Is the second amendment archaic and needs to be repealed?

[robocop (actually)]

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.

That was the rationale to get it passed. All they wanted to do was enforce the right to bear arms. That was the argument to get it done.

 

[shmogie]

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.

The Puckle rifle, The Ferguson rifle. the Girodoni air rifle, deadly to 150 yards, there was a matchlock arquebus that had a revolving cylinder of eleven rounds in the 1500's. The others all existed before the revolution. The are not the same as guns today. They are totally different. Yet the end result is the same, a round fired by by pulling the trigger, multiple times without reloading.

The institutions and functions of the Republic have always operated ( except perhaps under Lincoln during the Civil War) as designed, past and present.

 

[leov]

elaborate

E.g. How many shootings we had lately?

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

I would say merely reinterpreted. I don't mind weapons for self defense. The weapons used at mass shootings tend to be rifles with ridiculous sized magazines. Those are not needed for self defense. In the past the right of the public to own fully automatic rifles was extremely limited. We need to do the same for large capacity magazines.

And perhaps we need laws making families more responsible for their gun care and storage. Plus add mental illness as a reason to not allow gun sales. Though that gets tricky. I think that the existing laws can be supplemented and tweaked. No need to throw out the baby with the bath water.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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?

That is a rather poor argument for gun ownership these days Though the pro-Trumpers do make me have doubts at times. Ironically they are the ones most likely to have guns.

 

[dybmh]

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

Exactly.

 

[esmith]

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.

Well now you say the Second Amendment is indefensible policy since firearms have advanced far beyond what our founding fathers could have predicted. Do you also say the the First Amendment is indefensible policy for today's day and age? When the Constitution was written was there radio, television, and the internet? The answer is no, therefore is not the First Amendment out of date since the founding fathers only knew about speech and newspapers? Using your logic it would seem so.

 

[dybmh]

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.

I deal with it by saying: "Right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness."

Our kids have to do active-shooter drills. They ( kindergartners ) are trained how to react in this situation. That's messed. And innocent children have died. Why? To protect the right of people to keep and bear arms?

That's my response. Right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is at least as important as the right to bear arms.

That's why there's a stalemate, IMHO.

Question: If the Articles of Confederation are deemed relevant... just suppose... do you think it could be used to prohibit people from stock piling ammunition?

 

[Prometheus85]

The Puckle rifle, The Ferguson rifle. the Girodoni air rifle, deadly to 150 yards, there was a matchlock arquebus that had a revolving cylinder of eleven rounds in the 1500's. The others all existed before the revolution. The are not the same as guns today. They are totally different. Yet the end result is the same, a round fired by by pulling the trigger, multiple times without reloading.

The institutions and functions of the Republic have always operated ( except perhaps under Lincoln during the Civil War) as designed, past and present.

So u falsely compared guns form the18th century to guns form the 21st century. Glad we got that out of the way.

Also your implying the drafters of the second amendment saw the future of weapons technology. It’s also interesting you bring up the civil war because these militias that were left over after the revolutionary war would be used to patrol slave states in the south, to make sure slaves don't commit the "crime" of fleeing their abusive masters. In essence the 2nd amendment was also designed to preserve slavery.

 

[dybmh]

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

It's laissez-faire law enforcement....

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

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.

America's not supposed to be a democracy at all. Perhaps that is why it is important to keep our guns.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[esmith]

So u falsely compared guns form the18th century to guns form the 21st century. Glad we got that out of the way.

Also your implying the drafters of the second amendment saw the future of weapons technology.

Answer post #29 please

 

[Skwim]

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's as if the Constitution had been rewritten to read:

.
.
.
First Amendment
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”​

Second Amendment
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Third Amendment
"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

Fourth Ame. . . .​

.​

 

[shmogie]

So u falsely compared guns form the18th century to guns form the 21st century. Glad we got that out of the way.

Also your implying the drafters of the second amendment saw the future of weapons technology. It’s also interesting you bring up the civil war because these militias that were left over after the revolutionary war would be used to patrol slave states in the south, to make sure slaves don't commit the "crime" of fleeing their abusive masters. In essence the 2nd amendment was also designed to preserve slavery.

I accurately compared guns from the 18th century to those of the 21'st century. The Founders wrote with a quill, and you write with a ball point, isn't the end result the same, handwriting ?

You aren't familiar with firearms I see.

Regardless of the mechanism used, archaic or not, 1776 or 2019, they deliver a round, at each pull of the trigger repeatedly in series, got it ?

Law enforcement types enforced slavery laws, militia's rarely did. Your point being what ? The Founders wrote the second amendment to control slaves ? That is nonsense. They could have been controlled by crossbows or clubs. When one has a weapon of any kind, and the other does not, the one with the weapon has an advantage.

I suggest you read the Founders writings re the 2nd Amendment, and see if slavery was the reason for their writing of the amendment, unless you think they are liars too.

I will let your accusing me of false statements go, this time, because you lack understanding of firearms.

Do it again, to the ignore list you go.

 

[shmogie]

I deal with it by saying: "Right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness."

Our kids have to do active-shooter drills. They ( kindergartners ) are trained how to react in this situation. That's messed. And innocent children have died. Why? To protect the right of people to keep and bear arms?

That's my response. Right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is at least as important as the right to bear arms.

That's why there's a stalemate, IMHO.

Question: If the Articles of Confederation are deemed relevant... just suppose... do you think it could be used to prohibit people from stock piling ammunition?

No. Ammunition is a product. Could the articles be used to stop the stockpiling of rat poison ?

Firearms are inanimate things. A loaded one will not jump up and shoot someone in a million years.

When I was a kid school shootings were unheard of, and you could obtain firearms much more easily, through the mail, or over the counter, no background check required.

So, Firearms haven't changed, what has ?

It is a total copout to blame the second amendment for the monsters society is creating. It is like blaming the pen for misspelled words.

America is a sick society, and trying to blame the law abiding firearms owner for it is nonsense. Why not blame cars for drunk drivers ?

 

[dybmh]

No. Ammunition is a product. Could the articles be used to stop the stockpiling of rat poison ?

Firearms are inanimate things. A loaded one will not jump up and shoot someone in a million years.

When I was a kid school shootings were unheard of, and you could obtain firearms much more easily, through the mail, or over the counter, no background check required.

So, Firearms haven't changed, what has ?

It is a total copout to blame the second amendment for the monsters society is creating. It is like blaming the pen for misspelled words.

America is a sick society, and trying to blame the law abiding firearms owner for it is nonsense. Why not blame cars for drunk drivers ?

I'm just trying to be practical. I'm not trying to blame anyone.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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.

Yes and the middle East is a bunch of goat herders with AK-47s and a few RPGs.

Guns are there to keep things in check
because any government can and will eventually resort to totalitarianism if left unchallenged.

The UK is a pretty good example of that. Especially Britain , where its already a vast and oppressive surveillance state that has already broken International human rights laws.

Canada is just starting down that road. The US is much slower , but it is getting to that point accelerated by the efforts of the Socialist Democrats.

Truth be told it will never happen here now because people know there will likely be a resistance if the government comes after people's guns. .. for the Next generation or two however....

I can't say what the Millennials and subsequent Generations will be like once they take over and are in charge, to which I would think they will just raise up their arms in subservience and just give everything over to the government in its entirety including their freedoms and liberties.

I'll be long dead by then and frankly I don't care. It will be their own world from that point on.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Yeah it was supposed to be a white slave state where men owned their wives.

Perhaps you shouldn't be satisfied with what America was "supposed" to be.

I am more satisfied as to what it was and is supposed to be then what it is.

Those who formed our government feared democracy. They saw it as leading to nothing but anarchy. How insightful they were.

This alone is enough reason to maintain your firearms. This country is on the brink of a civil war. The division is the liberal left atheist and the conservative right Christian. It is the liberal left that resorts to mob violence. It is the liberal left that want guns taken from Americans.

Americans probably won't need a militia and guns to defend them from America. They will need them to defend themselves from roving bands of mobs attacking at will, once law and order breaks down.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Shad]

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.

Cite claimed predictions otherwise this is projection.

And the idea that we need the 2nd amendment in order to protect ourselves form a tyrannical government is laughable in The 21st century.

Assertion. Argument from absurdity

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.

Afghanistan....

 

[Shad]

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.

Assertion of context being restricted to the 18th century.