Should the 2nd Amendment Be Repealed?

[polytropos]

It’s getting closer and closer to being so every year. Again, history is replete with examples of “stable” governments going usurpatious. I think it is a dangerous assumption to think government is incapable of overpowering the populace. The framers knew this. If you look at the bill of rights, they are all designed to limit the power of the federal government because it is human nature to grab for greater and greater power over others. Bureaucrats who think they have the right vision for a country will be tempted to infringe on the rights of others for the “greater good”.

A disarmed populace is a repressible populace.

Indeed, it is not an impossibility that the government could, at some future date, attempt to repress the populace. I would argue that it is unlikely given the split state of government and the political consequences that would exist for any faction that attempted to repress the populace (whatever that would entail).

Guns or not, what would a militia do about it?

The government’s ability to repress would be proportional to its ability to call up America’s professional military. Most people own handguns. Some people collect other arrays of firearms. If the government is tyrannical, gun owners aren’t going to stop them. Gun-owning citizens are not an effective response to a trained, well-equipped military. If you are concerned about a potentially tyrannical government, I would urge you to advocate for more effective checks and balances than the populace’s “right to bear arms.”

The right to bear arms, if it does not ensure protection from a tyrannical government, should be determined based on the net effect on the populace. It is true that guns cannot be removed from the country, but I believe they should be phased out and restricted to a greater extent. People are more capable of committing crimes (and, sadly, committing suicide) when they are in the possession of more effective person-killing technology.

 

[Francoist]

Indeed, it is not an impossibility that the government could, at some future date, attempt to repress the populace. I would argue that it is unlikely given the split state of government and the political consequences that would exist for any faction that attempted to repress the populace (whatever that would entail).

Guns or not, what would a militia do about it?

The government’s ability to repress would be proportional to its ability to call up America’s professional military. Most people own handguns. Some people collect other arrays of firearms. If the government is tyrannical, gun owners aren’t going to stop them. Gun-owning citizens are not an effective response to a trained, well-equipped military. If you are concerned about a potentially tyrannical government, I would urge you to advocate for more effective checks and balances than the populace’s “right to bear arms.”

The right to bear arms, if it does not ensure protection from a tyrannical government, should be determined based on the net effect on the populace. It is true that guns cannot be removed from the country, but I believe they should be phased out and restricted to a greater extent. People are more capable of committing crimes (and, sadly, committing suicide) when they are in the possession of more effective person-killing technology.

The militia canard is based on a misreading of the 2A. The part about a militia is a “prefatory clause”.

This is all explained in the case the media doesn’t want you to hear about, District of Columbia v. Heller. You should check it out.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

poly

**Could a relatively untrained citizen militia actually defend against an abusive government with a modern army? **

You have raised the possibility of a frighteningly fatalistic scenario.

Personally, I believe the citizenry should have sufficient access to weapons such that the government will be afraid of them, rather than that they should be afraid of the government.

Without an armed citizenry, it is almost inevitable that sooner or later “an abusive government with a modern army” will strike. That, of course, will preclude the possibility of using the ballot box to effect rational reform.

It is true that guns cannot be removed from the country, but I believe they should be phased out and restricted to a greater extent.

It would be interesting to know what extent you have in mind.

 

[polytropos]

The militia canard is based on a misreading of the 2A. The part about a militia is a “prefatory clause”.

This is not out of line with what I said in my first post. I noted that the part about the militia gives a “reason,” or preface, for the next clause (at the time the amendment was written). What I said was that the reason is not necessarily valid anymore.

I was careful to say that I did not think that the reason being invalid would invalidate the right to bear arms (I specifically clarify that the amendment should not be read as an “if…, then…” statement). I was making the case that if the reason is invalid, then it is not inappropriate to consider repealing the Second Amendment (which is what this topic is about).

This is all explained in the case the media doesn’t want you to hear about, District of Columbia v. Heller. You should check it out.

I was not familiar with that case. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. I would agree that this ruling does follow from the current incarnation of the Second Amendment.

My only point would be that our goal should be for the least number of people to be killed, so I believe that reevaluating the Second Amendment is reasonable. That would require nonpartisan research on gun violence, which I’m not sure exists. I am admittedly pretty willfully ignorant on this issue. I don’t watch the news and usually don’t read articles on gun rights.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

"He said to them, "But now, let him who has a purse take it, and likewise a bag. And let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one. “”

You might be mixing up Jesus with Barney the Dinosaur.

 

[polytropos]

poly

**Could a relatively untrained citizen militia actually defend against an abusive government with a modern army? **

You have raised the possibility of a frighteningly fatalistic scenario.

Personally, I believe the citizenry should have sufficient access to weapons such that the government will be afraid of them, rather than that they should be afraid of the government.

I don’t think the government is afraid of an armed citizenry, but a government should be afraid for its citizens who do die from gun violence.

Without an armed citizenry, it is almost inevitable that sooner or later “an abusive government with a modern army” will strike. That, of course, will preclude the possibility of using the ballot box to effect rational reform.

I don’t think this is true. The government does have other systems of checks and balances. There are systems of accountability. The political environment is too polarized for politicians to assume the level of risk that you are suggesting. I concede that things could change someday, but I doubt it: American politics have had few periods of truly unilateral control by one party, and that control is lost when the party does something that makes it unpopular.

It is true that guns cannot be removed from the country, but I believe they should be phased out and restricted to a greater extent.

It would be interesting to know what extent you have in mind.

I don’t know what I have in mind. I hate politics and law, just believe that government should gravitate towards policies that favor the common good. If the gun status quo results in more deaths than it has to, then an alternative should be sought.

I do not think that guns can be eliminated from the country entirely and I don’t think they need to be. In terms of extent - I don’t know. I am not that familiar with the guns debate and even if I were, I probably would not be able to cite nonpartisan literature about gun violence because I’m not sure such literature exists.

 

[JimG]

Jim
**
Call a Constitutional Convention, and we’ll find out. **

So what happens at a constitutional Convention? You get more amendments than you bargained for?

I don’t think anyone knows for sure, but it would open up the Constiution for amendment and debate and change. I don’t think anyone really wants to do that. Better to just offer an amendment if you want to repeal an existing amendment. That’s not an easy process. Of course, the SCOTUS sometimes seems to just bypass the amendment route by issuing its own dictats as if it could make law itself, which is not its function.

 

[ProVobis]

Call a Constitutional Convention, and we’ll find out.

Or to be less exciting, submit repeal to the amendment process.

Precisely. 2/3 of the states need to call one and 3/4 of the states would have to ratify it. Congress would need no say.

 

[ProVobis]

Chicago has what most would call the most strict gun control laws in the country, and see how well that is working out.

That’s because the gangs there would let them enforce it. They shoot at the police.

 

[coachkfan1]

Polytropos says: The government, however, is not tyrannical.

This is strictly your OPINION.

 

[LilyM]

2nd Amendment as ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

"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."

Something to think about:

thegunzone.com/rkba/rkba-12.html

Interesting that the Amendment speaks of ‘a well regulated militia’ rather than an unregulated or poorly-regulated bunch of individual gun owners.

More interesting that it says such is necessary to ‘the security OF a free state’, not the protection of individuals either FROM the state or from individual fellow citizens who may wish to do them harm.

I can’t see how this expression could possibly mean anything other than that the right is to bear arms in defence of the state against external rather than internal threat. And it appears that the first part of the amendment has been entirely ignored and only the second paid attention to.

I say all this as a non-American btw. I mean the Supreme Court has probably spoken to the points I’ve raised, but then they implied a right to abortion into the Constitution as well, so they’re not always morally or ethically (or perhaps even logically) on the ball.

 

[livingwordunity]

2nd Amendment as ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

"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."

Something to think about:

thegunzone.com/rkba/rkba-12.html

All they have to do is take out one word, and it will say "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall be infringed."

 

[prodigalson2011]

Interesting that the Amendment speaks of ‘a well regulated militia’ rather than an unregulated or poorly-regulated bunch of individual gun owners.

More interesting that it says such is necessary to ‘the security OF a free state’, not the protection of individuals either FROM the state or from individual fellow citizens who may wish to do them harm.

I can’t see how this expression could possibly mean anything other than that the right is to bear arms in defence of the state against external rather than internal threat. And it appears that the first part of the amendment has been entirely ignored and only the second paid attention to.

I say all this as a non-American btw. I mean the Supreme Court has probably spoken to the points I’ve raised, but then they implied a right to abortion into the Constitution as well, so they’re not always morally or ethically (or perhaps even logically) on the ball.

I would refer you again to the words of George Mason, who was the driving force behind the Second Amendment:

“To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

And a few more from perhaps perhaps the most widely quoted of America’s founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson:

“Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not.”

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”

It seems pretty clear that they did, in fact, see it that way.

 

[LilyM]

I would refer you again to the words of George Mason, who was the driving force behind the Second Amendment:

“To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

And a few more from perhaps perhaps the most widely quoted of America’s founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson:

“Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not.”

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”

It seems pretty clear that they did, in fact, see it that way.

Two individuals, however eminent, doth not a legislature make. Nor a Constitutional Amendment. Such documents express the combined will of the whole legislature, or at least the majority thereof. That majority included the reference to a well regulated militia, and did so for a reason, regardless of how conveniently Mason and Jefferson may have ignored it.

You’ll note it is called ‘the Constitution of the United States’ and not ‘the Constitution of George Mason and Thomas Jefferson’.

Besides which, didn’t Jefferson and not a few of the other Founding Fathers keep slaves? Yet the 13th Amendment outlawed exactly that abominable practice. So clearly it is not a static document.

An additional question, especially in view of the at least apparent increase in ever more deadly gun assaults, is, as Doctor Phil might say ‘how is this freedom to own guns working for you in terms of actually keeping you safe and keeping the rate of death by guns down?’

From the outside it seems not at all.

 

[Rosella]

Here’s another way to phrase that question:

When employees of the Federal Government who are currently being armed from various NON-MILITARY departments start invading your neighborhood, and soldiers bang on your door and order you at gunpoint to leave your house immediately and get in the vans, and the President is suddenly one every single TV channel and internet line urging “peaceful cooperation” because this is “for your own good”… at that time will you wish you and your neighbors still had your rights to form a militia? Or even that you had just one gun to protect your kids?

If you are under age 50 and say this is impossible, shut up and go read a few history books before you reply.

 

[Rosella]

Quoting Doctor Phil loses all credibility to engage meaningfully in this discussion. That would be like referencing Lady Gaga for a discussion of Aquinas.

For those few of you who have the interest in history to do so, glance back at what has occurred almost every time our nation has altered a major piece of the Constitution. A big movement gets started based on high-flying emotions of uneducated people. It gains momentum. A “mob” mentality takes over. It’s made the law of the land. In almost every case the outcome was opposite of the greater freedom that was predicted! That is, people were more enslaved, sometimes politically (electoral methods), sometimes economically (income tax), sometimes personally (prohibition).

The 2nd Amendment is NOT broken. Don’t fix it. People are broken, due to a degenerate society as seen in broken families, rotten schools, drugs, lack of religion, unassimilated immigrants by the millions, a welfare class 4 generations old, etc. See, you don’t have an idea how to fix that, eh? So just blame it on a piece of metal.

 

[LilyM]

Quoting Doctor Phil loses all credibility to engage meaningfully in this discussion. That would be like referencing Lady Gaga for a discussion of Aquinas.

And making ad hominems loses you even more credibility. Even a stopped watch is right twice a day, and even Dr Phil occasionally makes a good point, though in general I have little love for the man.

For those few of you who have the interest in history to do so, glance back at what has occurred almost every time our nation has altered a major piece of the Constitution. A big movement gets started based on high-flying emotions of uneducated people. It gains momentum. A “mob” mentality takes over. It’s made the law of the land. In almost every case the outcome was opposite of the greater freedom that was predicted! That is, people were more enslaved, sometimes politically (electoral methods), sometimes economically (income tax), sometimes personally (prohibition).

The 2nd Amendment is NOT broken. Don’t fix it. People are broken, due to a degenerate society as seen in broken families, rotten schools, drugs, lack of religion, unassimilated immigrants by the millions, a welfare class 4 generations old, etc. See, you don’t have an idea how to fix that, eh? So just blame it on a piece of metal.

Uh huh. So African Americans were far worse off after the civil war than prior (highly doubtful)? Or after non-segregation and other civil rights legislation was passed in the 20th century?

Remind me what ethnicity is your President again?
Could he have been elected prior to the 1950s?
Could his parents have married in any and every State of the US?
Could he have owned property or even voted prior to the Civil War?
Would he have been allowed the same access to education that he has enjoyed, if he had been born before these rights were legally enshrined?

If the 2nd Amendment wasn’t at least possibly broke, there would be no discussion about changing it.

 

[LilyM]

Here’s another way to phrase that question:

When employees of the Federal Government who are currently being armed from various NON-MILITARY departments start invading your neighborhood, and soldiers bang on your door and order you at gunpoint to leave your house immediately and get in the vans, and the President is suddenly one every single TV channel and internet line urging “peaceful cooperation” because this is “for your own good”… at that time will you wish you and your neighbors still had your rights to form a militia? Or even that you had just one gun to protect your kids?

If you are under age 50 and say this is impossible, shut up and go read a few history books before you reply.

All this might theoretically be true IF repeal of the second amendment was done without any legislation being introduced to at least partially restore gun-totin rights to the citizenry. Which is impossible given America’s love affair with guns. Given its impossibility, discussing such a scenario is as useless as imagining a square that and five sides.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Lily
**
All this might theoretically be true IF repeal of the second amendment was done without any legislation being introduced to at least partially restore gun-totin rights to the citizenry. Which is impossible given America’s love affair with guns.**

America’s love affair with guns goes back a long ways. During the time of the Founders, virtually every home contained a gun of one sort or another. These guns were used for a variety of legitimate purposes: hunting, protection, militia, etc.

What seems to be lost in this discussion is the purpose and consequence of repealing the 2nd Amendment. Will guns suddenly disappears from the homes of the citizenry by government fiat? If not, then what is the purpose of repealing the 2nd Amendment. If guns are intended to disappear by government fiat, will they disappear, or will they go underground and become the basis for a clandestine and unregulated industry?

What’s the old canard? “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” That means that if people insist on their guns regardless of government fiat, we will become a nation of de facto outlaws.

 

[LilyM]

Lily
**
All this might theoretically be true IF repeal of the second amendment was done without any legislation being introduced to at least partially restore gun-totin rights to the citizenry. Which is impossible given America’s love affair with guns.**

America’s love affair with guns goes back a long ways. During the time of the Founders, virtually every home contained a gun of one sort or another. These guns were used for a variety of legitimate purposes: hunting, protection, militia, etc.

What seems to be lost in this discussion is the purpose and consequence of repealing the 2nd Amendment. Will guns suddenly disappears from the homes of the citizenry by government fiat? If not, then what is the purpose of repealing the 2nd Amendment. If guns are intended to disappear by government fiat, will they disappear, or will they go underground and become the basis for a clandestine and unregulated industry?

What’s the old canard? “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” That means that if people insist on their guns regardless of government fiat, we will become a nation of de facto outlaws.

The purpose might be that making gun ownership something other than a constitutionally-enshrined right with a capital R might encourage US citizens of criminal and honest persuasions alike to abate their unhealthy ardour for their guns at least a little.

By the way you already have a largely unregulated, if not clandestine, industry. A huge percentage if not a majority of guns are obtained by means such as inheritance, transfer between family members, private sales or Internet sales. None of which, if my understanding is correct, are regulated in the sense of requiring background checks for mental health issues or criminal records of the purchaser.

That fact totally defies any sort of logic. No-one, but no-one, should be permitted to own a weapon without such basic checks.

Put it this way - the only reason everyone, criminal as well as honest, has guns in the US IS because everyone ELSE has guns. No sacrosanct constitutional right to bear arms, less criminals toting guns for fear of armed citizenry and vice versa.