If you want gun control, shouldn't the Second Amendment be repealed/amended? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15161650
Americans love guns, but they arguably love their Constitution's Bill of Rights even more, so debates on guns always come back to the second amendment.

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.


It's one simple sentence, but I guess there are too many commas, leading to an eternal debate of the exact meaning of the relationship between the former two clauses and latter two clauses. Specifically, does this mean that people have the right to bear arms within the context of a militia supporting a free state or can they own guns at home for whatever reason they want? I.e. a collective vs. an individual right.

A predominant or maybe even the dominant interpretation within the courts for a while was that it's actually about a state's right to have a militia. Digging through the wiki, I thought it was interesting that this led one judge to conclude that citizens in the District of Columbia don't have second amendment rights since the DoC is not a state. If you're familiar with the history, it wasn't until 2008 that the Supreme Court held that the 2nd amendment protected an "individual" right to bear arms, and even this was a narrow 5-4 decision.

Bla bla bla, you probably already know all this.

Anyways, the conservative reading of this has always seemed more...intuitive. Like, if I didn't know anything about the topic, that's how I would interpret the sentence. Does anyone feel that the opposite interpretation is more natural? I'd be especially curious about your thoughts. It continues that both sides will say that if the amendment meant what the other side intended, then it was worded very poorly.

One part that strikes me is that it says the right "shall not be infringed." This follows the language of the Declaration of Independence and other amendments in that the law doesn't grant you this right. The meaning is that this is a right that you have by default, "endowed" by god, and the purpose of the amendment is to prevent the government from taking that right. This doesn't make sense to me if it was intended for militias.

That also gets into the debate concerning what is a militia. Is a militia such a formal thing? My understanding was that at the time of the American Revolution, groups of citizens/farmers would just bring their guns from home, meet in a field outside of town, and call themselves a militia. Or is that a false narrative? If private citizens are banned from owning guns, then in order to have a large number of people with guns, legally, a state has to formally create a militia, then give private citizens guns after they join. Within the context of the American revolution, this doesn't make sense to me.

The point of this is that almost everyone interprets the second amendment how they want to interpret it, and almost no one says I agree with your interpretation; I think it should be changed (not even gonna get into courts legislating via interpretation). It's clearly because the Bill of Rights is considered sacred in America, including the second amendment, and people generally don't want to touch it with a ten foot pole. Anyone who suggested it would be tarred and feathered. But that is what I am saying now. And I say that even though I don't have a super strong opinion on gun rights. I don't support completely banning guns or even draconian restrictions that border on bans. I support some level of gun control, although I'm not sure exactly how much there should be. But I feel like even a modest level of gun control is counter to the spirit of the second amendment. Additionally, the second amendment doesn't take more dangerous modern firearms into account since they didn't exist.

Therefore, the second amendment should be repealed or at least amended.
#15161736
Sadly for the Liberals the 2nd Amendment is one thing about the Constitution that is crystal clear. The term "The people" is used in contradistinction to the Federal Government and the States. The people, that is individual citizens, outside of any collective organisations have the right to keep and bear arms. This is clearly and unambiguously implied to be a moral and inalienable right that precedes and would outlive the existence of the United States.

The 2nd Amendment is the very founding principle on which the United States was founded. It was the right to stock pile weapons ammunition, in considerable quantities, and correct me if I'm wrong but to posses artillery as well that led to the outbreak of the war of independence. Not free speech, not taxation, but an armoury outside of the government or the colonial government's control. The history of the United States demonstrates that an American Citizen not only has the right to keep and bear arms, but has the right to exterminate any individuals or forces that attempt to deny his / her right. Anyone who seeks to negate or undermine these Second Amendment rights is a traitor to the American Constitution.

Of course nothing I've said above says whether the American Constitution is good or bad. Nothing I've written above says whether you should defend the Constitution or seek its overthrow.
Last edited by Rich on 18 Mar 2021 16:07, edited 1 time in total.
#15161738
The 2nd is obsolete.

It came from a time when we didn't have a standing army, and now we have several.

What's more, it is talking about a well regulated militia, and in this day and age, once you've said that you've left reality. No sucha thing...

Speaking of reality:

https://www.amazon.com/Second-Amendment-Biography-Michael-Waldman/dp/1476747458/ref=sr_1_1?crid=466N1GKXTED1&dchild=1&keywords=the+second+amendment+a+biography&qid=1616075814&sprefix=rhe+second+amendme%2Caps%2C184&sr=8-1
#15161739
The 2nd Amendment is the very founding principle on which the United States was founded. It was the right to stock pile weapons ammunition, in considerable quantities, and correct me if I'm wrong but to posses artillery as well that led to the outbreak of the war of independence. Not free speech, not taxation, but an armoury outside of the government or the colonial government's control. The history of the United States demonstrates that an American Citizen not only has the right to keep and bear arms, but has the right to exterminate any individuals or forces that attempt to deny his / her right. Anyone who seeks to negate or undermine these Second Amendment rights is a traitor to the American Constitution.

Absolutely right. Likewise, it was only when Parliament started stockpiling weapons that the English Civil War became inevitable. As Chairman Mao once said, power grows from the barrel of a gun. If the people are to have any power at all, then they must be armed and dangerous.
#15161743
late wrote:Hey, Rambo, any idea how long you'd live going up against an attack helicopter?

You could have said similar things to the Founding Fathers. Their revolt was actually rather quixotic - a few thousand militiamen with muskets against the might of the globe-spanning British Empire. How could they possibly win?
#15161744
Potemkin wrote:Absolutely right. Likewise, it was only when Parliament started stockpiling weapons that the English Civil War became inevitable. As Chairman Mao once said, power grows from the barrel of a gun. If the people are to have any power at all, then they must be armed and dangerous.


And leaving that aside, it's probably impossible to enforce a repeal anyways. There are just too many firearms around.

Also, it has its advantages even today. I haven't forgotten how last year looters were hitting small businesses without a firm government response, and how little this lasted once the business owners took the the roofs and solved the problem on their own. Ironically, this led to the situation where large businesses located in downtown areas would be looted several times afterwards, while the small ones defended by their owners were largely left alone. But more generally, the 2nd puts the government on a short timer to fulfill its duties when there is lawlessness and a breakdown in public order.
#15161747
Potemkin wrote:
You could have said similar things to the Founding Fathers. Their revolt was actually rather quixotic - a few thousand militiamen with muskets against the might of the globe-spanning British Empire. How could they possibly win?



The British had a long supply line, and weren't fighting to save their homeland.

Assume they were. How long would you last against muskets and cannon? Because you'd last 10% as long against choppers, Warthogs, snipers and special forces. And that's assuming you're really lucky.
#15161748
late wrote:The British had a long supply line, and weren't fighting to save their homeland.

Assume they were. How long would you last against muskets and cannon? Because you'd last 10% as long against choppers, Warthogs, snipers and special forces. And that's assuming you're really lucky.

Looks like the Afghan tribesmen didn't do too badly.... :)
#15161770
Rich wrote:The term "The people" is used in contradistinction to the Federal Government and the States. The people, that is individual citizens, outside of any collective organisations have the right to keep and bear arms.


100% agree.

I also believe that the order of the amendments is significant. The first and second amendments aren't the first and second amendments by chance; they represent the most fundamental rights. In contrast, amendments nine and ten are like "catch-alls." Liberal interpretation of the second amendment sticks out like a sore thumb between one and three. It is clearly the outlier.

wat0n wrote:And leaving that aside, it's probably impossible to enforce a repeal anyways. There are just too many firearms around.


Hmmm, again......it's weird, I want to repeal it, but I don't want to completely ban guns. I just feel like it's so undermined and outdated, that it's mostly an impediment to any productive conversation and legislation more than anything else. I mean, there's some law or set of laws against civilian paramilitary groups in pretty much every state. How is this not unconstitutional?

Or maybe these lies and court shenanigans are unavoidable on any topic, and I'm just being too idealistic. It did cause the Supreme Court to strike down the DC ban on handguns, so I guess it still serves its purpose.

I think it also bothers me that I agree with conservatives on this. Lately, I seem to agree with liberals on almost everything. Must be cause of Trump.
#15161771
In the spirit of the 2nd amendment, I fully support arming people against government, and this weaponry should provide a credible threat against the government.

I would even go further and say that those communities that have experienced more state oppression should be given the most destructive weapons.
#15161773
Disclaimer: If I had made statements in favour of repealing or further amendment of the Second Amendment, consider this post a renunciation.

Come to think of it, the point is "well-regulated". The concept of gun control does not go against it.

The problem is how gun control measures should be implemented. IMHO it should be decided by real public debates with referendums afterwards, and should be on a state-by-state basis.

Life-or-death matters like these need to be constantly monitored by all citizens. This is a responsibility.
#15161775
SaintButter wrote:Therefore, the second amendment should be repealed or at least amended.


Well that would make sense for a sane nation but America has an erection over its constitution. So this will always divide the nation and the status quo will be retained due to the constitution. Besides, America has too many weapons to have any effective controls over them now. Any "amendment" cannot control this inconvenient fact. So my advice for anyone who thinks this a major factor is to move to Canada and let all the dumbasses shoot themselves out of the gene pool.
#15161835
late wrote:It came from a time when we didn't have a standing army, and now we have several.

The British Empire certainly had a standing army. In fact, George Washington was part of it. He was a colonel when he was a red coat.

late wrote:What's more, it is talking about a well regulated militia, and in this day and age, once you've said that you've left reality. No sucha thing...

There are in California.
California Military and Veterans Code §121 wrote: The unorganized militia consists of all persons liable to service in the militia, but not members of the National Guard, the State Military Reserve, or the Naval Militia.

Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Potemkin wrote:Their revolt was actually rather quixotic - a few thousand militiamen with muskets against the might of the globe-spanning British Empire. How could they possibly win?

Actually, most of them had Pennsylvania flint lock rifles, which were much more accurate than the British Army's muskets.

late wrote:Assume they were. How long would you last against muskets and cannon?

Think civil war, late. King Charles lost his head to the roundheads.

late wrote:Because you'd last 10% as long against choppers, Warthogs, snipers and special forces.

First, you're assuming that they will side with the government, which is a huge assumption. Second, you're assuming they will want to use deadly force against the citizenry. Third, you're assuming the military could somehow either kill everyone or outnumber the citizenry.

Potemkin wrote:Looks like the Afghan tribesmen didn't do too badly.... :)

Exactly, and we're 20 years into a war against the Taliban precisely because it's being led by people like late, who have no sense of humility whatsoever.

late wrote:When they aren't fighting foreign invaders, they are fighting each other.

Well, they've lasted 20 years against US forces, and the US will be leaving and they will be staying. So I think it's pretty clear that your argument fails.

late wrote:They are tougher than nails with an insane disregard for their lives.

We are the exact opposite.

Which is why you will lose against a determined enemy.

SaintButter wrote:I just feel like it's so undermined and outdated, that it's mostly an impediment to any productive conversation and legislation more than anything else.

Well, that's just capitulating to people who want to take away your rights.

Patrickov wrote:The concept of gun control does not go against it.

Gun control is all about preventing your right to keep and bear arms, so it is absolutely against the 2nd Amendment. People who want gun control do not want well-regulated people walking around with guns. They are terrified of guns.
#15161850
blackjack21 wrote:Gun control is all about preventing your right to keep and bear arms, so it is absolutely against the 2nd Amendment. People who want gun control do not want well-regulated people walking around with guns. They are terrified of guns.


The amendment does include the term "well-regulated". Lack of gun control goes against that term and is, arguably, against the amendment as well as undermining the moral citizens' rights to bear arms.

You effectively want to have the phease "well-regulated" removed from the amendment, and apparently you are in favour of mob rule.
#15161877
Patrickov wrote:Lack of gun control goes against that term and is, arguably, against the amendment as well as undermining the moral citizens' rights to bear arms.

Well-regulated cannot mean banning the right to keep and bear arms by the obvious language of the amendment. What good is a well-regulated militia if it is disarmed?

Patrickov wrote:You effectively want to have the phease "well-regulated" removed from the amendment, and apparently you are in favour of mob rule.

I have not called for removal of that phrase at all. I think people should carry guns. I am for open carry. I am for regular training in the use of guns.
#15161886
blackjack21 wrote:Well-regulated cannot mean banning the right to keep and bear arms by the obvious language of the amendment. What good is a well-regulated militia if it is disarmed?


I do not advocate disarmament, and disagree with your implication that "gun control" means that.


I have not called for removal of that phrase at all. I think people should carry guns. I am for open carry. I am for regular training in the use of guns.


Gun control is about the control on use of guns. What you say here is right, but I think it should be more than that.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 14

Guys: Do you know how Chávez won in Venezuela? H[…]

All of you are suckers. My money will keep me war[…]

Even beavers adapt their environment to their own[…]

Lots of conservatives are making the same claims.[…]