Amend the 2nd Amendment? Who should bear arms? (Philly.com proposal to gut the 2A)

[ShooterInPA1]

Does the Constitution need a new amendment to better define the right to bear arms? Vote now in our “Next 10 Amendments” project!

PROPOSED AMENDMENT: “Because a well-regulated National Guard and Reserve, and well-regulated Federal, state, and local public safety departments, are necessary to the security of our free states and our free nation, the rights of citizens, while serving in their capacity in the aforesaid organizations, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/A_..._questions_top

PA Constitution
Section 21. The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

[ShooterInPA1]

These people are ignorant beyond belief. The 2A is about preventing tyranny, and at the time of the founding of this nation, citizens owned the largest arms of the time, cannons.

[Kabloosh]

Well 96% voted against it so I don't think that terminology will fly.

[ShooterInPA1]

Well 96% voted against it so I don't think that terminology will fly.

They should reword it so it more accurately reflects their thinking: "only government employees should own guns"

[wewo]

Well 96% voted against it so I don't think that terminology will fly.

Philly for the Epic Fail!

[PaleDriver]

I see the following reply:

The argument that small arms that are legally allowed will protect against and defeat a Tyrannical government is outdated. Anyone who claims that because they have guns they can defeat a "tyrannical" government's current armed forces is either hopelessly optimistic or dangerously idealistic.

and I think...

Have you ever seen the police reaction when a person barracades them selves in a house with a gun?
What if there were 4-5 people on a single neighborhood block doing the same thing?
What if there were 4-5 people on every neighborhood block doing the same thing?
Maybe the military would get involved and act against the citizenry.
Then, who supports that government? Who wouldn't rebel?

It does not take large weapons to revolt in my opinion.

[OwnTheRide]

It does not take large weapons to revolt in my opinion.

And we see proof of this every single day. Take a look at today's hot topic, Syria. Did the citizens of Syria have fighter jets, tanks, and nukes? Nope. Consider many of the changes during Arab Spring... again, citizens without jets, tanks, and nukes.

The other thing that people who make such comments ignore is that we have multiple levels of government. Given that we have one federal government, 50 state governments, 2000+ county governments, and untold numbers of city/town/village governments, tyranny is least likely to occur at the federal level. And we have a shining example of such behavior with the Battle of Athens.

[zlaya]

It does not take large weapons to revolt in my opinion.

Though rebelling without there first being a revolution would be quite pointless.

[ChamberedRound]

The stupid in the comments of that article are infuriating.

[dunno]

Meh, I would rather their opposing arguments be stupid rather than smart.