You do know of course that Nixon won the popular vote against Kennedy...can you imagine Nixion ( a hawk) in charge during the Cuban Missile Crisis? Also, "...re-word the second amendment..." is ambiguous, what do you want it to say?

@dahermit I don't think it's true that Nixon won the popular vote. But even if it were, I still think the electoral college is inherently unfair.

And I'm not sure what wording I'd use for the second amendment. I think it's ambiguous now. I was written when militias were our national defense, and that's no longer the case. So that wording needs to go.

@slavenomore I don't agree with your interpretation. But I'm not going to go down this rabbit hole right now.

@carlyhorton There is nothing ambiguous about the Second Amendment (...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." ) it is just that you do not like it.

@carlyhorton, @slavenomore The Second Amendment had nothing to do with protecting aginst burglers or feeding one's family or for that matter, despite popular belife, as a check against the government. What disturbs me is that people will spout some platitude relative to the Second Amendment while in complete ignorance of the rest of the Constitution...namely in the place where the government is required to actualy arm the milita (Article one, Section eight). In short, if you don't know what you are talking about...don't.

@dahermit wrong

@carlyhorton By all means, if I have made an error relative to the Constitution, please point it out to me where exactly I have made that error. As for just a childish one-word, retort...well that speaks for itself.

@dahermit I think you're rude. I don't want to talk to you.

@carlyhorton I am rude...especially when someone does not know what they are talking about but still insist on talking instead of learning.

@dahermit I replied to a post with a rather vague point about it needing to be reworded. Then you got immediately condescending and rude. And you’re just getting worse.

@carlyhorton Thank you...but I can assure you that I stay this rude consistently.

@dahermit All I said was that the amendment was ambiguous. That was enough to trigger you into incivility. And you’re proud of this. Good riddance to you.

Love this!

In as much as you are a Canadian, I will have to forgive your misconception. What you posted was from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. Unfortunately, most Americans will not recognize it as such either.

@dahermit I actually knew this was part of the Declaration of Independence since I cc'd off Wikipedia. Nevertheless, I still believe it's a good start for a constitution though.

@Lukian It is way too vague to be part of the constitution (unenforceable), whereas in the Declaration it was mainly meant to piss-off King George.

@dahermit I was going for the prelude introduction of the document, kinda setting the stage but I hear ya!

@Lukian Actually the prelude to the Constitution is:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessing of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." I happen to have a copy in front of me on my desk.

What I find interesting is in the First Article, Section 8, it states in part: "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia..." That suggests to me that the intention in that part of the Constitution was to have the federal government train and provide arms to the civilian militia, which would have meant the standard (military) infantry arms that were current. If that be the intention, then the Second Amendment "may" have been intended to shift the responsibility for arming the militia, to the militia (people) themselves. In short, trying to understand the Second Amendment without considering the Article 1, Section 8 references to the militia, may lead to faulty interpretation.