Second Amendment do-over?

  • Follow Letters

I do not own a firearm or plan on ever doing so. However, I support the Second Amendment and the right to have firearms. With all of the recent controversy, I have given much thought to the Second and its meaning.

Unlike some paranoid individuals who feel the Second was put in the Constitution to prevent government from invading our homes, taking our weapons and enslaving society, I believe the Founding Fathers had a much different agenda.

After the Revolutionary War, the militia was disbanded and sent home. There was no standing army, yet there were threats to our country’s northern, southern, and western borders. If a need arose that required a militia, they had only to conscript males who were already armed to form a new army. When the Second was written with this in mind, the writers also realized that the only weapons available were single-shot, blackpowder-and-flint, metal-ball muskets and pistols. If you were not Davy Crockett, Daniel Boone or Alvin York, you would be unable to hit the side of a barn with any consistency.

Today, imagine that the original Founding Fathers were tasked with writing the Second Amendment with the full knowledge of the past 200-plus years of world history – a do-over, if you will. I will pose 3 possible scenarios:

• The Second Amendment will stand as originally written.

• The Second Amendment is eliminated as not to be necessary today.

• The Second Amendment is rewritten allowing citizens to own handguns, rifles and shotguns. However, all military ordnance – including firearms, ammunition, grenades, missiles, land mines, etc. – would be unnecessary and illegal for private citizens to own.

I believe some variation of the last scenario would be enacted, especially when I hear the rampant paranoia of a few people who advocate having rocket-propelled grenades, Stinger missiles, hand grenades and land mines to protect themselves from who knows what.

It is scary, but fortunately those very bright Founding Fathers who got it right in their lifetimes would surely get it right again with a do-over to fit the current times.

Herb Theiss

Aiken, S.C.

Comments (30)

Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
KingoftheUSA
12
Points
KingoftheUSA 02/01/13 - 02:16 am
10
2

Mr. Theiss you appear to be a

Mr. Theiss you appear to be a product of public education. Just a little research of the debate for and against the 2nd Amendment would have revealed statements such as: "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

-- Thomas Jefferson

When it comes to the intent of our founding fathers, it is best to research their history yourself, not just believe what is being taught.

Riverman1
70868
Points
Riverman1 02/01/13 - 06:13 am
9
3

Want to do over any other

Want to do over any other rights while you're at it? It's a good thing it's dang near impossible to change the Constitution. Dream on.

shrimp for breakfast
5025
Points
shrimp for breakfast 02/01/13 - 06:24 am
3
8

I agree with the writer and River.

No need to tamper with the constitution but I totally understand where the writer is coming from.
Even King of USA has a point.I'm all for the second ammendment...but...I am against assault weapons and huge clips. The government does not allow hand grenades or land mines and I don't think they should allow assault weapons either.
You don't need them!
If you can't protect yourself with a 30.06 a 12 gauge and a .45 then you have NO buisness owning a gun in the first place!

carcraft
20765
Points
carcraft 02/01/13 - 06:33 am
8
3

Shrimp for Breakfast, the

Shrimp for Breakfast, the 30-06 was a militray weapon as was the 45 ACP. The 30-06 MI garand was a "semi auto assualt weapon". I guess you really can't defend your family with those either....

carcraft
20765
Points
carcraft 02/01/13 - 06:43 am
8
2

The point isn't defending

The point isn't defending yourself or hunting or fighting a tyranical government. The point is we are a free people and have a RIGHT. to make it easy for the liberals think of it as voting, no ID's, no restrictions, no limiting (appears you can't even limit how many times some vote with ID cards because one or two people might have to run down and get an ID card), (which can't be found in the constitution) no restrictions, no ID, let an idiot who thought Palin was Obama's running mate vote! Got it!

Fundamental_Arminian
1725
Points
Fundamental_Arminian 02/01/13 - 06:49 am
10
3

Gun-free invitation to criminals

    "I do not own a firearm or plan on ever doing so" (Herb Theiss).

That's not the brightest thing to say publicly, especially with all the break-ins nowadays.

nofanofobama
6163
Points
nofanofobama 02/01/13 - 07:14 am
7
2

our 2nd right freedoms is to

our 2nd right freedoms is to protect us and yes create a militia to protect us from tyranny both domestic and foreign..the militia understood here is not a part or product of the govt..it is the right of a free people to be free..and the 2nd amendment is that means...the writer is correct about one thing our forefathers were extremely smart..but they would not have re-written the 2nd...they gave us an amendment process..slow and hard to pass..to change our constitution..this was deliberate so a fad, or sudden majority in favor of an idea could not change it nilly, willy.. we are a republic and USE to be a land of laws.and a means to change laws..someting the libs thru the years do not wish to acknowledge..

Techfan
6461
Points
Techfan 02/01/13 - 07:52 am
4
7

The strongest reason for the

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. Falsely attributed to Thomas Jefferson; first attributed in The Southern Partisan‎ (1992), p. 3. Not found prior to 1992; debunked in D. J. Mulloy, American Extremism: History, Politics and the Militia Movement‎ (2004), p. 115.

SFCRET85
4998
Points
SFCRET85 02/01/13 - 08:34 am
1
0

Thanks Tech. Mr.

Unpublished

Thanks Tech. Mr. KingoftheUSDA, your head is over in the corner. Please pick it up on your way out. :)

Mr. Theiss, hope you have very thick skin. Today will prove to you that there is a very strong strain of paranoia running rampant in our community.

Bizkit
22096
Points
Bizkit 02/01/13 - 08:40 am
7
3

It isn't about the use of

It isn't about the use of guns (maybe the abuse) but the constitutional right to own them-no mention of any caveats. Progressives want absolutely no restrictions with voting, abortion, birth control, marriage, but then don't mind demonstrating a discriminatory bias and restrictions against gun owners, certain religions, certain news outlets (all directly constitutionally protected). They hate freedom is the bottom line-only favor for their new 1% they are trying to establish. The progressive agenda is to destroy the constitution and establish a new progressive bill of rights and a new constitution. Freedom has to demonstrate tolerance for that we abhor. I thought the Progressives believe the Constitution is a 'living' document so history doesn't apply? Note how the progessives want to "protect" the middle class-they want to keep it obviously. Conservatives believe in free market-capitalism and wish everyone would reach 1% status. I agree with the conservatives on this one-I want everyone to succeed and rise up out of poverty or middle class. Progressives are politically motivated to maintain a healthy middle class and poor population because that is their voting base. Watch all these middle class and poor become 1%ers and see it they think taxing the wealthy is "fair". I wager NOT.

Bizkit
22096
Points
Bizkit 02/01/13 - 08:54 am
8
2

Actually go to a number of

Actually go to a number of Constitutional organization and read the original letters and the Federalist papers and is clear "the right to arms shall not be infringed" was something Jefferson, Madison, etc. supported.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 02/01/13 - 09:12 am
7
3

Hmmmm...Techfan says "falsely

Unpublished

Hmmmm...Techfan says "falsely attributed to Thomas Jefferson."

I guess Jefferson didn't mean what he said when he said what he said.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 02/01/13 - 09:13 am
9
3

The second amendment does NOT

Unpublished

The second amendment does NOT say you have the right to an "assault rifle." That is true. But guess what. It also doesn't say you have the right to a musket. The Founding Fathers didn't not specify what kind of weapon you could have FOR A REASON.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 02/01/13 - 09:15 am
11
3

Why doesn't the left support

Unpublished

Why doesn't the left support background checks and mental health checks to vote? There's no limit to the damage you can do with uninformed voting. With a gun, I will at least run out of ammo.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 02/01/13 - 09:16 am
6
3

Here's a challenge to any

Unpublished

Here's a challenge to any advocate of gun control. Define "assault weapons" that you feel we should not be able to have.

Bizkit
22096
Points
Bizkit 02/01/13 - 09:51 am
7
2

I guess 5 years ago I was on

I guess 5 years ago I was on this history kick so I read a bunch of letters of the founders, Federalist papers, Franklin, Jefferson, Maddison letters, etc. What is interesting is these guys could eloquently communicate in a very civil way while still carrying the sting. Also much of the issues we are concerned about today they were also concerned and you can read their "rationalizations" to merit their arguments. Great discussions on the implications of the right to arms and militias. A worthy read for everyone for perspective. Rather than hunt and peck literature mining to create new arguments to support your own-just read it for what it says. If we acquiesce to these gun controls then it would be just too hypocritical not to make similar arguments for voter ID. They are both freedoms that should not be restricted but regulating to ensure the freedom is what govt is here to do. Somehow govt has lost its way.

RMSHEFF
10999
Points
RMSHEFF 02/01/13 - 10:06 am
7
3

The founders wanted to put

The founders wanted to put the power in the hands of the people and the liberals want the power in their hands. Its just that simple, they think know whats best for everyone. We should shut up and sit down and let them run everything. The constitution is the enemy of the left and must be or changed or relegated to the place of a historical document. We are reaping the benefits of a government controlled educational system that has been teaching its own version of American history for over 30 years.

Red Headed Step Child
4006
Points
Red Headed Step Child 02/01/13 - 10:10 am
7
1

I would bet

our forefathers are rolling in their graves!

GnipGnop
10960
Points
GnipGnop 02/01/13 - 10:17 am
6
1

Typical loony argument...

I have never heard anyone I know that is for the 2nd amendment say they wanted a grenade launcher, land mine or any other such nonsense. I urge anyone that has an argument about high capacity magazines to go on youtube and watch the young lady that watched her parents die in Luby's testify before congress. If you think passing any kind of assault weapon ban (which there is no such thing btw that's a made up term to inflame) will alter crime you are sadly mistaken. Criminals don't care what laws you pass. The only thing that stands between civility and anarchy is a well armed responsible society!

Willow Bailey
20255
Points
Willow Bailey 02/01/13 - 10:24 am
6
4

I am reminded of Humpty Dumpty...

Mr. Theiss, your letter is a dangerous one. First you pretend to support the Second Amendment and then you slip it in, much like the current president. You are like Obama, you know better than all the founding fathers and all the previous presidents put together. The "current times" you speak of, is the problem, sir.

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall, Humpty Dumpty had a great fall. All the Kings horses and All the King's men, couldn't put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

dichotomy
26806
Points
dichotomy 02/01/13 - 10:24 am
8
3

When 100 Los Angeles rioters

When 100 Los Angeles rioters are coming down the street murdering, looting, and raping.....a 10 round magazine looks pretty skimpy. When the New Orleans police department and the National Guard swoop back into town 4 days after Katrina and turn against the law abiding citizens by confiscating their weapons while the looters are still running loose.....owning MULTIPLE magazine fed weapons strategically secreted around your property is wise.

Is there one of you out there that does not believe there is at least the possibility of a financial collapse in this country which would cause the worst violence, looting, and plundering ever seen in this country? There is a reason the cops have magazine fed "assault" weapons. They know the threat. And Los Angeles and New Orleans are proof positive that when the crap hits the fan the cops and the National Guard are nowhere to be found for a week or more.

And please do not be so stupid as to tell me that I cannot own a weapon you choose to call an assault weapon because it has a black stock and black foregrip when the deer hunter next door can legally own the SAME weapon, the SAME metal parts, with a wooden stock and wooden foregrip. THAT is the stupid law these idiots are trying to shove down our throats so they can stick their chest out and tell you they've done something.

Bizkit
22096
Points
Bizkit 02/01/13 - 10:25 am
7
2

Too funny Angela. Every

Too funny Angela. Every weapon is an assault weapon if you (game, varmits, skeet, target, people) are the target. That's the whole point. It isn't that a gun can kill you-it's people can and they will do it whatever means is available. So if you could magically remove all guns from the US does anyone believe that murders, crime, suicide will cease? Just a new way to kill people will evolve and with our techno savy the new weapon will likely far outweigh the ole gunpowder gun as a threat. You can't beat evolution-it's called an "arms race" for a reason. Not allowing guns on airplanes didn't prevent the 911 hijack.

myfather15
42173
Points
myfather15 02/01/13 - 10:57 am
6
2

"When the Second was written

"When the Second was written with this in mind, the writers also realized that the only weapons available were single-shot, blackpowder-and-flint, metal-ball muskets and pistols."

They also REALIZED? How did they REALIZE this, when they had absolutely no idea there would even be stronger weapons invented one day? They way you write it, one could assume they knew one day there would be more powerful firearms. What they did was legalize the strongest firearms possible; for that time period. Yes, muzzleloaded firearms were the most powerful individual firearms of that time, and the Founding Fathers said we should own them, uninfringed!!!

soapy_725
43306
Points
soapy_725 02/01/13 - 11:17 am
0
0

The US Constitution is the enemy of the US Government.

Unpublished

Hence the unbridled assault on the "wall" that protects citizens from the king's tyranny. Marxist/Socialist push on the wall. It the wall moves they push more. If the wall does not move, they move to a different part of the wall. They never stop attempting to move the wall.

Only free thinkers. Only those who see true patriotism as "protecting what is right for all", as opposed to what government says is expedient.

George Washington himself, once he became king. used regular military troops to attack US citizens in the Whiskey War. A military action against some of the "Over Mountain Boys", Rev heroes and militia, who were credited with turning the tide of the Rev War. A military action to enforce taxation, by the way. Taxation without representation. Strange that one war was fought to prevent taxation without representation and shortly thereafter a war was fought to install taxation without representation. And we have been on a roll ever since.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 02/01/13 - 11:18 am
5
3

Don't you love the idots that

Unpublished

Don't you love the idots that say "people shouldn't have battlefield weapons" then in the same breath want to ban AR-15's which are not used by ANY ARMY ON EARTH. It would further their cause a great deal if the liberals even knew what they were talking about.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 02/01/13 - 11:20 am
5
3

"When the Second was written

Unpublished

"When the Second was written with this in mind, the writers also realized that the only weapons available were single-shot, blackpowder-and-flint, metal-ball muskets and pistols."

Myfather....another way of looking at this was that the founding fathers realized that the people should have what was at the time, state of the art weaponry....ie single-shot, blackpowder-and-flint, metal-ball muskets and pistols. Is there any reason to believe they would not STILL want the people armed as well as the average soldier is today?

soapy_725
43306
Points
soapy_725 02/01/13 - 11:27 am
1
0

Take a trip to Williamsburg VA.

Unpublished

As you enter the Governor's Mansion of this colony of Virgina you, as those in the early 1700's, will be overwhelmed by the decorations on the walls and ceiling. The walls and ceilings of the entrance hall of the British Governor's mansion are covered with rifles and fixed bayonets. Literally every inch of the first place you see when you visit the governor to complain or ask for help is a display of the "power to kill" those who oppose the king.

It is not by change that the founders knew first hand what held the price of liberty and personal freedom. If the king had taken all of the guns from the colonist in 1770, we would still be a colony. The rewards of our individual efforts would be supporting a royal family of duffs with exaggerated egos and appetites.

Maybe we did not win? Win individual freedom, that is?

grouse
1588
Points
grouse 02/01/13 - 11:35 am
0
0

When another country needs

Unpublished

When another country needs the military help of allies, they don't call Billy Bob and his boys from Alabama, they call the US Military. To think that Billy Bob can go up against the US Military and prevail is a fantasy...

carcraft
20765
Points
carcraft 02/01/13 - 02:10 pm
5
2

BWOW, just WOW, one of the

WOW, just WOW, one of the founders of America was a leading scientist of his day! Franklin devolped a new type of wood burning stove, bifocals, studied lightening, studied the Gulf stream, and invented a new musical instrument but was to dumb to realize there would be advancements in the weapons of war?..LOL makes you wonder about liberals..

deportem
94
Points
deportem 02/01/13 - 11:59 am
5
1

How quickly we forget

Go back and read the August 2012 story in the Aiken Std. about the gun store owner that used an AR 15 to defend his life. Three burglars drove a stolen van through the wall of the store. In the firefight that ensued, one burglar was killed, and the other two (alleged) burglars were wounded. According to the news story, the store owner emptied a 30 round magazine, and then retreated to his bedroom to reload (or get another full magazine). If he had a 10 round magazine, he would probably be dead. I have a CWP and prefer a semiauto AK over an AR 15 for close quarters and additional fire power.

Back to Top

Top headlines

Judge expedites election suit

Attorneys representing Augusta's mayor and commission have until 5 p.m. April 30 to respond to the complaint which seeks an injunction and to the plaintiff's request for a three-judge panel to ...
Loading...