Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hey guys,

I had a thought yesterday at work, and thought it interesting enough to post here:


How would the US be different today, if when written, the 2nd Amendment read more like the first amendment? As in, if instead of saying what it does now, it said something to the effect of "Congress shall make no laws regarding the private ownership of firearms" ???


Would it have been repealed sometime in the 20th Century? would it still be around as written because of lobbyists? would it be gotten rid of entirely because of other lobbyists? Well, you get the idea here.

There has been plenty of shenanigans concerning religion, and so on, despite the First Amendment.

I doubt the 2nd amendment fight wouldn't exist, but the argument in its defense would certainly be stronger of it was worded in that fashion.

It would most likely read like a law document, not a proclamation of rights and liberties.

Expressed Hereto, all citizens (a)of well and sane being (b)having no previous felonies or involvement in "gang" culture (see footnote 2;45) may be permitted to own, as explained in article 3, section 6, ammendment 2 a firearm or other weapon, as explained further in article nine, section 8, ammendment 2.

 Captain Fantastic wrote:
It would most likely read like a law document, not a proclamation of rights and liberties.

Expressed Hereto, all citizens (a)of well and sane being (b)having no previous felonies or involvement in "gang" culture (see footnote 2;45) may be permitted to own, as explained in article 3, section 6, ammendment 2 a firearm or other weapon, as explained further in article nine, section 8, ammendment 2.

except that, here I am talking about a document written in the 1700s...

I mean, if the 2nd amendment read nearly exactly like the 1st, in the whole "congress shall make no laws regarding" in the 2nd amendment, it would go on to say something about, the manufacture, sale, and ownership of arms. To me, while there would still be a large amount of vocality regarding whether people "should" own guns or not, I think we'd still see people owning (and able to fire) M2s, SAWs and the AK version, etc.

But, would congress, unable to stem the ownership of firearms, write in legislation to limit or ban certain types of ammunition??

If it was worded like that it woul still be vague in my opinion.
What is defined as a firearm? Would an RPG be a firearm? Is an Anti-Materiel sniper rifle a firearm?
Its just like "Bear Arms"
What are "Arms" in this context?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

Its just like "Bear Arms"
What are "Arms" in this context?

Really? Seems pretty clear to me!

I knew that would show up.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
If it was worded like that it woul still be vague in my opinion.
What is defined as a firearm? Would an RPG be a firearm? Is an Anti-Materiel sniper rifle a firearm?
Its just like "Bear Arms"
What are "Arms" in this context?

In the context of the constitution it simply means weaponry.

At the time, there was very little difference between civilian and military firearms. And certaintly no standardization.

The only real weapon distinction that would have been present would have been the difference between Artillery and Small Arms.


The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to allow for the citizens to be able to resist the government if it was an unjust one that would require a violent revolution. Hunting was not part of the intent at all.

So there is certaintly an argument to be had for the private ownership of military grade hardware. Obviously, if you need to be capable of overthrowing the government, you might need weaponry capable of resisting the Military.


Do I think private ownership should be allowed of RPGs, tanks, and high grade explosives? Certaintly not.

But possably the ownership could be allowed by private militia organizations in limited quantities. Maybe even operated at the local level of government, but certaintly not in any way subject to the authority of the State or Federal Government, which these milita organizations would ultimately be designed to resist against in the event of the Government becoming tyrannical.

These militas would serve as a secondary line of defense in the event of foreign invasion too.