Why not?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Repeal the 2nd Amendment
- Thread starter Jayhawker Soule
- Start date
I think: The result would be the banishment of many civilian owned weapons and possibly civil fines and fees for owning or operating them. They could be treated like automobiles with required inspections.
In addition to weapons the government(s) could regulate the ability to produce weapons. For example the government could confiscate plans or forbid the design of new weapons. It could claim ownership and control of all ideas about weapons in a legal sense. For example it could become illegal to own the design of a weapon. At the moment all of these infringe the right to keep and bear arms, so the government may not implement any of these ideas.
In addition to weapons the government(s) could regulate the ability to produce weapons. For example the government could confiscate plans or forbid the design of new weapons. It could claim ownership and control of all ideas about weapons in a legal sense. For example it could become illegal to own the design of a weapon. At the moment all of these infringe the right to keep and bear arms, so the government may not implement any of these ideas.
Indeed, given the Court’s erroneous interpretation in Heller, repealing the Second Amendment, and enacting strict gun-control laws, is apparently the only way to reduce the outrageous levels of gun ownership in the US, which is a (or the) primary factor in the levels of gun violence in the US.
Justice Stevens, in his book Six Amendments, has recommended amending the Second Amendment by adding a single clause, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the militia shall not be infringed.” However, Congress controls the definition of “militia,” including who is included under that word, and the Court has specified extraordinarily limited requirements for “serving in” the militia. As it is (and if the majority on the Court had agreed with Stevens’ dissent in Heller), Congress could easily make the clause “when serving in the militia” to include every adult whose name is on a roster (e.g., a list of licensed gun-owners) and who practices shooting at a firing range once a decade. Stevens’ recommended clause is too easily subverted by a mischievous Congress.
If the Amendment can be amended, then it can and should be repealed. It is an obsolete provision from an era long gone.
Well said.
Oh please ...
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
Why?
What is the provision originally for, and what has changed?
This is a reasonable argument, but we are not there as a society yet. And we may never get there.
Look at this webpage on gun ownership. Which country has the most guns per capita ?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
Freedom. The US has a tradition that we should be allowed to defend ourselves using guns. It does not mean we should have the right to own automatic machine guns.
Further, if individuals do not have the right to bear arms, it allows for the possibility of a police state.
Last edited:
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
Agreed.
This feels like a thought crime. Ideas shouldn't be criminalized.
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
This is literally an appeal to tradition fallacy. Just because we've always done it that way isn't a good reason to continue doing it that way.
True. But I offered another rationale as well. Further, sometimes there is a reason that tradition holds for hundreds of years, although not always.
Apex
Somewhere Around Nothing
Because civil war? And yes, I believe repealing the 2nd amendment in the US would very likely cause another civil war. Same for the 1st amendment.
In the event that the government comes to be even more monopolized by corporate interests that do not serve the needs of its citizens, it sure would be nice to at least have the ability to organize a militia to rebel against such oppression (though one hardly needs guns to do such a thing).
On the whole, I really don't care about the 2nd amendment one way or another. If it's there, meh. If it is not, meh. Not a hill I care enough about to want to die on.
On the whole, I really don't care about the 2nd amendment one way or another. If it's there, meh. If it is not, meh. Not a hill I care enough about to want to die on.
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
Longevity isn't the best reason to continue a tradition. That's the an appeal to tradition is a fallacy. I don't care what they were doing 200 years ago, I care about the present. And presently, I see no reason to uphold the 2nd amendment anymore. Now, that isn't necessarily calling for a ban, it's just saying that owning guns shouldn't be a guaranteed right, more like a privilege like driving.
I don't trust government enuf to let only them be armed.
They're useful for self defense.
The lefties would just be too self satisfied if they had their way.
Actually, I am a leftie, and I oppose the repeal of the 2nd Amendment for the same reason as you.
Btw, did anyone notice Bernie Sanders position on gun control ?
Last edited:
No one has said it better or more succinctly than Justice Stevens in his Heller dissent:
The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.
In 1934, Congress enacted the National Firearms Act, the first major federal firearms law.[1] Upholding a conviction under that Act, this Court held that, “[ i ]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” Miller, 307 U. S., at 178. The view of the Amendment we took in Miller--that it protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but that it does not curtail the Legislature’s power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons--is both the most natural reading of the Amendment’s text and the interpretation most faithful to the history of its adoption.
Since our decision in Miller, hundreds of judges have relied on the view of the Amendment we endorsed there;[2] we ourselves affirmed it in 1980. See Lewis v. United States, 445 U. S. 55 , n. 8 (1980).[3] No new evidence has surfaced since 1980 supporting the view that the Amendment was intended to curtail the power of Congress to regulate civilian use or misuse of weapons. Indeed, a review of the drafting history of the Amendment demonstrates that its Framers rejected proposals that would have broadened its coverage to include such uses.
[. . .]
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”
The preamble to the Second Amendment makes three important points. It identifies the preservation of the militia as the Amendment’s purpose; it explains that the militia is necessary to the security of a free State; and it recognizes that the militia must be “well regulated.” In all three respects it is comparable to provisions in several State Declarations of Rights that were adopted roughly contemporaneously with the Declaration of Independence.[5] Those state provisions highlight the importance members of the founding generation attached to the maintenance of state militias; they also underscore the profound fear shared by many in that era of the dangers posed by standing armies.[6] While the need for state militias has not been a matter of significant public interest for almost two centuries, that fact should not obscure the contemporary concerns that animated the Framers.
The parallels between the Second Amendment and these state declarations, and the Second Amendment’s omission of any statement of purpose related to the right to use firearms for hunting or personal self-defense, is especially striking in light of the fact that the Declarations of Rights of Pennsylvania and Vermont did expressly protect such civilian uses at the time. Article XIII of Pennsylvania’s 1776 Declaration of Rights announced that “the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state,” 1 Schwartz 266 (emphasis added); §43 of the Declaration assured that “the inhabitants of this state shall have the liberty to fowl and hunt in seasonable times on the lands they hold, and on all other lands therein not inclosed,” id., at 274. And Article XV of the 1777 Vermont Declaration of Rights guaranteed “[t]hat the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State.” Id., at 324 (emphasis added). The contrast between those two declarations and the Second Amendment reinforces the clear statement of purpose announced in the Amendment’s preamble. It confirms that the Framers’ single-minded focus in crafting the constitutional guarantee “to keep and bear arms” was on military uses of firearms, which they viewed in the context of service in state militias.
In 1934, Congress enacted the National Firearms Act, the first major federal firearms law.[1] Upholding a conviction under that Act, this Court held that, “[ i ]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” Miller, 307 U. S., at 178. The view of the Amendment we took in Miller--that it protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but that it does not curtail the Legislature’s power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons--is both the most natural reading of the Amendment’s text and the interpretation most faithful to the history of its adoption.
Since our decision in Miller, hundreds of judges have relied on the view of the Amendment we endorsed there;[2] we ourselves affirmed it in 1980. See Lewis v. United States, 445 U. S. 55 , n. 8 (1980).[3] No new evidence has surfaced since 1980 supporting the view that the Amendment was intended to curtail the power of Congress to regulate civilian use or misuse of weapons. Indeed, a review of the drafting history of the Amendment demonstrates that its Framers rejected proposals that would have broadened its coverage to include such uses.
[. . .]
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”
The preamble to the Second Amendment makes three important points. It identifies the preservation of the militia as the Amendment’s purpose; it explains that the militia is necessary to the security of a free State; and it recognizes that the militia must be “well regulated.” In all three respects it is comparable to provisions in several State Declarations of Rights that were adopted roughly contemporaneously with the Declaration of Independence.[5] Those state provisions highlight the importance members of the founding generation attached to the maintenance of state militias; they also underscore the profound fear shared by many in that era of the dangers posed by standing armies.[6] While the need for state militias has not been a matter of significant public interest for almost two centuries, that fact should not obscure the contemporary concerns that animated the Framers.
The parallels between the Second Amendment and these state declarations, and the Second Amendment’s omission of any statement of purpose related to the right to use firearms for hunting or personal self-defense, is especially striking in light of the fact that the Declarations of Rights of Pennsylvania and Vermont did expressly protect such civilian uses at the time. Article XIII of Pennsylvania’s 1776 Declaration of Rights announced that “the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state,” 1 Schwartz 266 (emphasis added); §43 of the Declaration assured that “the inhabitants of this state shall have the liberty to fowl and hunt in seasonable times on the lands they hold, and on all other lands therein not inclosed,” id., at 274. And Article XV of the 1777 Vermont Declaration of Rights guaranteed “[t]hat the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State.” Id., at 324 (emphasis added). The contrast between those two declarations and the Second Amendment reinforces the clear statement of purpose announced in the Amendment’s preamble. It confirms that the Framers’ single-minded focus in crafting the constitutional guarantee “to keep and bear arms” was on military uses of firearms, which they viewed in the context of service in state militias.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html
Continue reading.