick  On August 20, 2019 at 2:51 am

    At this point, I think it’s best to go our own ways, it’s time to disolve the USA. Lets the states decide individually to honor the US Constitution and protect individual rights or modify/remove individual rights for the protection of the whole.

    I am curious if the individual or the whole defines a country.
    I am curious if the the citizens rights will be diminished over time.
    I am curious if government will self regulate without the check of armed citizens.

    There are two defines views, let’s see who ideallogy prevails.

  • Anonymous  On August 20, 2019 at 2:58 am

    If u truly believe the 2nd amendment has no meaning then your way dumber than i thought and should be writing publicly

  • john collura  On August 20, 2019 at 3:25 am

    And how exactly do you plan to disarm us..ny has a 2 % compliance rate on Ar registration..we say come and get them..if you will..I feared the Hussein gvt. Much much more than the current one..good bye 2nd amenment..bye bye 1st..criminals love you fools..they will be the only ones left with guns..for they certainly don’t follow the laws…pvc tubes are buried already at an alarming rate..and a message to all..bury one yourselves..democrats are simply put.evil.

  • Anonymous  On August 20, 2019 at 4:54 am

    This is disgusting

  • Jason M Grindle  On August 20, 2019 at 5:13 am

    How about you leave the 2nd amendment alone and repeal the 16th instead. You people obviously forget what this nation went thru to end with the amendments we have. Do some research on what lead up to the constitution being written for all of us, even if you can’t dedicate yourself to the American way.

  • Rev Andrew  On August 20, 2019 at 5:25 am

    I must disagree. The operative word in the Second Amendment is “people “. In the Bill of Rights, people refers. to the citizens the individual free person, not the collective. Your transparently insincere admissions that target shooting and hunting are laudable belie your antigun agenda. Do not tamper with the Bill of Rights, because once you start it will not end. Today you call for the abolition of the Second Amendment, what one will you be calling to abolish next? Maybe you have too much power to incite unwanted political action or maybe you just cause fear in the power elite.Remember words have killed far more people than privately owned firearms. Considering that conservatively there are over 400 million firearms in private hands in the US, your proposal to eliminate the Second Amendment is dangerously naive.

  • James  On August 20, 2019 at 5:50 am

    Here is the problem, as I see it. A right, a true right, cannot be either granted or taken by any government. We, in this great country, believe that rights are inalienable. If a right can be revoked, is it then not merely a privilege?
    I believe that the founders, with intent, phrased this “Bill of Rights”, as rights, because they or at least many, felt them to be just that, rights that can be not be granted or taken , nor should ever be attempted to be taken by government.
    As for Hamilton’s attributed statement, government, this government, has many times taken liberties for itself not enumerated in the Constitution. Look no further than the FISA courts to see abrogation of American values and true die process. And we do what about this abuse?

  • Deogi  On August 20, 2019 at 6:17 am

    I agree, if we rewrite one amendment which one is next and who is going to rewrite the 13th amendment abolishing slavery or the 14th?

  • Carlos Hernandez  On August 20, 2019 at 6:39 am

    This it’s pure demagogy, it is such a pile of BS, you guys should go after criminals and mentally ill people. GUNS DON’T KILL PEOPLE!!! . EVIL PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE.
    why don’t you ban cars, there are 10 458 people kill a year by drunk drivers, you don’t blame the cars do you? No you blame the drunk DUDE !!!… how about 3500 babys murder a day not a year, every single day BECAUSE OF LEGAL ABORTION ,abortion it is not a constitutional right. THAT IS CALL MURDER OF INOCENT CHILDREN. and please go after the mentally I’ll and evil ones. Thank you.

  • T  On August 20, 2019 at 6:39 am

    The second amendment refers to arms, which means all weapons and armour. Firearms that could fire multiple shots existed at the time, and frankly the idea that the founding fathers wanted the second amendment edited away to nothing as firearm technology improved is laughable. The entire premise is that the militia of the United States (which at the time was referring to every able-bodied male, not a government controlled entity like the national guard) be armed such that they can defend themselves for tyranny.

    I know nothing I say is going to change any minds here. Good luck getting 2/3 of congress together to repeal the 2nd and then asking the new fascist regeme nicely not to throw you in an interment camp using your “votes” that are now meaningless.

  • Thomas  On August 20, 2019 at 6:49 am

    The second amendment needs to be strengthened to that there is no way that it would never be changed to weakened version. Once they get the second amendment gone rest assured the others will follow until they have the socialist state utopia they want. There is a reason that it is the second and not the third,fourth,fifth and so on. It should be moved to the first amendment and strengthened to protect the rest.

  • Todd  On August 20, 2019 at 6:59 am

    I don’t believe it should be edited at all. However, if it were, then all of the text up to the comma should be removed. This, the amendment would read, simply, “The Right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

  • Anonymous  On August 20, 2019 at 7:03 am

    Just like freedom of the press there ,it was not meant for TV or radio ,computers, for people to lie and abuse their power ,we can apply the same thing to any amendment so be careful.

  • Clayton Smith  On August 20, 2019 at 7:11 am

    The second still has meaning as to protect us from a tyrannical government that the Democrats prefer and for self protection since the police can not protect us at all times.

  • Anonymous  On August 20, 2019 at 7:32 am

    Your goal is clear. Put enough rules in place that access to firearms and their use would be restricted to the point that it would be dangerous to possess or use a firearm. Now apply your thought process to the 1st or 4th or 14th amendment. It now sucks for you too.

  • Nathan Sabatini  On August 20, 2019 at 8:01 am

    Well its obvious the writer is retarded.

    The second amendment meant nothing about hunting, single shot muskets, or state militias.

    And all about keeping the power of the government in the peoples hands. To deter the government from becoming tyrannical.

    The writer, in the actual definition of the word, is a BIGOT.

  • Paul Wilmot  On August 20, 2019 at 8:38 am

    Such a lengthy article to convince others of your views. You seem to miss the whole point. While it may be convenient to take a snapshot of current conditions, the point of the 2nd amendment is to protect us from what may happen. Denmark is your proof for us not needing arms? What about China,Venezuela,USSR,Cuba,or the Jews in Germany in the 1930’s?
    The 2nd amendment is precisely there to protect against any government from enforcing their perceived jurisdiction over a populus. Maybe not today in the USA, but maybe in the future. One thing for sure, disarm Americans, and tyranny will follow.

  • Suzy Turner  On August 20, 2019 at 8:39 am

    Couple things
    1. Prefatory clause < objective clause
    2. Well regulated = well maintained, in working order
    3. Militia = all citizens informally trained. Citizens with guns not an army with citizens. National guard is not a militia
    4. Arms is short for armament, as citizens owned cannons, warships etc. Written this way as the founders knew technology in warfare would advance first as it always has historically.
    5. There were semi auto firearms when this was written. In fact the first semi auto was created in a solid hundred years before this was written.
    6. There's no confusion surrounding it's meaning, there's originalist and revisionists. Like FDR redefining welfare in the general welfare to mean what it founders would have called poor relief, not welfare.
    7. No where in the Constitution does it state the govt has unlimited authority in working amendments, otherwise that would negate the whole Constitution.
    8. No where does it give the govt authority to eliminate/repeal/rewrite any of the original amendments.
    9. No where does it state the govt can use amendments to expand their power, making the 16th, 17th, & 18th Amendments unconstitutional to begin with.
    10. The supreme Court does not have the power to interpret/reinterpret the Constitution, they interpret laws AGAINST the Constitution.
    11. The Constitution was worth concisely and in common tongue so anyone who could read it would understand and 'interpret' it. Until revisionists came along there was no confusion.
    Example: "it doesn't say in the Constitution the govt canNOT do it"
    Yes it does where it states these are enumerated powers, meaning granted, meaning if it isn't listed they don't have the authority to do it.

  • ssgtnelson  On August 20, 2019 at 8:49 am

    Sorry, the internet didn’t exist back then. I disagree, so you need to delete your article and refrain from publishing anything other than print

  • Andy Mounsey  On August 20, 2019 at 8:52 am

    Nice article, your bias is incredible which automatically tells me this is garbage. Mentions white supremacists idiots but leaves Antifa, BLM and the other idiots. Mentions Norway but doesn’t reference Venezuela, Tokyo, Cambodia, Nazi Germany, etc… genocide anyone. Here’s an idea that will work, you’re so afraid of guys like me that have had access to guns for 38 years and never used one in a crime, a veteran of the US Marines?? Move!! Go to Canada, Norway, Venezuela, China or who ever does it better than us. YOU, need to read history. What a joke!

  • Keith Martin  On August 20, 2019 at 8:59 am

    “Guns were single-shot weapons that took time and skill to reload. Modern re-enactors can reload 18th-century muskets in about 15 seconds, assuming no one is trying to interfere with them. An attack like the recent Dayton shooting, in which one man killed nine people and wounded 14 others in half a minute, would have been unimaginable.”

    The Puckle Gun, the first crew served machine gun was patented 79 years before the ratification of the 2nd amendment.
    The Ferguson rifle, a breech loading rifle that could fire 10 rounds per minute was used against colonial Americans during the revolutionary war. It was patented 20 years before ratification of the 2nd amendment.

  • Rob John  On August 20, 2019 at 9:06 am

    How naive, wow on so many points. Clearly the author is not studied on American history and the writers of the Constitution, and their writings on so many issues, including the right to defend oneself. One should understand both sides to the issue, before writing about it. Understanding the enlightenment period, it’s authors and the principles developed would have shed alot of light. Journalism is dead at this point.

  • Mark McCall  On August 20, 2019 at 9:15 am

    We are a Republic, not a Democracy.

    As for, “We don’t know what the Founders intended….” Not true. We can look back on things such as the Federalist Papers, and other documents from the late 1700’s and early 1800’s.

    And, “I don’t know of anyone who wants full firearms confiscation….” Whew. I could likely Google and list several people who have said exactly that, but, the main person who quickly comes to mind is Senator Dianne Feinstein, and you can hear her say, on YouTube: “…Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in.” She has stated that she desires full confiscation.

  • Anon  On August 20, 2019 at 9:15 am

    Pretending to try to be objective while cherry picking a few mentally sick individuals that may be conservatives is fairly transparent. Where’s the part about the majority of liberal clowns that do most of the shooting? Where’s the argument about trying to protect yourself against the psycho left wing “antifa” mobs running around and attacking innocent onlookers? Swing and a huge miss on this propaganda.

  • Bill  On August 20, 2019 at 9:17 am

    If your wish is to change or repeal the second amendment then why stop there? If you want to change the Constitution to suit your needs why not dissolve it completely, change the USA from a Republic with a Constitution and Bill of Rights to just a democracy that fills your needs never mind the rest of us. Currently you have the right to choose if you want a gun or not! No one is making you have any weapons at all. Your rights to that are in your control, now you would like to impose your way on the rest of us!

    • Dirk McGirk  On August 20, 2019 at 11:56 am

      And if she’s so afraid of white conservatives with guns, she has the right to get her own. That freedom, as the second amendment secures, would allow her to protect herself from the angry minority that currently has all the guns and wants to oppress her

      • Kim Cooper  On August 21, 2019 at 4:54 am

        but having a gun doesn’t actually protect you from someone else with a gun, it just allows you to shoot back. That isn’t protection.

  • Anonymous  On August 20, 2019 at 9:17 am

    DC vs Heller gave rights to the individual to own arms. Also a well regulated militia doesnt mean government run. This article void of any actual knowledge about 2A.

  • Paul  On August 20, 2019 at 9:37 am

    WOW— talk of cherry picking so called facts – the OK Corral was gun control- the Netherlands is a well known example of gun control not leading to a tyrannical government- really!! Please visit real history where tyrannical governments did confiscate guns and smother personal freedoms- look at real history where the people did stand up for freedom and won against overwhelming odds- not with a piece of paper but force. The old saying “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”. If a government becomes tyrannical and tries to impose rule by force the ones shooting on the side of the government are in fact citizens and at some point even they will turn in favor of freedom and join forces with their armed countrymen – just look – history is full of it. Cherry pick your facts all you want- it doesn’t change the meaning that our Founding Father’s intended- read all the Federalist papers and the statements made before and after by Hamilton, Jay, Adams, Jefferson, and discuss what the foundation for the 2nd Amendment was.

    • Dirk McGirk  On August 20, 2019 at 11:51 am

      No government has ever confiscated guns for tyranny. I mean, weren’t the Nazis nice people? They were just protecting everybody, right? Oh, wait. Nope. They were horrible murderers who tried to exterminate a population after confiscating their weapons. I’ll bet the writer of this article would like to disarm Israel too, so Palestine (not a real place) can rise.

  • J. Best  On August 20, 2019 at 9:38 am

    By leaving it alone.
    Do you want to rewrite the first amendment?
    With the advent of radio, TV, computers, cell phones and the INTERNET, shouldn’t the first amendment be changed???

    • Dirk McGirk  On August 20, 2019 at 12:11 pm

      You know they’d like that too. Why do you think they want your guns so bad? They want hate speech laws, so they can arrest you for saying things they don’t like. They want your guns, so you can’t fight for your rights. The left is coming for your rights, folks. All of them. Pretty soon we’ll be in concentration camps with all those innocent migrants who never broke any laws.

  • Jeffery A Hansen  On August 20, 2019 at 9:55 am

    As a 2 safes full gun toter, collector, and avid hunter ya had me reading interestingly, despite your personal political jabing. I agree a lot of our amendments are meaningless anymore… Congress has shirked constitutional mandates off onto other enties, etc… Until your history lecture & insult; kinda leave out those pesky inconvenient truths as per usual self professed anti-gun individual. (Like historical disarming the populace of Russia, Germany, et. al and those aftermaths.; and without hunting how to you propose to manage wildlife populations? Live trap females & abort, trap males & nuter I suppose, fuck the expense as long as big gov has blank checks) Kept reading though until “You know what’s much more likely?”…. Shortly after that became just another huge waste of my time. Must suck giving guys like me, President Trump free rent in your head. Barack Obama wasn’t my cup of tea either, but I lived my life day to day with rare thought of…

  • Michael Weber  On August 20, 2019 at 9:57 am

    The 2nd amendment is not a right granted by the government it cannot be repealed the bill of rights we’re chains placed upon the government there was a time when felons got out of jail got their guns back even in the old west or you could get a machine gun it was only after ww2 that we had a large standing army with the rise of the military industrial complex.
    Our form of government is the only one in the world based on enlightenment thinkers the 2nd amendment is vital to that principal John Locke said all government eventually goes tyrannical it’s not only your right but your obligation to overthrow it. We are not Europe nor should we ever try to be.
    As far as fighting the military personnel do you really think that they would fight american citizens they are not jack boots and they don’t have to follow unlawful orders. They swear an oath to uphold the Constitution not to protect the government

  • Marvin g powers  On August 20, 2019 at 10:00 am

    Leave the 2ed admenment alone …there are no congressmen or senators with enough sense to logicaly rewrite any admenment they only worry about their bank accounts and not thepeople of the us. But we will see come election time as to how far they can do without income. The people will not give away their rights to politicians and liars!!! Try us! And see! The people will rebell at the polls no democrates no where!!!

  • cstarh  On August 20, 2019 at 10:09 am

    “Shall not be infringed.” Enough said

  • Chris McGuigan  On August 20, 2019 at 10:19 am

    This is not a well balanced or nuanced argument it ignores the historical truth that governments will eventually become tyrannical.

    It also ignores the fact that guns are a tool and tools can be mis-used. At the heart of the problem is we are inculcating young people with a purposeless scientific based dogma that is inadequate for teaching meaning and sanctity of life. The problem like tyrannical government is a human one and until we start addressing that the problems will get worse.

  • F Hampshire  On August 20, 2019 at 10:36 am

    This is silly. We don’t need the guess with the 2nd amendment. The founders were clear in it’s language as it was written (the argument it was for state militias is stupid, the government doesn’t need a law to own weapons), but was also written in their white papers, in letters, in speeches.
    “But did they mean rapid fireing weapons too?” Yes. Because the principle was expressed and taken to logical extremes and stress tested.


  • Mary Beth Pearson  On August 20, 2019 at 10:37 am

    “Shall not be INFRINGED.”
    The end.
    Mess with the Second in anyway and see the rest of your rights go bye bye.
    Ergh, the ignorance of history is astounding!
    1. Militias were never under government control. It was the common man with a gun who regulated, or controlled, himself.
    2. The Founders knew history and that a disarmed populace was an enslaved populace.
    3. Fun historical fact, Japan did not do a land invasion of the US in WW2 because, (and this is from one of their own generals,) they knew “every American had a gun.” True story.
    4. The Internet wasn’t around in in the 1780’s, so I demand that any replies be sent to me via horse and rider.
    5. DO NOT MESS WITH THE BILL OF RIGHTS. Those ten are, in fact, in stone, and if you start messing with them, you may as well trash the entire Constitution and start calling everyone Comrade.
    6. Save your comments about how “crazy” conservatives are. I was a history major, and history nut outside the classroom too. I had pictures of Civil War generals, (the good ones, meaning very few Union ones,) and see history’s big picture.

  • Rendel Kirby  On August 20, 2019 at 10:46 am

    in the beginning of the countries the Minuteman have the same weapon as the government today we should have the same weapon as the government as to not be overruled by the government we have a right to stand and defend against them with equal equipment

  • Kaci  On August 20, 2019 at 10:50 am

    I thought it was a great article! I’m a regular reader and always appreciate your clear, thoughtful analysis of issues.

  • James Moriset  On August 20, 2019 at 10:51 am

    You sound like a wonderful statist. Go ahead and surrender your Liberty. You deserve neither security or Liberty. So, you trust your local and federal governments to protect you and keep you safe? You seem to be the wisest fool of all.

  • C. Sweeney  On August 20, 2019 at 10:52 am

    [4] People who are honestly worried about the future of American democracy should focus instead on making it work: End gerrymandering and voter suppression. Limit the influence of big-money donors, corporate lobbyists, and hostile foreign governments.

    As long as the American people retain the ability to vote out governments that don’t serve their interests, the resort to guns won’t be necessary.

    We are already past this point. Big money people like George Soros, Michael Bloomberg and Giant corporations like alphabet and twitter are ensuring we continue to spiral out of control to a new world order made from the socialist / communist model. The truth about socialism is you can vote it in but you always have to shoot your way out.

    • Kim Cooper  On August 21, 2019 at 4:58 am

      I believe you are confused. You said, “…Giant corporations like alphabet and twitter …” Being ruled by big rich corporations isn’t socialism or communism, that is capitalism. (Did you mean Amazon?)

  • Jimmy N.Wright  On August 20, 2019 at 11:04 am

    This article is full of assumptions that are incorrect. One example is that the National Guard is the militia, it is not. Look up the meanings of terms when the U.S. Constitution was written. The militia is composed of ALL men capable of bearing arms.

  • Steve  On August 20, 2019 at 11:11 am

    Lmao. We have the right to bear arms period. Hunting isnt a sport to everyone. MANY HUNTER USE GAME TO PUT FOOD ON THE TABLE. Tyrannical goverment is already upon us. Open your eyes sheep they get worse every year. Most police are criminals. And get protected when the break the law. Media is a joke. How about you leave the gun laws alone and worry about civil forfeiture laws or anti bulling laws. women rights. Start holding companys responsible for polluting our waterways. Get ahold of reality. Guns dont kill people. People kill people. A gun is just a tool. Why not ban knifes. Look at that guy who just killed 4 people in cali. Or cars how many people die everyday from them.

  • Phill W.  On August 20, 2019 at 11:15 am

    I think it should be rewritten as follows:

    Every able bodied citizen shall own, at the very least, one rifle, one pistol and one shotgun. They shall maintain their firearms and keep them in proper working order. They shall practice with their firearms at least twice per month. If any citizen is caught in public without at least one of their firearms in their possession, they shall receive a $200 ticket and shot in the leg.

    • Kim Cooper  On August 21, 2019 at 5:03 am

      You want to be required to carry a firearm when you go out jogging? When you go swimming? That’s some major Big Government there…

  • Bosman  On August 20, 2019 at 11:39 am

    The Second Amendment is intended to protect our rights that are inalienable, not bequeathed by government. Thus, it provides US Citizens freedom and liberty from your form of “reasonable sense” tyranny. Given your logic, the First Amendment should not be relevant for radio, TV, and the internet. What’s next to amend (or distort) in your “reasonable sense” logic?

  • Dirk McGirk  On August 20, 2019 at 11:45 am

    Some of these ideas Make sense. Like letting states make their own laws, as long as they don’t violate the constitution. I mean, try applying that to abortion. That’s not even a constitutionally protected right, but people seem to believe it is, all because of a poorly thought out decision by the Supreme Court. Now what if states could make their own abortion laws and if you didn’t like them you didn’t have to live there. Wouldn’t that be great?

  • Anonymous  On August 20, 2019 at 11:56 am

    Guns are the true religion of the American right wing. No attempt at a rational discussion has any chance of getting through their dogma. It’s pointless to try.

  • Tommy Harrison  On August 20, 2019 at 12:03 pm

    I’m curious as to why you seem to use the N.R.A. as the bully. The N.R.A. is people people like myself whom have defended this country some with our very lives. You seem to think that the government won’t circumvent your rights but I’m originally from California and I can tell you from firsthand experience that this is exactly what is happening and the California government is using the same rhetoric to scare people as you say that the N.R.A is using. Oh and by the way California has some of the most stringent gun laws and has some of the most shootings by capita.

  • Brandon Dunnegan  On August 20, 2019 at 12:04 pm

    In that case let’s rewrite it to whatever “smallarms” the government is using then I want it. Why should the people in control of the government be the only ones who gets to have the best weapons. I want the fully automatic laser and plasma rifles and pistols that will be coming out in 20 or 50 years. That’ll be perfect for self defense. But seriously if the government wants to ban semiautomatic or fully automatic rifles. Then take them all from the criminals and the police first. Then I will consider turning my hunting rifle over. Cause seriously who can say what is an adequate weapon for me to use for self defense. I absolutely suck with a pistol. A shotgun is way more dangerous then a ar15 or ak47. And a shotgun can punch through way more material then a 5.56mm or 7.62. My self defense starts at my entrance to my driveway. That’s a good 325 meters away from my front door. So my semiautomatic .308 with a 20 round mag is my best self defense weapon. If we leave it up to the government then they will force everyone back to revolvers and bolt rifles for hunting. Cause a lever action rifle in .45 colt holds to much ammo and can easily be reloaded. So as far as I’m concerned the best self defense weapons available are the very same self defense weapons used by police and military. Cause our rules of engagement are that the enemy has to engage you first. Which makes all military weapons self defense weapons. Same as police and law enforcement. They cant go shoot anyone they want to. The civilian has to pose a threat before the law enforcement officers can engage with lethal or non lethal. That in fact makes every single weapon they have access to a self defense system. Which in fact will force the manufacturers to offer those weapons to our citizens as well. Cause you know checks and balances. Hopefully you can understand my sarcasm.

  • Anonymous  On August 20, 2019 at 12:11 pm

    Nice try, what you don’t understand that once one gets update,there will be No stopping Congress on anything, you believe that Gov is the answer, I do not . Do you feel free? I don’t everywhere I turn I have Gov in my ass

    • anonymous  On August 21, 2019 at 5:41 am

      Actually, the problem with too much regulation isn’t from the left or the right, it is a product of overpopulation. The more people there are, the more we rub up against each other, and thus the more rules we put in place to help us live peacefully together.
      As your compatriots say, if you don’t feel free here, you can always move somewhere else.

  • Jamie Casker  On August 20, 2019 at 12:23 pm

    We shouldn’t! If you change one amendment you change them all! Fuck that’s treason!

  • Mike  On August 20, 2019 at 12:24 pm

    So much you have wrong here. The National Guard is not the Militia. The National Guard in it’s modern form is a branch of the armed services. The Militia is made up of citizens who have made no pledge to serve and can join or leave at any time and are under no obligation to follow any specific orders. The type of weapons is immaterial as there was never any specific rule written or even suggested by the founders. And more to this point, the fact that most rifles were single shot is meaningless, as they already were producing multi-shot weapons in the early stages, so you can’t say this was something they never could have conceived. You are also wrong in your analysis of the the role of the 2nd amendment in our modern society as being changed. The Federal Government is far more tyrannical today then ever. The fact that the majority is ok with ignoring this fact is moot.

    You are correct about how today, we have entangling alliances, fight more-or-less constant wars, and live in the midst of the largest standing army in the history of the world, but this DOES NOT make militias unnecessary, if anything this makes them more necessary.

    If you’re going to believe that the 2nd Amendment needs to be re-written since the founders couldn’t have envisioned AR-15’s and such, then surely you must agree that they could not have envisioned the internet and email. So as such perhaps the 1st amendment also needs to be re-written, what do you think?

  • Barbara Sexton  On August 20, 2019 at 12:29 pm

    I am appalled that you are advocating repeal of the Second Amendment. If you place the power in the hands of government rather than the populace you will destroy this great nation.

  • Lisa  On August 20, 2019 at 12:29 pm

    Mr Toobin,
    You speak of completely doing away with the 2nd amendment and writing a new one. This amendment is the ONLY amendment that uses the word necessity. That in itself is very powerful. It was written so that our govt wouldn’t even think about becomming tyrannical because in the future, there is never a guarantee that circumstances change and a far left or far right congress and senate become out of control with a tyrannical president. You give an example of a militia today (national guard). No Sir that is not a militia. A militia is everyday citizens fighting in a group because their government has turned against them. You speak of hunting as a sport. There r people who hunt to put food on their table and in their freezers, its a way of life not a sport. U mention mass killings here of late but not mass killings in countries that have no source of defending themselves that we dont hear about on the main stream media. You speak of these white men who have plans to commit mass killings or have allready committed mass killings knowing they all have mental problems yet instead of even mentioning any kind of help or reestablishing institutions for people who need help, or a way for family and friends to get help to these men, your answer is to take away a right, a right afforded to all american citizens from our founding fathers for reasons mentioned above. You mention the guns that were used back then, black powder guns, muskets. Thats what the British military had also. If the British military had AK’s and AR’s at that time, the militia would have had them also whether it be 1776 or 2020. Its estimated that there are millions of guns in America. Millions. If the guns themselves are the problem and guns kill people not people using guns to kill people, how in the world is anyone left alive?
    I will believe guns kill people when i see a gun take itself to a place, load itself, aim itself, pull its own trigger and kill people by itself. When you and others realise that its a people problem, not an inanimate object problem, we can and should have already come to the conclusion that we live in a society that has no answers to our people problem.

  • Shawn Williams  On August 20, 2019 at 12:35 pm

    The Constitution wasn’t written for the times. It was written to withstand the changing of the times! You un-American POSs should move to countries that suit your snowflake state of minds.

    • anonymous  On August 21, 2019 at 5:32 am

      Are you sure it isn’t you who are the snowflake? You can’t even civilly discuss the issue.

  • Jim Stark  On August 20, 2019 at 12:55 pm

    Fighting a tyrannical government isn’t that likely? Betting the Venezuelan people thought the same thing when they allowed private ownership of firearms to disappear.
    My change to the 2nd Amendment would be much simpler. I would simply add, “Any and all restrictions placed on the people will also be placed on all domestic law enforcement.” Obviously, if a person doesn’t need an AR-15 to protect his family from criminals, law enforcement doesn’t need an AR-15 to fight those very same criminals.

  • Steve Hamilton  On August 20, 2019 at 12:57 pm

    Asa practical matter the amendment won’t get changed. Ratification requires the approval of 2/3’s of Congress plus the legislatures and governors of 38 states. Ain’t no way that’s gonna happen; there are 22 red states and 28 blues.

  • William Thomason  On August 20, 2019 at 1:02 pm

    Leave the 2nd amendment alone. It was written so the people could retain freedom. Shall not be infringed..period.

  • Rod Ridenbaugh  On August 20, 2019 at 1:07 pm

    We don’t need to. It’s has served the American people well as it is. Better yet what should we do about people who want to change it,considering what George Washington said about the importance of keeping it in place?

  • Mark  On August 20, 2019 at 1:16 pm

    I’m so sick of hearing the musket analogy, hell if you could afford it back then you could own a cannon which was the top of the line weaponry of the time period. Society has changed so much more than the gun has over time which is the cause of these shootings since a gun is only a tool that the person using it decides how it will be used. And the 2nd amendment is already being restricted by the fact that citizens cannot own military grade weapons, and that’s a good thing but it defeats the purpose of why the ammendment was written.

  • Kevin  On August 20, 2019 at 1:27 pm

    You’re not going to rewrite the Second Amendment because I’m not going to follow it I second amendment was written in 1776 and that’s the one I’ve lived by for 52 years and that’s the one I’m going to live by for the rest of my life

  • Robert Paulson  On August 20, 2019 at 1:37 pm

    You see the reason that we haven’t overthrown any tyrants is because of the second amendment there are no tyrants. Do you really trust this congress with preserving our natural right to self defense, cause I don’t.

  • John Hegner  On August 20, 2019 at 1:38 pm

    First, you continually, throughout your argument state the 2nd Amendment has no meaning any longer in our society. If that is truly your belief then why not repeal altogether? Second, you make an amendment to the Constitution that has no teeth and is so vague as to have bo meaning either.
    The 2nd Amendment was written at a time when tyrants ran amok in the world, currently similar to several countries in South America, also similar to Nazi Germany, 19th Crntury Spain and the Crusades in the Holy Lands.
    Anti-gun groups in the US have consistently called for more and more restrictions on gun ownership, use (when and where we may own guns) and limited our ability to protect ourselves, our loved ones and others in our circle. Try to tell me again, how nobody is looking to take our guns?
    Your argument is false on its face and only supports confiscation, even when you say it doesn’t.

  • Craig M.  On August 20, 2019 at 1:41 pm

    While I fear amending the constitution for lots of reasons (open that door in the current climate and anything can happen, mostly bad), I’m open to this conversation, well done to the author. Full disclosure, I disagree fundamentally, mostly because I don’t think we’re all looking at this problem from the same perspective. Taking “assault weapons” (undefined term) out of the equation has a negligible effect on gun deaths in our country. Taking legal weapons out of the equation has a similarly low effect on gun deaths. Taking a look at gun deaths that are caused by illegal weapons, and we’re talking about a very big chunk of the problem. Do legal regulations affect this number? Not really. Does comparing our situation with say Denmark help things? I’d argue no, but that’s me.

    Still, I want to cheer the author –

    “This state-by-state diversity would be healthy; we would see clearly what does and doesn’t work.”

    This is a profoundly wise idea. Not because I want Chicago to go gun-free (or for there to be SAMs in Texas), but because more ideas will give us real experiential information to learn from, and that’s a great thing.

    Please put this thinking to all arguments, I am convinced our country would be better off without one-size-fits-all solutions to minimum wage, regulation, education, and a bevy of other issues. Let’s have more ideas, let’s try out lots of ideas! Instead of arguing back and forth about who’s right and who’s wrong, let’s see! Now, trying more ideas doesn’t mean we’ll interpret the outcomes intelligently nor will it prevent all arguments, but still – it would give us more to learn from, and it would give people more choices to choose from. More freedom, more opportunity.


  • Mark  On August 20, 2019 at 1:54 pm

    A whole lot of Nazi comments here. Leave the constitution alone!

  • John  On August 20, 2019 at 2:00 pm

    The 2A does not need to be changed. It was put there to insure that the government stays a government for the people. The Constitution is great framework. It insures freedom, liberty, and restricts an overbearing government. The 2A defends the Constitution. Without the 2A; the rest would be violated, ripped apart and ceased to exist.
    Let’s say the 2A was to go away….
    What’s going to happen when the government decides it wants 40%, 50%, 60%,70% in income tax?
    What will happen when the government decides to start imprisoning people for being freethinkers and expressing beliefs that it doesn’t agree with?
    What’s going to happen when America is no longer a country for liberty and freedom and it is only a country that oppresses the people?
    I am going to assume that most people who agree with repealing the 2A are liberals and don’t support Trump. Would you want a president like Trump to approve what can and can’t be said?, what you can and can’t do?, how you can and can’t act? and any other aspect of you life that you value?
    Some people will say that our government will never oppress it’s people….
    And like it or not; it will. Every country that disarms the people oppresses them.
    Society is a problem not the Constitution. People use to have a moral compass. Society would come together for common causes.
    Society needs to be fixed. The Constitution does needs to be fixed, but it needs to be fixed by reversing all the damage that has been done to it.

    • Logan  On August 20, 2019 at 2:28 pm

      Oppression? You mean like the speech laws in Europe where you literally go to prison for Nazi jokes and “hate speech” and they spend millions on actual police to monitor offensive speech on Facebook and Twitter as rape skyrockets and acid attacks happen constantly while the government does nothing? Or the 70% tax rates in many countries in Europe? Like when you are picked up by police and found guilty by a judge in two hours, immediately going to prison because you were reporting on news outside a court house? That kind of oppression.

      Well, if you are oppressed in a leftist society, the leftists think you actually deserve it and are a criminal. They don’t even believe there is oppression in venezuela

  • Robert Walker  On August 20, 2019 at 2:07 pm

    Leave it alone as is y’all commie basterds

  • Logan  On August 20, 2019 at 2:23 pm

    It’s all very clear and you can refer to letters, correspondences, and minutes of Congress to make it even clearer.

    The bill of rights is a limit on the federal government to protect our rights that precede the whole system, including the Constitution.

    Hamilton and others thought we didn’t need a bill of rights because the constitution doesn’t give verbatim power to the government to pass any law that the bill of rights repeats they have no power over. E.g., the first amendment is not necessary because the government never had any power to pass speech laws. Incidentally, they have been trying and succeeding at passing such laws for over 250 years.

    Hamilton also argued that the “general welfare” clause gave no authority to pass laws for the general welfare or that Congress would try and pass laws based solely on said clause. Incidentally, they do it ALL the time.

    This is a skewed anti-gun article trying to pass as unbiased despite the only benefit of amending the 2nd being that it would only give more power to the federal government as opposed to reinforcing the actual purpose of the amendment as limiting the government.

  • Charla l Devore  On August 20, 2019 at 2:27 pm

    If you don’t like the second amendment why don’t you leave? I’m sick of law abiding citizens being demonized. We are the only ones who obey the law criminals don’t and will always have guns. There are plenty of countries to choose from. An armed society is a polite society.

    • anonymous  On August 21, 2019 at 5:25 am

      You consider all those mass killers to be polite? Please define polite.

  • Arthur Palmer  On August 20, 2019 at 2:38 pm

    “Shall Not Be Infringed.”….
    It cannot be Rewritten rewrote re explained, because it cannot be infringed… the words shall not together as they are is very specific oh, you cannot will not do it… For all your devices, all your crap about why I should be oh, how it could be, it shall not be…

  • lukep28  On August 20, 2019 at 3:10 pm

    Guns were single-shot weapons that took time and skill to reload… wrong! Do your research on the history of firearms before you bring that up again, bub. The founding fathers knew exactly what they were doing.

  • Rich  On August 20, 2019 at 3:24 pm

    The bill of rights *does* apply to local and state governments and has before Heller. Local and state gun laws were allowed because of a certain reading of the 2nd amendment. The incorporation doctrine provides the application of the Bill of Rights through the due process clause of the 14th amendment.

  • K  On August 20, 2019 at 3:38 pm

    The author is clearly completely anti-second amendment while trying to sound like they are impartial. Anyone could see through it.

    • Kim Cooper  On August 21, 2019 at 5:23 am

      On the contrary — he states his bias in the article. Read it again.

  • Anonymous  On August 20, 2019 at 3:41 pm

    Verbose diarrhea . . . . because one word you failed to comprehend . . . “infringed”.
    Alexander Hamilton was a BIG GOVERNMENT liberal progressive capitalist. Aaron Burr did us a favor with his gun.
    “God made men. Samuel Colt made them equal”.

  • Kevin Allen  On August 20, 2019 at 4:03 pm

    All of the arguments you made are worthless as sports and otherwise are not protected. I have guns for self defense and sport. My kids shoot sport With me. Why does it need to be regulated?

    Regulate hunting? I have friends who put food on the table by hunting. Needs no registration.

    Let’s start by regulating politicians so they can’t make a career of it.

  • Anonymous  On August 20, 2019 at 4:17 pm

    Keep your grubby little fingers off the second amendment. More people are killed by abortions than these shootings and do you think if someone is going to break the law they are gowing to a side by other laws we put up wake up people get rid of these video games where killing people is the object let the parents go back to spanking their children to put discipline back into them

  • brodieh22  On August 20, 2019 at 4:19 pm

    The first comic at the top of this article states that they only had single shot muskets back then when they wrote the constitution. This is incorrect as they already had machine guns at this time. Plus, the founding fathers are not retarded. They knew that new technology would be coming out in the future and wrote this RIGHT with that in mind.

  • Dennis Hartmann  On August 20, 2019 at 5:01 pm


  • Mitchell lovins  On August 20, 2019 at 5:28 pm

    And this article is nothing more than you saying you know what the second amendment really says. After stating know one knows what it means.
    Are you really that stupid or do you work at it.

  • David Bird  On August 20, 2019 at 5:40 pm

    2/3ds needed to ratify!

  • Tony  On August 20, 2019 at 6:16 pm

    Leave my Constitution alone..

  • Jim Collons  On August 20, 2019 at 6:22 pm

    I’m a conservative and I don’t own any guns. Loved this article because it really brought things to light about this issue. I totally agree with stonger background checks and restrictions on high capacity magazines. I can’t think of any reason for an AR-15 for hunting, target shooting or protection of your home. Gun control laws will never stop people who want to commit mass murder to make a statement or whatever motivation they have. Eliminating high capacity magazines though would limit the damage they can do.

  • Jeffery Jacobson  On August 20, 2019 at 6:27 pm

    This article is well written fiction. First of all is the false assertion that the Militias were standing state armies; they were/ have always been/ continue to be private citizens groups that may/ may not help government at its own discretion. It serves as the often forgotten fourth player in the separation of powers and ( i should add) are made up of true owners who actually have MORE authority to act than mere contracted employees ( which is what government in our nation is) . Should we ” rewrite the second Ammendment? Of course not, any honest person will read/ interpret it the same way , BUT we must add another Ammendment that CLARIFIES/ASSERTS ; That because private citizens groups known as militias are neccessary( to curb Government usurpation of OUR nation) the RIGHT( GOD GIVEN not granted by government) of the PEOPLE( individual citizens or private groups of citizens not under government control) to Keep ( own/ posses) and bare( use at our discretion) arms( any type of wespons) SHALL NOT be infringed( violated/ obstructed/ prevented or CONTROLLED) !!

  • tomtheboats  On August 20, 2019 at 6:40 pm

    The second Amendment is the teeth of the constitution. This country is ours an we will defend it to the death. anyone who wants to inhibit our right of defense for the individual or nation is our enemy. All of these mass shootings are planned. There are no accidents in politics. Not a word about the 40 thousand killed by auto, not a word about mass murder by the drug industry. This a planned assault by the left to leave us venerable to being over thrown by communist. Last century 160 million people were murdered by their own government. First they were disarmed then killed. The British tried to disarm us and stared a revolt. Our last resort to protect the nation and its people is the second amendment. Leave the second amendment alone.

  • John Joe Smith  On August 20, 2019 at 6:48 pm

    By adding, “Any gun control law added is unconstitutional.”

  • Richard coury  On August 20, 2019 at 7:06 pm

    you don’t need to pass the gun-control law. THat’s not going to solve the problem.
    One of the major problems when you deal with depression and you ask for help nobody wants to help you.
    if you don’t believe me ask psychiatrist and psychologist. if someone has a legal problem that they don’t want to talk adout.
    and if you can’t find a trying to help you you’re screwed.
    I sent you a copy of my paperwork I paid my attorney to do an investigation he’s made for phone calls to the Sheriff’s Department that’s all did. When I reviewed all the paperwork the sheriff’s department had they didn’t have a gift card number.
    but my attorney told me to take the plea guilty
    I report him to the State Bar of Florida. State bar will protect their attorneys even if you go to jail. I contacted my Governor because he’s the one who elect the person in the State Bar.. I had three attorneys that screwed me over one never any good to drive with the car. the second one the second attorney let my rental go into within a year-and-a-half foreclosure where by my house that I had it for 19 years. I lost .I’m 66 years old I have learning disability and my vocal cords who sacred . I was born in this country but I can never get no help if I was a foreigner I I would have got help. in my lifetime I probably paid over $150,000 in property taxes

  • Charles G. Hallbert  On August 20, 2019 at 7:29 pm

    There is no reason to change the 2nd Amendment unless it it to prepare our Republic for the ascension of tyranny. It is the single most important important concept in the Constitution because it physically preserves the right and the ability of our citizens to insure that our government never overreaches its authority over the people that it was designed to serve and protect; but never to rule over.

    The frangible nature of the relationship between the government and the people was clearly demonstrated by the surreptitious and villainous maneuvers executed during the Obama Administration which weaponized once trusted Federal Agencies with the power to circumvent the law and due process for political ends through the implantation of covert political agents in positions of authority. The end of our heritage of freedom would have been insured if H.R. Clinton had been elected to the Presidency because she had the will, faculties and the most diabolical, power hungry and corrupt spirit of any world leader since perhaps Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, or Adolf Hitler. Every patriotic citizen should get down on their knees an thank God Almighty for Donald J. Trump…..

  • Curran  On August 20, 2019 at 8:07 pm

    So much is wrong with this article. The author clearly doesn’t know their history either.
    Firstly, they made the false assumption that the only guns available were single shot muskets. They completely ignored that volley guns were popular in warfare during the time of the American revolution, their sole purpose was to fire as many rounds as possible at the enemy unendingly to suppress their troops from advancing. Not to mention that fact that once the volley gun was lit it couldn’t be stopped, you had to wait until it ran out of ammunition. These were well known during the time of the writing of the second amendment and were not at all banned. So the idea that only single shot muskets were in use is a complete lie on the authors part and I haven’t even begun to mention the fact that when a privateer wrote to Washington to ask if Canons were legal to own and use on his private ship, Washington wrote back encouraging their use. He even began employing privateers to fight the nation’s sea battles.
    You read that correctly. The people that wrote the second amendment wanted people to own high powered weapons, weapons they didn’t even want to purchase for their own Navy. They wanted private ships to have these guns and use them to defend the nation’s waters.

    Secondly Thomas Jefferson owned a semiautomatic pneumatic air rifle that was lethal.
    Read that again.
    Thomas Jefferson. An author to the Constitution
    Owned. Private ownership
    A semi automatic. Technologically advanced. Better than the military had. One round per trigger pull.
    Lethal. It could kill.
    Rifle. It’s an armament.
    And you intend to lie to me and tell me those didn’t exist.

    Also put your words in context. Even if your lie were true that people only owned single shot muskets then that means the founders of this country want people to own the same firepower the military has. Everyone should have select fire rifles.

    And you put up a picture saying no tyrants have been overthrown with the second amendment.
    That’s another lie and I’m thankful I know my history to refute it.
    You need to read about the Battle of Athens Tennessee. The government was horribly corrupt and violated election law to keep themselves in power. It took WW2 vets coming home in 1946 to rally the people and overthrow the local government.

    It’s very clear that if the founders of our country were alive today they’d be well in support of my ownership of any firearm of my choosing

  • Marc Richardson  On August 20, 2019 at 8:12 pm

    Well thought out article. But the author seems to indicate that the intention of the Founders is permanently lost to history and that nobody will ever know what they were thinking. Complete hogwash. We have their letters, their speeches, their letters to local and state newspapers and publications. Here is a list of quotes and after reading through them, you will quickly recognize that the traditional NRA interpretation is correct.

  • Wodmike  On August 20, 2019 at 8:14 pm

    You gave no reason to why you believe the Second Amendment should be repealed other than it’s relevancy on current times compared to the past. This argument can be empirical with the other sides argument that it is. Do you believe it will save lives, do you believe it will make all of us safer? your plan puts a lot of stock and faith in believing that the people in Congress and government are the smartest amongst us and know what’s best. A government that is riddled with shutdowns constant controversies and I believe one at one time that thought Guam would flip over. In a perfect world you may not be far from right but you fail to think about the human element the human element that makes people that get these guns legally oral legally and do horrible things with them is the same element that will make people making decisions make bad ones. I like most Americans don’t want to on something or someone who is consistently got things wrong for my protection and safety.

  • Victor gyarmaty  On August 20, 2019 at 8:17 pm

    I consider myself s constitutional originalist.The founding fathers worded the second amendment in plain english.It needs no interpretation.You sur need to look up the definition of militia.It has nothing to do with the military and everything to do with the citizens of this country.

  • Kathryn R Murphy  On August 20, 2019 at 8:18 pm

    Leave the second amendment alone. Its primary function was to protect the citizens of this country from the government.

  • Mark  On August 20, 2019 at 8:22 pm

    Hell NO….we fought and just won a war and approved the constitution….then the british started up again impressing sailors thank god we had the 2nd amendment or the whole country would have been slaves again….

  • Mark Mcgee  On August 20, 2019 at 8:44 pm

    No hell No. , your ideas are wrong . Man did give me my rights , God did . I will not give up anything to make city people happy . Remember the NRA motto , From My Cold Dead Hands .

  • Ben Dover  On August 20, 2019 at 9:06 pm

    Ae need to protect the 2nd amendment now more than ever. You say that the guns we have now don’t really apply because of how much they have changed since we wrote the bill of rights. BUT THE BAD GUYS AND TERRORISTS HAVE THOSE EXACT GUNS! Whether its a armed robbery or a terrorist attack, a citizen should have the right to protect themselves and the people around him or her. Protect your right to carry a gun!

  • Bruce Gelinas  On August 20, 2019 at 9:08 pm

    All of what you said is good and logical, however I don’t think any law banning certain types of guns will keep criminals from getting them. Just look at some of the US cities that have restrictive gun laws. Chicago is a prime example, on the weekend where the last mass killing occurred the death toll due to gun violence was more then the total of both mass shootings. Again you proposal takes guns from law abiding citizens but does nothing for law breakers. How about just make a law that if you use a gun commiting a crime they get the death penalty with only one appeal. Sentence to be carried out in public.

  • Sabrina  On August 20, 2019 at 9:18 pm

    Leave our gun laws alone..if you want to change something..Change mental illness in America..and put prayer back in schools..I had prayer in school growing up and the pledge of allegiance My dad would take me out and let me shoot his gun at 12..i was taught how to shoot safely and to respect guns…my dad had six kids..3 boys and 3 girls..we all got to shoot his guns with his supervision..None of us ever shot anybody and his gun cabinet was always unlocked incase. we had to use them for pertection…There is no gun problem in America it is a mental problem..period…call it what it is..violet video games..stop them..violent movies ..Taking my gun away is not the are makung me a target against bad will never be able to keep guns from bad guys..I can’t trust you to keep drugs out of our country..and you expect me to trust to keep guns out of the country..bad guys will be the only ones with guns..leaving me less chance to protect myself and my family..

  • Zan  On August 20, 2019 at 9:27 pm

    Until now I haven’t left a comment on any article I’ve ever read. This one however was so refreshing to read due to your honesty. I disagree with your opinion completely, but I respect and appreciate the way you presented your opinion. I doubt you and I would ever agree on a solution but I am certain a conversation with you would be insightful and productive for us both. Not here to argue with you but just to say thanks for a well written and presented viewpoint.

  • Jim Southworth  On August 20, 2019 at 9:49 pm

    I read your entire article. I completely disagree with about 99.9% of it and would love to debate you at some point.
    I would like to point out that near the beginning you you said the weapons used were single shot and took time and skill to reload. This is not entirely true. It is true that the primary weapon of choice was “the musket “ but that is only because of price. The truth is that there was several different weapons that could fire multiple rounds with accuracy in as little as 8-10 seconds. George Washington wanted some of these weapons but the cost was too much. Even private citizens and private companies were allowed to have cannons.
    You also said that the Bill of Righs didn’t apply to states. When in fact it did. The only reason states, counties and towns got away with regulating guns is because they were very seldom if ever challenged in court. I do agree that the founding fathers would look at us today and scratch their heads in disbelief and confusion.
    We allow the federal government way more power than it should have. I do believe they allowed us to have guns Incase our government gets tyrannical. The writing is on the wall. First take away our guns. Second tell us what’s ok to say and not to say. Third eliminate the Electoral College. The bottom line is that we don’t have a gun problem. We have a people problem. Even if every household in the 1700’s had a fully automatic weapon and a couple bazookas they wouldn’t have the issues we have today. It’s not the guns. It’s the people.

    • Kim Cooper  On August 21, 2019 at 5:19 am

      You said, “We allow the federal government way more power than it should have.” this is why we think of ourselves as “Americans” rather than Georgians or Kentuckians or Californians first.
      I’m okay with getting rid of the federal government and turning into 50 small countries. Or maybe 11 small countries according to that book that says we have 11 subcultures. You can keep your guns in your state.

    • AC  On August 21, 2019 at 12:37 pm

      Jim, since you seem like a reasonable, thoughtful person who I probably disagree with, I hope you’d be willing to discuss the “getting rid of tyranny” angle more. To me it seems more likely that a tyrannical government would be overthrown by military defection than by a private militia, given the huge expense that would be needed to amass the latter. What are your thoughts on that? (Or anyone else who wants to jump in with polite comments.) Thanks!

  • Barack Obama  On August 20, 2019 at 9:56 pm

    How to rewrite the second amendment. Add at the end, any person attempting to restrict the second amendment is no longer able to hold a government or political job!

  • David White  On August 20, 2019 at 9:57 pm

    Who is the author?

  • Mr. Raven  On August 20, 2019 at 10:02 pm

    If you want to amend the Bill of Rights of The Constitution to your preferred wording there is a formal process for doing so and I assure you, you don’t have the popular support to make it so. So your wall of text in the grand scheme of things is 100% irrelevant.

  • michael schweigert  On August 20, 2019 at 10:33 pm

    You forgot to mention Russia, China, nazi Germany,. n
    Korea and all the other countries that took away the citizens rights to own a firearm than proceeded to murder them. Instead you held up the Dutch. Way to go Dutch people, your one of the few examples of gun seizures that might have worked
    Of course I’d like to hear it from a dutchman personally

  • Irrelevant  On August 21, 2019 at 12:17 am

    So police in front of every house is a viable option? The enforcers of political parasite’s policies…

    States already tend to make their own rules for gun owners. And if you do an honest inquiry, you’d easily find statistics back the idea that an armed society is a polite society. Chicago is a cesspool for crime,
    in large part because of “gun control”.

    Fact: most “mass shootings” are done with handguns.

    Different tools for different jobs

    The 2nd amendment has zero to do with hunting.

    Unreported fact: there are way more people saved by guns than murdered by people who choose a gun as their tool for said murder.

    There’s no such thing as “gun crime”. Crime is crime and murder is already illegal.

    There’s no such thing as an “assault weapon”.
    An assault is an action, not a descriptive word you can tack on to something to make it sound like something it isn’t. Try assault knife or assault truck or assault bomb. Sounds pretty stupid doesn’t it?

    Why is it that these “laws” never target actual criminals, but only a group of people who haven’t harmed anyone?

    Back to the “law enforcement” topic. Do you trust them?! They are government! There’s nothing to trust in government, regardless of which fake party is playing master to your servant.

    Politicians are not leaders and the constitutional guidelines that are supposed to confine their actions would see 99% of them hanged for treason.

    America is NOT a democracy! It is in fact a Constitutional Republic! Meaning, the parasite class that is supposed to serve the people (not rule over them), are supposed to be confined by the constitutional limits afforded them.

    There are a lot of problems in this country, but guns and gun owners aren’t one of them.

  • John A  On August 21, 2019 at 12:43 am

    This was a total waste of my time. You also wasted your time writing such garbage. Seems like you, the author of this article, are probably a traitor of our beloved United States of America and should be tried for treason. Either that or you think you are much smarter than you really are. Stop insulting our intelligence.

  • John A  On August 21, 2019 at 1:04 am

    The author probably wants to rewrite the Holy Bible too.

    • George Washington, Jr.  On August 21, 2019 at 9:53 am

      Too late for that – it was already rewritten and revised countless times, not to mention mistranslated. The proof is that people don’t agree on what the Bible means, either, otherwise there wouldn’t be so many different denominations, many of which fundamentally disagree with each other.

  • Brad  On August 21, 2019 at 2:30 am

    This article is full of lies and left wing propaganda. The author doesn’t mention Switzerland where firearms are required to have and the very low almost non existent crime rate. This author should be ashamed of being a puppet. Utter trash

    • anonymous  On August 21, 2019 at 5:12 am

      In Switzerland, yes, firearms are required and membership in the army is also required, but, they are not allowed to have ammunition. Your right wing masters didn’t tell you the whole truth.

  • Frederick  On August 21, 2019 at 3:12 am

    When will y’all learn it’s not guns it’s the people the wrong people with the guns

  • Your Mother  On August 21, 2019 at 5:09 am

    Trump will be President again.

  • Anonymous  On August 21, 2019 at 5:16 am

    Just because journalist bent over and took it up the shitter and let the Democrats own them and tell them what to write and when to write it does NOT mean they have the right to rewrite any other amendment. Without the second amendment this country will be NOTHING BUT A POLICE STATE and I for one will die in a blaze of bullets before MY right to any amendment is INFRINGED.

  • John  On August 21, 2019 at 5:37 am

    Most people are clueless about firearms in general, and society has a warped sense of reality in many aspects of life, especially firearms. The constitution’s 2A, like a lot of the constitution, isn’t about a direct issue such as what can or cannot be done about firearms, rather instead it is an intentional limiting factor to keep we the people from emotional and often illogical and rash law making. It is designed to slow down and to limit government at all levels – federal, state, and local. Of course we all long for a simpler time when there was a lower population, and less evil in the world. I would also argue there is no way that any new gun law or constitutional amendment, or abolishment will solve stupidity and mental issues. Where laws at one time permit the individual person to manufacture their own “ghost guns”, and the private sale of long guns, there is zero chance of any confiscation due to a lack of registry, and zero chance of getting a registry of any kind to work. Laws of any sort would turn good citizens into outlaws with the stroke of a pen, and create even more dissatisfactions with government. To argue that police are equipped and timely to deter and prevent crime is also nonsense. The problem is never the instruments used in the crimes, but the criminals who take actions based on their own warped sense of reality – mental health and a more dense population also are factors. Finally, statistics show that medical malpractice is going to kill me before a firearm will, so maybe avoiding doctors and going to the range is a healthier choice. At least I can maintain gun control skills in the event that I need to protect myself. If people want to be gun free – move to Denmark as the author states – and good luck. I like my pro gun nation and still think it is the best place in the world overall.

  • Eric  On August 21, 2019 at 5:57 am

    How about we just leave it alone. If you believe mass shootings (which are terrible) are a reason to change the constitution, than shouldn’t we amend the first as well as the second amendment?
    Russia abused our first ammendment’s freedom of speech to sow discord and divide the country, helping Trump to win the presidency.
    The founding fathers wrote the first amendment speech was limited to the town square and local printing press, they could never imagined a world with the internet that allowed anyone to reach out and manipulate our elections.
    So by the logic of “today’s guns are too advanced” logic, we should probably put extreme limits to speech and allow the government to have control over what the press can publish and what citizens can write online and what is said on the radio.
    And before someone says speech is regulated so should guns, I will remind them that dispute what you have been told, guns are already severely regulated, If you dont believe me go out and actually try to buy one.

  • Anonymous  On August 21, 2019 at 6:38 am

    The second amendment should not be changed first off realize the first 10 amendments of the Constitution are the Bill of Rights though the Constitution can be amended the Bill of Rights can never be changed it is a separate entity all to itself and was left as the rights of a human being granted by God not by no man these are rights that can never be changed no one has the authority to do so not the courts not even if 97% of the people voted to do so you cannot for as long as the United States is a republic the Bill of Rights cannot be touched. To do so eliminates the United States of America.

  • Anonymous  On August 21, 2019 at 7:29 am

    Why did the Japanese stop at Pearl Harbor and not attack main land America? Because “there is a gun behind every blade of grass”. The 2nd ammendment protects the country as a whole from foreign invaders.

  • Vernon Wood  On August 21, 2019 at 9:21 am

    Leave We the peoples Constitution alone

    • Steve Waller  On August 23, 2019 at 5:39 pm

      Earth to Vernon. Come in please.

  • Jonathan Wilhelm  On August 21, 2019 at 9:35 am

    There are so many holes in your argument, your article would not even make a good Target.
    You claim that history is old and we only need new, yet still make references back to historical times to support any one particular point.

    I live within 100 miles of Chicago & sometimes visit or pass through the area, why should an old man who would lose in any fist fight give up his right to self-defense at his front door?

    I should point out that our current mainstream for-profit media is currently under the control of corporate left-leaning leadership. This seems to be giving the concept of unbiased reporting of current events to be a historical past.
    I listen to a CBS radio station for traffic reports and news. After hearing the same story 10 times with various twists to it in an attempt to make it interesting after the tenth time, it is easy to pick out the biased spin on the story.
    I frequently wonder what the other side of the spin is about?
    I do not believe that this country should be only run by conservatives or liberals, that would make it very boring.
    So I wonder why a concentration [East coast Big New England Cities & California] of left-leaning Democrats, liberals, socialists, believe that they should be telling everyone else in the country how they should live, VOTE, and believe?
    Folks in the country laugh at Big City dwellers who can’t tell the difference between the cow pie and a chocolate pie.

    On the subject of Multi Shot Firearms during the Revolutionary War., I offer this history lesson:

  • Darrell Westover  On August 21, 2019 at 9:38 am

    At last, a second amendment edit proposal by legal means! No twisting of the language by a biased judiciary. No violent protests. No illegal “executive orders.” No call to arms. No persecution proposals for opponents.
    Question, does anyone in Congress have the ability to seriously consider the viewpoint of one who is not of their party, patience to read more than a headline and the will to press for a change that is not in the party platform?

  • andyflorida  On August 21, 2019 at 9:45 am

    Keep the 2nd, it is working. I spent 22 years of my life in Europe, supposedly free countries, under socialism with heavy influence of neighboring communists. Today I see the leftists pushing their tactics and rhetoric unto unsuspecting Americans excactly as they did in the “old country”. Why is it I never hear of the “Law Enforcement” doing spectacular raids on leftist homes.
    That is the only reason the leftists want to “modify” the 2nd amendment. Why else do the leftists never bring up the fact that millions of crimes are prevented when a good guy uses a gun, often not even firing it, at the culprit, most likely a leftist, by the way. The leftist writers always attach the word, white, into a shooting, what about the thousands of black and white victims killed by other black shooters in all of our leftist controlled large cities. Somehow that never comes up. Those cities have gun controls in place. If we remove LA, DC, Chicago, Baltimore shootings from the statistics, America would rank as one of the safest countries in the world. Keep the 2nd, it is working.

    • Steve Waller  On August 23, 2019 at 5:40 pm

      Delusional paranoia.

  • Greg  On August 21, 2019 at 10:24 am

    Too many people in small, concentrated areas require more legislation. We now have fed laws about drivers licenses & the ID necessary to get on airplanes. We need basic fed laws on guns such as 100% gun registration with NO loopholes with mandatory legal & mental health info input from all 50 states & all the territories. Why? Because we are now more mobile than ever before. If these laws aren’t the same across the USA it can only end in chaos. Every state requires you to prove you’re safe to drive. It should be the same with guns.

    Outlaw ALL automatic, semi-automatic, converted & convertible guns – handguns, shotguns, long-guns, rifles, etc. Made with metal or on a 3-D printer. Include ALL – past, present AND future. Same with ammo. Ban everything over six. Six worked in the wild west. AAA time to fallback. NO large calibre ammo. NO large capacity. NATIONWIDE!!

    Cut the crap! End the logjam. Git ‘er done!!

    • Mark McCall  On August 21, 2019 at 10:45 am

      There is NO Constitutional right to own an automobile, and no Constitutional right to operate an automobile on a public roadway.

      • andyflorida  On August 21, 2019 at 11:56 am

        You don’t own your automobile, you only have a piece of paper that certifies that a title does exist, you don’t have it. Just like your house, deed only lists you as a tenant. You can use it as long as you pay the taxes. Sorry, that all is for another discussion.

    • andyflorida  On August 21, 2019 at 11:50 am

      The communist dream, why you?

    • Jonathan Wilhelm  On August 22, 2019 at 10:49 pm

      Perhaps to Eliminate Drunkenness While Driving which Kills So Many People, we can serialize every Bottle, Can, and Keg of Spirits, Wine, and Beer. Register each purchase, plus doing a background check for mentality/moral health. Forbid any parties that may include alcoholic consumption, including public bars or activities.
      Treat the sales of Alcohol with a 200% tax to fund the government checks of your home storage which will Only be Large enough for one drink per day per Adult over age 25, Accessible only by retina, fingerprint, and blood scanner.

  • David Wallace  On August 21, 2019 at 11:15 am

    What do people not understand about not to be infringed upon!?

  • Anonymous  On August 21, 2019 at 1:26 pm

    I loved this article. I appreciate you bringing your typical clear style to this impossible situation and providing some unique ways of thinking through it.

    The comment section is a real eye opener for anyone who doesn’t visit NRA sites. I managed to learn all of their talking points “God says we should have guns” (apparently God only says this here in America), “you can’t change the 2nd amendment unless you change the 1st” (I don’t really see how they’re tied together though), “how dare you even suggest we think about or discuss the issue”.

  • Trooper Sam  On August 22, 2019 at 1:40 pm

    I won’t address any of the major logical or factual issues of the author in this opinion piece. The battle lines are hardened, and I will not change a single mind with any of my opinions.

    The fact is, this idea is stillborn. The likelihood of ever getting two thirds of Congress to pass out an amendment to make major alterations to 2A is in the realm of fantasy. To ever get thirty-eight states to ratify such and amendment? That’s more like science fiction.

    I take great comfort in that. All of your words about what should be or can be are nothing but barely warmed air in the face of that reality.

  • James Kaleda  On August 22, 2019 at 6:29 pm

    The entire premise of your article is incorrect. The meaning of the 2nd amendment is not “lost” you just don’t like it.
    If we look at the actual meanings of the words from a dictionary at the time the amendment was written it is clear that it codifies the God-given natural right of individual humans to own and carry weapons for defense of self and liberty.

  • Teresa Todd  On August 22, 2019 at 11:08 pm

    The 2nd amendment doesn’t need to be rewritten. It needs to be upheld and the other laws need to be upheld as well. When someone uses any weapon to commit a crime they need to be prosecuted u don’t need a real weapon to kill someone u can beat them to death with a shovel. A shovel isn’t a weapon it’s a tool. Hammers work the same way. It’s a tool. The one weilding it is the criminal. The weapon is innocent. It’s an inanimate object it’s not responsible for it’s use

  • sgtbroward  On August 25, 2019 at 3:47 pm

    I just don’t see the 2nd as a living law. It stand as it should, to change it or modify it would be a crime against the American people and our History. It is not wise to change anything in this day and time and it would be dangerous to do so. How about just disarm the World that would make a nice change and we know that will never happen. Get the Mental Health back in the system and that would make the goal you want.

  • davyboytwccom  On August 25, 2019 at 5:20 pm


  •  On August 26, 2019 at 12:00 pm

    Superb bro

  • Frank Ness  On August 26, 2019 at 3:48 pm

    GET BENT! WE’RE NOT REWRITING A DAMN THING! You have no right to dictate to me how, where, and when I can defend my family and myself!

    The gun grabbers are immoral and indecent!

  • charleshschuhart  On August 26, 2019 at 3:50 pm

    You Sir, are a Flipping Moron! The 2A was not written about muskets… It was written to preserve the “God Given RIGHT to protect one’s self from EVIL”!

  • Rowlv  On August 26, 2019 at 8:18 pm

    Wow does this guy ever entertain a rational thought? I am amazed at how completely his loyalty to the King is entrenched. Fortunately a cup of good coffee got me through this never ending drivel without the need for a nap, a few yawns for certain but no nap.

  • Gus  On August 27, 2019 at 8:50 am

    The author make a good job at explaining the progressive side of the argument, but neglects to account for the conservative viewpoint. He incorrectly assumes what the founders “meant” or “thought” when they wrote the 2A dismissing the numerous era documents including the federalist papers that shed light on the subject. Its like he wishes the founders thought more like he does to justify his recommendation. I’ll make two point the author missed. First is that the founders envisioned a country where the power lay with the people and devised ways to keep that power with the people. They made sure private ownership of guns was an individual right to be protected. The right to life implies the means to defend it. The second point is that is often misrepresented is that riffled muskets where the state of the art infantry weapon of the time. Congress could have limited the people to own only knifes, bows and axes if they thought military-style guns where to modern for citizens to own. They didn’t. Not only that, but citizens where able to own cannons. This doesn’t mean that we should own cannon but it shows the frame of mind of the founders in allowing powerful weapons to be owned by the people.

    I will take my shot at re-writing the second amendment.

    The People have the inalienable right to life and liberty and shall in order to exercise these right have the means with which to protect these rights. The government will not allow any law, regulation or decree to be written, adopted or enforced in any jurisdiction of the United Stated of America that prevents the People from having access to the means with which to defend the right to life and liberty. These rights of the People shall be limited only with the consent of the people requiring a 2/3 majority of all of the elected representatives to Congress, but may be reinstated with a simple majority of the Congress.

  • Terri L McGurgan  On August 27, 2019 at 10:13 am

    I do not belong to the nra, for the record. But I do believe that u are dead wrong on trying to rewrite the 2nd amendment. The words not infringe are pretty clear. And the only thing that rewriting our 2nd Amendment would accomplish is that ppl who are Victims of crimes, wouldn’t have the opportunity to save themselves and or their families, cause criminals will still have guns. A gun in the hands of legally able to have 1, person, is a tool used as a last resort. Then there are the other reasons for owning a gun. The last time I myself used 1 was on a rabid skunk. But, for u to say, lets take all the guns away from ppl, not cause they had done anything wrong, but just to have less guns in our society is wrong. That is like saying we should take all freedom of speech away, cause someone is offended. Only truely free speech allows the crazies to float to the top. I am not into giving Any of my freedoms away.

  • Marshall  On August 27, 2019 at 12:05 pm

    You make some interesting arguments in this article that I can agree with. Other items I would argue. I am a proponent of the right to bear arms, but I do believe in common sense regulation. Children shouldn’t be able to buy a hand gun. The criminally insane or ex convicted of violent crime shouldnt either. Common sense background checks should and do make sense, and of course no one should get to buy a nuclear bomb (which I’m sorry was a ludicrous point of argument seriously. I mean really? Who argued for that?).

    Hunting is not “just a sport” and is nowhere near the same as baseball. For one thing, it can have religious connotaions and in some instances is a means for supporting one’s self and/or family. Therefore I do believe hunting and fishing (which actually go a long way towards conservation) need protection and regulation (in order to keep it being productive for conservation).

    Honestly though you seem to walk a fine line of high handed discussion by using just the right amount of hyperbole and misinformation to disguise your intent to restrict gun rights, possibly because you think that those of us who dont see eye to eye with you politically aren’t as intelligent (if you don’t see us as literally dumb). I think you might have received better discussion and more civility if your article’s tone hadn’t been as arrogant or “slick”. That is, of course, just my opinion.

  • George Washington, Jr.  On September 1, 2019 at 10:48 am

    Rather than having no meaning, the Second Amendment means whatever we (or the Supreme Court) says it does. Since the Heller decision, there is now an individual right to bear certain kinds of small arms (no one seems to be bothered that it’s not legal to own a surface-to-air rocket launcher or a full-auto machine gun). A future court could conclude that the right to bear arms requires membership in a state-regulated militia. The original is antiquated and ambiguous to allow either interpretation as well as many others.

    Rewriting it to be as specific as possible to address the unique characteristics of modern society would be helpful, but it isn’t necessary as long as the courts can reinterpret the existing wording, with the same objective.

  •  On July 23, 2020 at 3:52 pm

    Partly because of this ambiguity, the Second Amendment seemed almost irrelevant for most of our history. In the h and h centuries, many American towns and states regulated guns. In the deadly confrontation at the OK Corral in Tombstone, Ariz., in 1881, Wyatt Earp was enforcing a ban on carrying guns in public.

  • William Heino Sr.  On May 3, 2021 at 10:36 am

    Justice Amy Coney Barrett Second Amendment dilemma

    In some 229 years neither law professors, academic scholars, teachers, students or congressional legislators after much debate have not been able to satisfactorily explain or demonstrate the Framers intended purpose of Second Amendment of the Constitution. I had taken up that challenge allowing  Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s dilemma to understand the true intent of the Second Amendment.

    I will relate further by demonstration, the intent of the Framers, my understanding using the associated wording to explain. The Second Amendment states, “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.”

    Militia, a body of citizens organized for military service.

    If, as some may argue, the Second Amendment’s “militia” meaning is that every person has a right to keep and bear arms, the only way to describe ones right as a private individual is not as a “militia” but as a “person.” (The individual personality of a human being: self)

    The Article of Confederation lists eleven (11) references to“person/s.” The Constitution lists “person” or “persons” 49 times to explicitly describe, clarify and mandate a constitutional legal standing as to a “person” his or her constitutional duty and rights, what he or she can do or not do.

    It’s not enough to just say “person/s” is mentioned in the United States Constitution 49 times, but to see it for yourself (forgo listing), and the realization was for the concern envisioned bt the Framers that every person be secure in these rights explicitly spelled out, referenced and understood how these right were to be applied to that “person.”

    Whereas, in the Second Amendment any reference to “person” is not to be found. Was there a reason? Which leaves the obvious question, why did the Framers use the noun “person/s” as liberally as they did throughout the Constitution 49 times and not apply this understanding to explicitly convey the same legal standard in defining an individual “persons” right to bear arms as a person?

    Justice Amy Coney Barrett dissent in Barr v Kanter (2019) Second Amendment argument acquiesced to 42 references to “person/s, of which 13 characterize either a gun or firearm. Her Second Amendment, “textualism” approach having zero reference to “person/s. Justice Barrett’s  view only recognizes “person/s” in Barr, as well in her many other 7th circuit rulings. It is her refusal to acknowledge, recognize or connect the U.S. Constitution benchmark legislative interpretive precept language of “person/s,” mandated in our Constitution 49 times, to the Second Amendment.
    Leaving Supreme Court Justice Barrett’s judgment in question.

    In the entire U.S. Constitution “militia” is mentioned 5 times. In these references there is no mention of “person” or “persons.” One reference to “people” in the Second Amendment. People, meaning not a person but persons in describing militia.

    Now comes the word “shall” mentioned in the Constitution 100 times. SHALL; ought to, must ..

    And interestingly, the word “shall” appears in the Second Amendment. “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and shall not be infringed.”

    “[S]hall not be infringed.” Adding another word “infringed” to clarify any misunderstanding as to the intent of the Second Amendment. Infringe. To encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another;

    The condition “Infringe” has put a stop as to any counter thoughts regarding the Second Amendment, as you shall  not infringe or encroach  on beliefs other to what is evident as to the subject “Militia.”

    Finally, clarifying “..the right of the people to keep and bear arms…
    People. Human beings making up a group or assembly or linked by common interest.

    In closing, I am not against guns, everybody has them. I’m against using the Second Amendment illogically as a crutch. If it makes those feel better so be it. Just what it deserves, use it with a wink.

    William Heino Sr.

    • George Washington, Jr.  On May 3, 2021 at 11:52 am

      Federalist #29 provides some insight to the framers’ intentions. The “militia” was to be a body of organized, trained citizens, managed by the individual states. This corresponds to the wording “well-regulated militia,” which would go against the idea that the “militia” is merely another word for the citizenry in general. From this we can conclude that “the people” were empowered to own firearms, which would allow them to serve in the “well-regulated militia.”

      The NRA has succeeded in distorting this to mean that anyone may own any gun for any reason, with no responsibility whatsoever to the collective that membership in a state-run militia entails.


  • By Call or Fold | The Weekly Sift on August 19, 2019 at 11:59 am

    […] This week’s featured post is “How Should We Rewrite the Second Amendment?” […]

  • By The Monday Morning Teaser | The Weekly Sift on August 26, 2019 at 8:30 am

    […] in Sift-world this week was the accidental viral outbreak of last week’s featured post “How Should We Rewrite the Second Amendment?” It caught on, but with an audience I never intended: NRA types who hated it. A typical […]

  • […] Notifications started popping up about comments on the article I had posted that day, “How Should We Rewrite the Second Amendment?“. Every minute or so, there was a new comment. I usually get 5-10 comments total on a […]

  • By Trajectory and Splatter | The Weekly Sift on August 26, 2019 at 12:19 pm

    […] to ‘How Should We Rewrite the Second Amendment?’” Last week’s post somehow went viral in the pro-gun world, earning me a stream of negative comments. Those comments […]

  • By Better or Worse | The Weekly Sift on September 2, 2019 at 9:58 am

    […] it doesn’t help). But I bring it up as an additional example of something I discussed in my recent Second Amendment article: how the world can change out from under a practice or text, so that it is honestly not clear how […]

  • By Full Responsibility | The Weekly Sift on October 26, 2020 at 11:34 am

    […] gave another example — the impossibility of applying any originalist interpretation of the Second Amendment — last […]

  • […] each year until it hit 188K in 2019. 2019’s numbers would have been even lower without “How Should We Rewrite the Second Amendment?“, which got 17K hits because a Google algorithm called it to the attention of people […]

  • By The Monday Morning Teaser | The Weekly Sift on February 15, 2021 at 8:40 am

    […] done. It’s the most popular Sift post since NRA types realized that they hated “How Should We Rewrite the Second Amendment?” in 2019. (Of course, neither post compares with ones from the golden age of viral blogs, […]

  • By Senselessness | The Weekly Sift on March 29, 2021 at 12:08 pm

    […] are laws that arguably could make a difference, short of the full-scale rewriting of the Second Amendment I proposed (to a shower of hostile comments) in 2019. Enforcing a waiting period on gun purchases […]

  • […] or update them, judges will find a way to read meaning into the laws they have. (This is basically the problem with the Second Amendment, which no longer means anything independent of judicial interpretations. How does that text give […]

  • By Repeating myself about guns | The Weekly Sift on May 30, 2022 at 9:10 am

    […] most serious look at America’s gun problem was “How Should We Rewrite the Second Amendment?” in 2019. Google, in its great algorithmic wisdom, recommended that post to people interested […]

  • […] we get to “the Second Amendment’s plain text”. I have explained previously (and at length) why I don’t think the text of the Second Amendment means anything at this point. (Briefly, […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: