Is the second amendment archaic and needs to be repealed?

[Prometheus85]

The Second Amendment is indefensible policy for today's day and age. Guns have advanced far beyond what our founding fathers could have ever predicted. And the idea that we need the 2nd amendment in order to protect ourselves form a tyrannical government is laughable in The 21st century. The US government has never been dissolved since its inception, nor could even a well-armed populace hope to defeat the most powerful military on the planet should it ever choose to turn itself against the citizens it has sworn to protect. America is supposed to be the beacon of democracy, if this is true one would wonder what the citizens have to fear.

 

[leov]

The Second Amendment is indefensible policy for today's day and age. Guns have advanced far beyond what our founding fathers could have ever predicted. And the idea that we need the 2nd amendment in order to protect ourselves form a tyrannical government is laughable in The 21st century. The US government has never been dissolved since its inception, nor could even a well-armed populace hope to defeat the most powerful military on the planet should it ever choose to turn itself against the citizens it has sworn to protect. America is supposed to be the beacon of democracy, if this is true one would wonder what the citizens have to fear.

Looks like citizens can not rely on governmental protection and have to organize in local militias to maintain order.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Yes, it's very outdated. It always boggled my mind that gun ownership is a Constitutionally protected right but voting isn't. What a bizarre country.

 

[Stanyon]

The Second Amendment is indefensible policy for today's day and age. Guns have advanced far beyond what our founding fathers could have ever predicted. And the idea that we need the 2nd amendment in order to protect ourselves form a tyrannical government is laughable in The 21st century. The US government has never been dissolved since its inception, nor could even a well-armed populace hope to defeat the most powerful military on the planet should it ever choose to turn itself against the citizens it has sworn to protect. America is supposed to be the beacon of democracy, if this is true one would wonder what the citizens have to fear.

This matter was decided in 2008 by the SCOTUS, they determined that the second ammendment was meant to protect the individual right to keep and bear arms.

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia

"The Supreme Court held: (1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

I know you want to argue your points within the narrow parametres you have presented but it's already been decided.

 

[Stanyon]

It always boggled my mind that gun ownership is a Constitutionally protected right but voting isn't. What a bizarre country.

If you are convicted felon you are barred from legally owning a firearm and voting, you can go through the process to attempt to get your rights restored in both cases but it is not guaranteed.

 

[dybmh]

Maybe not repealed; but, I do support the idea that the "well armed militia" was intended to be something closer to National Guard, and not a couple neighbors protecting their property.

Thom Hartmann ( author/activist ) details this position quite well. He argues that the phrase "well armed militia" is defined in the Articles of Confederation 6 months prior the Constitution.

 

[dybmh]

Looks like citizens can not rely on governmental protection and have to organize in local militias to maintain order.

Compare America to Somalia... Pah-lease...

Edit to add:

 

[shmogie]

The Second Amendment is indefensible policy for today's day and age. Guns have advanced far beyond what our founding fathers could have ever predicted. And the idea that we need the 2nd amendment in order to protect ourselves form a tyrannical government is laughable in The 21st century. The US government has never been dissolved since its inception, nor could even a well-armed populace hope to defeat the most powerful military on the planet should it ever choose to turn itself against the citizens it has sworn to protect. America is supposed to be the beacon of democracy, if this is true one would wonder what the citizens have to fear.

There were firearms at the time of the Founders that fired multiple rounds. The Founders knew of these. they weren't in common use because of expense. Nevertheless, these firearms through different mechanisms, were no different from firearms of today in firing rounds by by repeatedly pulling the trigger.

I suggest you talk to to an American soldier who has served in Afghanistan about the mightiest country on earth and people in revolt. The Taliban primarily uses small arms, and home made mines. The most powerful nation on earth has not defeated them in 17 years.

Further, urban warfare voids such things as tanks, and other sophisticated hardware. It is small arms against small arms.

In the Federalist papers and elsewhere the Founders make it clear that Americans have the right to revolt under a tyrannical government.

So, your first two points are simply wrong.

Your final point is wrong as well. A Republic is not genetically programmed to always be a Republic. From the very beginning there have been pressures both outside and inside to change the Republic to something else. This is true today.

Benjamin Franklin said " We have given you a Republic, see if you can keep it".

So, I find your post simply wrong, and the expressed ideas dangerous.

The very first thing tyrants do is disarm the populace. It will not happen in the US without a titanic struggle, one justified by the Founders.

The right to self defense is a God given right, and it is expressed as clearly as possible in the Constitution.

 

[shmogie]

Maybe not repealed; but, I do support the idea that the "well armed militia" was intended to be something closer to National Guard, and not a couple neighbors protecting their property.

Thom Hartmann ( author/activist ) details this position quite well. He argues that the phrase "well armed militia" is defined in the Articles of Confederation 6 months prior the Constitution.

The articles of confederation mean absolutely nothing. They were found totally inadequate, and replaced.

How do you deal with the statement, "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Militias come from the people.

The PEOPLE means all the people, period.

 

[dybmh]

@leov ,

I noticed that you rated my post 'optimistic'.

FYI. This is not a joke. The information I posted about Somalia is from the US State Department. It is well known that it is unsafe to travel to Somalia. That is NOT an optimistic assessment. It's objective.

People in Somalia need guns to protect themselves. People in America do not.

Civil unrest occurs throughout Somalia and can sometimes be violent.
Medical facilities across Somalia are often nonexistent in rural areas.
Pirates are active especially in the international waters near Somalia.

hyperlink >>> dept.state.gov - Somalia Travel Advisory

Note: Violent civil unrest without access to medical care, and Pirates are active in the area. That's an area where "Looks like citizens can not rely on governmental protection and have to organize in local militias to maintain order." as you put it.

If it looks like this in America, where are you? What are you seeing in America that is similar to the description of the situation in Somalia?

 

[Nakosis]

America is supposed to be the beacon of democracy, if this is true one would wonder what the citizens have to fear.

The government taking away our freedom to own guns.

 

[columbus]

People in Somalia need guns to protect themselves. People in America do not.

You know why?
Because Somalia is the sort of small government theocracy that many Americans aspire to live in.

But I don't see them moving there.
Tom

 

[Prometheus85]

Looks like citizens can not rely on governmental protection and have to organize in local militias to maintain order.

elaborate

 

[sun rise]

This matter was decided in 2008 by the SCOTUS, they determined that the second ammendment was meant to protect the individual right to keep and bear arms.

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia

"The Supreme Court held: (1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

I know you want to argue your points within the narrow parametres you have presented but it's already been decided.

It can be changed. Stare decisis is a legal concept but SCOTUS has overruled precedents in the past and may do so in the future.

 

[PureX]

The Second Amendment is indefensible policy for today's day and age. Guns have advanced far beyond what our founding fathers could have ever predicted. And the idea that we need the 2nd amendment in order to protect ourselves form a tyrannical government is laughable in The 21st century. The US government has never been dissolved since its inception, nor could even a well-armed populace hope to defeat the most powerful military on the planet should it ever choose to turn itself against the citizens it has sworn to protect. America is supposed to be the beacon of democracy, if this is true one would wonder what the citizens have to fear.

It needs to be totally re-written so that it makes sense in the modern world. But we cannot do that because vested interests on all sides will try and commandeer the process so they can re-write the amendment to serve their own agenda. So we're stuck with what we've got.

 

[robocop (actually)]

The Second Amendment is indefensible policy for today's day and age. Guns have advanced far beyond what our founding fathers could have ever predicted. And the idea that we need the 2nd amendment in order to protect ourselves form a tyrannical government is laughable in The 21st century. The US government has never been dissolved since its inception, nor could even a well-armed populace hope to defeat the most powerful military on the planet should it ever choose to turn itself against the citizens it has sworn to protect. America is supposed to be the beacon of democracy, if this is true one would wonder what the citizens have to fear.

Actually, the word in the second ammendment is arm, meaning firearm. A firearm is defined like a simple gun (look it up yourself), so whether or not the founding fathers knew the future they actually got it right!

 

[Prometheus85]

There were firearms at the time of the Founders that fired multiple rounds. The Founders knew of these. they weren't in common use because of expense. Nevertheless, these firearms through different mechanisms, were no different from firearms of today in firing rounds by by repeatedly pulling the trigger.

I suggest you talk to to an American soldier who has served in Afghanistan about the mightiest country on earth and people in revolt. The Taliban primarily uses small arms, and home made mines. The most powerful nation on earth has not defeated them in 17 years.

Further, urban warfare voids such things as tanks, and other sophisticated hardware. It is small arms against small arms.

In the Federalist papers and elsewhere the Founders make it clear that Americans have the right to revolt under a tyrannical government.

So, your first two points are simply wrong.

Your final point is wrong as well. A Republic is not genetically programmed to always be a Republic. From the very beginning there have been pressures both outside and inside to change the Republic to something else. This is true today.

Benjamin Franklin said " We have given you a Republic, see if you can keep it".

So, I find your post simply wrong, and the expressed ideas dangerous.

The very first thing tyrants do is disarm the populace. It will not happen in the US without a titanic struggle, one justified by the Founders.

The right to self defense is a God given right, and it is expressed as clearly as possible in the Constitution.

1st name of these firearms form the 18th century that’s the same asa afire arm today.

second in order for your argument to carry weight, the citizenry must be as well- or better-armed than the government there is a saying that "A well-armed populace is the best defense against tyranny." This can be read as a slightly more legal way of saying "we need guns in case the President ever gets too powerful and we have to shoot him." It deserves some consideration, although one could argue that if people were prepared to use their guns to revolt against the President, it would have happened by now.

 

[Prometheus85]

So you think the US military machine should be allowed to further monopolize it's power because you think it's already unstoppable?

Liberals are wild

monopolize it’s power on whom? And people argue the second amendment is needed just in case the government goes crazy. How are I and your rag tag army going to go up against the most technologically advanced military on the planet?

 

[Prometheus85]

Actually, the word in the second ammendment is arm, meaning firearm. A firearm is defined like a simple gun (look it up yourself), so whether or not the founding fathers knew the future they actually got it right!

It is obvious that the Second Amendment refers to the following within the 18th century context it was written in:

• The need for a regulated militia which is
• necessary for the security of the state
• and to maintain this militia an armed citizenry is needed and
• consequently the citizens need to be allowed to both keep and bear arms.

 

[Prometheus85]

@leov ,

I noticed that you rated my post 'optimistic'.

FYI. This is not a joke. The information I posted about Somalia is from the US State Department. It is well known that it is unsafe to travel to Somalia. That is NOT an optimistic assessment. It's objective.

People in Somalia need guns to protect themselves. People in America do not.

Civil unrest occurs throughout Somalia and can sometimes be violent.
Medical facilities across Somalia are often nonexistent in rural areas.
Pirates are active especially in the international waters near Somalia.

hyperlink >>> dept.state.gov - Somalia Travel Advisory

Note: Violent civil unrest without access to medical care, and Pirates are active in the area. That's an area where "Looks like citizens can not rely on governmental protection and have to organize in local militias to maintain order." as you put it.

If it looks like this in America, where are you? What are you seeing in America that is similar to the description of the situation in Somalia?

I wasn’t aware that’s what’s happening in Somalia is happening in America....