Repeal the 2nd Amendment

[Jake1001]

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.

Gun ownership is a privilege. It requires licensing, like a drivers license.

 

[Revoltingest]

Actually, I am a leftie, and I oppose the repeal of the 2nd Amendment for the same reason as you.

Woo hoo!
I love the smell of detente in the evening!

Btw, did anyone notice Bernie Sanders position on gun control ?

I did hear that on NPR while driving today!
Today, the world just seemed to be getting better & better.

I'm sure it will disappoint me tomorrow, but I'll enjoy this while I can.

 

[Revoltingest]

Gun ownership is a privilege. It requires licensing.

I disagree only slightly.
Gun ownership is a right. It requires licensing (of some).

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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.

^ silly

 

[Nous]

This is a reasonable argument, but we are not there as a society yet. And we may never get there.

Sadly I agree that we are not there yet, and we may never get there. And even if we do someday get there, it apparently won't be before hundreds of thousands of more Americans are slaughtered.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I don't trust government enuf to let only them be armed.

So you want your handgun just in case the government, with its tanks and rockets and jets and bombers and ..., gets out of hand. Got it

 

[Nous]

Gun ownership is a right.

The Heller Court did not make such a broad claim. The decision really only applies to handguns (and disassembly/trigger-lock requirements when there is no provision for self-defense--which is not a problem with the trigger-lock/safe-storage laws in San Francisco, NYC, Albany and Massachusetts).

 

[BSM1]

Gun ownership is a privilege. It requires licensing, like a drivers license.

No license is required in most cases just to own a gun, only a permit for concealed carry.

 

[Jake1001]

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.​

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html

Continue reading.

Good article. It advocates for gun control. It does not advocate for repeal of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Nous]

They're useful for self defense.

Then why are so many people who own guns (and sometimes possess guns in their hands) killed?

 

[Revoltingest]

So you want your handgun just in case the government, with its tanks and rockets and jets and bombers and ..., gets out of hand. Got it

Oh, no....that's when I want my M1A Supermatch or my 300 WM Remmington 40X or my 338 Lapua.....well, you get the picture.
A sidearm is strictly for close quarter situations.

 

[Nous]

Good article. It advocates for gun control. It does not advocate for repeal of the 2nd Amendment.

That's correct. Stevens and the three joiners merely advocated for the correct interpretation of the Amendment.

 

[Jake1001]

No license is required in most cases just to own a gun, only a permit for concealed carry.

Good point. I was shocked when I reviewed the State by State laws on this. I do believe gun ownership should be highly regulated. Many states have conceal and carry and open carry laws.

 

[Curious George]

Why not?

Because implicit in a right to life is the right to protect ones life, hence self defense. Strict gun laws impede ones ability to choose amongst defense measures. The government does not have a duty to protect the individual. Only the individual has a duty to protect his or her self. Guns are instruments that are used to such an end.

 

[Revoltingest]

The Heller Court did not make such a broad claim.

I'm making my own claim, the constitutional argument for which I've detailed in some of the many many other gun threads.

The decision really only applies to handguns (and disassembly/trigger-lock requirements when there is no provision for self-defense--which is not a problem with the trigger-lock/safe-storage laws in San Francisco, NYC, Albany and Massachusetts).

I'm a gun safe guy.....don't use no stink'n trigger locks.

 

[Nous]

Oh, no....that's when I want my M1A Supermatch or my 300 WM Remmington 40X or my 338 Lapua.....

And who do you think will win in that battle--you or the US government? (See Waco and the Branch Dravidians for a good example of citizens battling the government.)

 

[Revoltingest]

Then why are so many people who own guns (and sometimes possess guns in their hands) killed?

Some people just don't give the matter proper attention.
I've far more training than most (former competitive shooter, captain of high school rifle team, etc).
I place a lot of importance on this.

 

[Curious George]

That's correct. Stevens and the three joiners merely advocated for the correct interpretation of the Amendment.

Correct in that you agree with it? Or are you going on a rant about how they ignored stare decisis?

 

[Jake1001]

Open carry gun laws:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_carry_in_the_United_States

 

[Revoltingest]

And who do you think will win in that battle--you or the US government? (See Waco and the Branch Dravidians for a good example of citizens battling the government.)

One must limit one's joining the revolution to those very rare times when it's worthwhile & popular.
And one must pick one's battles wisely.
Those were monstrously bad choices.