The 2nd Amendment

[Jayhawker Soule]

The 2nd Amendment reads:

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.​

Is it still relevant?

 

[Reverend Rick]

Now more than ever.

 

[Revoltingest]

I vote yah!

 

[Riverwolf]

While I'm not in favor of banning guns altogether, despite my hatred for them, I don't know enough at this time to say whether the amendment's cited reason (necessity of a well-organized militia to state security) is still relevant.

But in Germania, the symbol of the Free Man was the sword, and this is what I've taken to be true, as well. As I would never want swords to be banned, those who prefer guns ought to have the same right to bear them. Therefore, I voted "other" for now: the right itself ought to stand, but I don't know about the cited reason.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The 2nd Amendment reads:

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.​

Is it still relevant?

I think the inherent assumption in that is that an armed citizenry is capable of overthrowing the government, and that this is a check on tyranny.

I do not think that the armed citizens of the United Stated could overthrow their government, so none of the rest follows.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think the inherent assumption in that is that an armed citizenry is capable of overthrowing the government, and that this is a check on tyranny.
I do not think that the armed citizens of the United Stated could overthrow their government, so none of the rest follows.

Of course, it needn't be as stark as a bunch'o armed citizens against the full might of the US gov.
Complete overthrow isn't necessary in order to effect change.
Also, it's likely that many military types would side with citizens against the government if it became tyrannical.

 

[Musty]

America doesn't seem to be any better off in regards to it's government with guns than other countries are without guns.

 

[Revoltingest]

America doesn't seem to be any better off in regards to it's government with guns than other countries are without guns.

If not better than all others, at least better than most.

 

[freethinker44]

I don't think we have a necessity for a militia, well regulated or not, we just aren't in that stage of development as a nation. I don't see a good reason to ban all guns though, however, I don't see a good reason to be able to own weapons that were only designed to hurt people, aside from them being ridiculously fun to shoot.

 

[Musty]

If not better than all others, at least better than most.

I don't think number of guns ownership in the population correlates with quality of government.

 

[freethinker44]

If not better than all others, at least better than most.

Better than most developing nations anyways. Not so great amongst our peers though.

 

[Alex_G]

The 2nd Amendment reads:

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.​

Is it still relevant?

A well regulated militia, ok sure, the key words being the qualifying phrase ‘well regulated’. A right to bear arms shall not be infringed is in itself, without any qualifications or sub clauses, indefensible in my opinion. Shall not be infringed sends the message that no situation or contextual information can in principle justify the denial of certain people access to guns. That to me seems an extreme position, requiring some equally extreme defence, far more than an appeal to a short sentance in the constitution.


In my view the worry with a written constitution is that it is in danger of being too inflexible and resilient to change. I would worry that there is risk (especially if religiously affiliated, or affiliated with religiously skewed people) that it be almost worshiped to the point of being scripture, which will hinder unbiased review of its content, justification and applicability to an ever changing world. Its hallowed status being the driving force and weight behind any aversion to proposals of change, rather than reason.


I understand and agree with the defence of liberty, where possible in all walks of life. I would expect such a consideration in any just system of governance. There are however pretty good reasons to regulate certain things. If one holds the position that absolute liberty trumps all other considerations when it comes to guns, then why does it not apply to all aspects of life in a given society, such as alcohol or drug use or even tax? I think there is some degree of naivety and hypocrisy to demand such absolution in policy regarding one thing (gun control) and at the same time be content in limited liberties in other aspects of society. Such uncompromising allowance for guns belongs in a society content with being in a state of nature where such a political outlook is maintained throughout and each is on their own maximum in liberty, but without regulation or protection.


It is a reality that the USA has matured a gun lax environment, and as a result is in quite a contrast with other countries like the UK. One could claim certain superiorities held by these gun controlled countries pertaining to crime, safety, and mortality rates. However to change things now, and to do so quickly might not be the best plan, it might even be catastrophic, but that is a separate consideration to the one pertaining to the original legitimacy of the policy currently in place.
Even if it were clearly and successfully reasoned that greater gun control was a better policy overall, it still might be the wrong move to suddenly make a radical policy change in a country that thrives on gun freedom, a country that through its constitution emotionally and patriotically identifies with such a state of affairs, (whether that’s a good and healthy thing or not…)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Of course, it needn't be as stark as a bunch'o armed citizens against the full might of the US gov.
Complete overthrow isn't necessary in order to effect change.

What sort of weaponry would you have needed to have kept habeas corpus from being compromised?

Also, it's likely that many military types would side with citizens against the government if it became tyrannical.

Well, if enough of the military's on your side, then why the need for guns of your own? Do you bring your own Bible to church?

 

[tumbleweed41]

I voted no. Although I would prefer an amendment that not only repealed the second amendment, but also protected the rights of law abiding citizens to keep certain firearms according to federal regulations.

 

[Ouroboros]

It's a relevant idea. The ability for the people to resist the government if it becomes corrupt is part of the balance of powers. But... I'm not sure it would help anymore. If the president would declare martial law, it wouldn't help whatever weapons civilians have.

 

[Katzpur]

The 2nd Amendment reads:

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.
​

Is it still relevant?

Actually, I'm embarrased to admit that I never knew exactly how it read. Now I've got to give my answer (which was "other") a little more thought.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The 2nd Amendment reads:

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.​

Is it still relevant?

Yes. It's still an important amendment.

 

[Skwim]

America doesn't seem to be any better off in regards to it's government with guns than other countries are without guns.

It isn't. But US gun ownership does send the message that despite our enviable position in the world, by some anyway, we're far from perfect. Widespread gun ownership is no plus for the country. As you say, it does nothing for the country, at least no more than so than rap music.

 

[Skwim]

Yes. It's still an important amendment.

In what way?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I voted no. Although I would prefer an amendment that not only repealed the second amendment, but also protected the rights of law abiding citizens to keep certain firearms according to federal regulations.

My right to own weapons should be no more sacred than my rights to own pop tarts. Neither should warrant a unique constitutional amendment and neither should be unjustifiable infringed upon.