Is the time right for a repeal of the 2nd amendment?

  • Thread starter Thread starter upant
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LeafByNiggle said:
I’m sure I have seen suggestions that some current gun laws are unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
Sure, there are valid arguments for tweaking some of our current laws, some have been shown to be unconstitutional.

There are also valid arguments for removing guns from homes of crazy people, a direction which most here seem to support if it’s done well.
 
JonNC said:
So, you’re good with the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment being subject to change.
Click to expand...
The standards of what constitutes “cruel and unusual punishment” have changed over the years. And for the better.

Maybe there’s something to be learned there.
 
Inisfallen said:
The standards of what constitutes “cruel and unusual punishment” have changed over the years. And for the better.

Maybe there’s something to be learned there.
Click to expand...
Sure. Strengthening the individual rights side of things, and limiting government power is a good thing.
 
JonNC said:
Sure. Strengthening the individual rights side of things, and limiting government power is a good thing.
Click to expand...
It is concern by individuals for the rights of individuals that leads to calls for improved gun regulation.
 
Rau said:
It is concern by individuals for the rights of individuals that leads to calls for improved gun regulation.
Click to expand...
And I’m all in favor of exploring ways to prevent those who pose a threat from getting arms. Do it through due process, defend the rights of the law abiding.
 
Inisfallen said:
Or that we’re not bound by 18th-century concepts.
Click to expand...
Were bound to the concepts that made this the single greatest country in history, even with our flaws. The very idea that individual rights are something to dismiss as “18th century concepts”
is a philosophy I reject.
 
Last edited:
JonNC said:
The very idea that individual rights are something to dismiss as “18th century concepts”
Click to expand...
Just as we’re not bound by 18th century concepts of what “cruel and unusual” punishment is, we’re not bound by 18th century concepts of what “arms” are, and what “bearing” them means.

I’m not saying that we should take literally Scalia’s statement that the words of the Constitution should mean exactly, and only, what they would have mean to an 18th-century Englishman.

So we do have to look at the Second Amendment, and the history of jurisprudence concerning it. And Heller is the latest word on that topic. And there’s plenty of room for reasonable regulation there, without dismissing the idea of individual rights.
 
Theo520 said:
typo, perhaps 'don’t respect?
40.png
JonNC:
The very idea that individual rights are something to dismiss as “18th century concepts” is a philosophy I respect
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Darn autocorrect. It was supposed to be reject.
 
Inisfallen said:
Just as we’re not bound by 18th century concepts of what “cruel and unusual” punishment is, we’re not bound by 18th century concepts of what “arms” are, and what “bearing” them means.
Click to expand...
Heller disagrees with you regarding arms and bearing. It goes into the definition.

Any changes that improves and strengthens the rights of the individual is a good thing. Registration, confiscation, punitive taxation all hurt individual rights and augments government power, and should be rejected
 
Rau said:
40.png
JonNC:
Any changes that improves and strengthens the rights of the individual is a good thing.
Click to expand...
Such as allowing machine guns to be acquired?
Click to expand...
So you think that would improve individual rights? I’ll let you make that argument.
Mine is the current standards in place, that protect the rights of individuals to broadly available and popular firearms is sufficient, that solving the violence issue is something else again.
 
Inisfallen said:
I’m not saying that we should take literally Scalia’s statement that the words of the Constitution should mean exactly, and only, what they would have mean to an 18th-century Englishman.
Click to expand...
And what about the words of a first-century Jew? Are we to discard them simply due to a lack of respect for anything old? (I realize this is a bit opportunistic on my part to say this. But still.)
 
Rau said:
Such as allowing machine guns to be acquired?
Click to expand...
Machine guns can be legally acquired. It’s just a pain and expensive. One is mildly surprised sometimes that Democrats don’t consider that “classist” or “racist” since it prevents poorer people from ever acquiring them.
 
Look, I was countering the argument of another poster that the words of the Constitution mean what they meant in the eighteenth century, so only flintlocks and muskets we’re covered by the Second Amendment.

I didn’t think that was true, any more than it’s true that the First Amendment doesn’t cover electronic publishing, because it didn’t exist in the eighteenth century.
 
Inisfallen said:
Look, I was countering the argument of another poster that the words of the Constitution mean what they meant in the eighteenth century, so only flintlocks and muskets we’re covered by the Second Amendment.

I didn’t think that was true, any more than it’s true that the First Amendment doesn’t cover electronic publishing, because it didn’t exist in the eighteenth century.
Click to expand...
Don’t get upset. I just couldn’t help kidding you. Sorry if it offended.
 
JonNC said:
So you think that would improve individual rights? I’ll let you make that argument.
Click to expand...
No, I asked you whether the principle you articulated would. It’s hard to see why this particular infringement is not an infringement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top