Is the 232 Yr old Right to bear arms section of the Pa. Constitution better worded than the 2nd Amendment?

The older Pennsylvania provision to the Pennsylvania Constitution declares " The Right of the Citizens to Bear Arms in Defense of Themselves and the State Shall Not Be Questioned."....Compare it to the way the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is worded.* " 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."...Which is worded best with no doubt as to what it means?......

lol, wow, I did not know that. Yes, the PA version is more clear and gets right to the point. The constitution's wording is quite backwards and ambiguous.

Neither, really...does "In defense of Themselves and the State..." mean only if BOTH are threatened? Does it mean no target shooting or hunting? It says "in defense"...the federal Constitution is pretty clear that you can keep and bear arms with no "defense" qualifier...Not that it matters, just pointing out that ambiguity is often in the eye of the beholder.

The US 2d was actually a combination of ideas for amendments from several states'ratifying conventions (one of which was PA) dealing with militias, service and exemption from service in militias and possession of arms. Thus the confusion resulting from combining two different ideas into one sentence.

The Pennsylvania wording makes it clearer that it is an individual right, not a collective one. Of course, if one actually reads the Second Amendment with no biased predisposition, it does too.

Absolutely, "defense" is against ones attackers, whereas "security" can be construed as freely as one wishes.

Zakhaev.

I say defend you self. family and property. and I do not care what anyone else says.

The second amendment is our passport to one of the most violent societies in modern history

PA's got this won hands down.