What if the Second Amendment Were Repealed?

[Saint Frankenstein]

I assume there are specific mechanisms in place to alter or abolish a government, because otherwise any group of people deeming the government to be against their rights would just try to undermine it through vigilantism or illegal means (e.g., the January 6 insurrectionists).

The US legal system has been increasingly looking tenuous and flawed in the last several years, though, and this is something many analysts both from the US and elsewhere have commented on. I have to wonder how well the Founding Fathers' vision of protecting rights would even work out in practice should it need to be implemented today.

You do realize that this country was founded through a bloody revolution, right? The Founders were political revolutionaries, and took up arms. Did you think they just voted the British out and the British just left in embarrassment?

Now there is a part in the Declaration that warns against doing this on a whim:

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

However:

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Yes, we have an inherent right to overthrow abusive governments when other recourses have failed. That's the right of all humans.

 

[Revoltingest]

You do realize that this country was founded through a bloody revolution, right? The Founders were political revolutionaries, and took up arms. Did you think they just voted the British out and the British just left in embarrassment?

Now there is a part in the Declaration that warns against doing this on a whim:

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

However:

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Yes, we have an inherent right to overthrow abusive governments when other recourses have failed. That's the right of all humans.

A government that could carve up the Bill Of Rights
by fiat would indeed be seen as worthy of overthrow.

 

[averageJOE]

I think if the 2nd Amendment were repealed...

...the Government would make an example out of the first group of people who attempted to resist, striking immense fear in the rest of the country. People would then hand over their guns willingly, as federal and local law enforcement agencies would be willing and eager enforce the new law. The "war on guns" would begin.

 

[Debater Slayer]

By asking the question about "theocrats", I'd
expect little objection to removing separation.
Your question is rather tautological.
Why ask it?

I'm asking it as an illustration of how easy it could be for freedoms and rights to backslide.

There are millions of theocratically minded Americans. The idea that the US population would necessarily be up in arms (literally) over loss of rights seems questionable to me—at least unless the loss of those rights would affect the vast majority. Instead, I would expect such resistance to be selective and limited to specific issues (e.g., gun ownership).

 

[Debater Slayer]

You do realize that this country was founded through a bloody revolution, right? The Founders were political revolutionaries, and took up arms. Did you think they just voted the British out and the British just left in embarrassment?

Now there is a part in the Declaration that warns against doing this on a whim:

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

However:

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Yes, we have an inherent right to overthrow abusive governments when other recourses have failed. That's the right of all humans.

I can't think of a single country today that hasn't experienced bloody revolution at one point or another, and I know the US is the same.

I'd primarily be interested to know the specific thresholds defining "light and transient causes" or a "long train of abuses and usurpations." I would assume interpretation of each could be quite complicated in a legal context.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I think if the 2nd Amendment were repealed...

...the Government would make an example out of the first group of people who attempted to resist, striking immense fear in the rest of the country. People would then hand over their guns willingly, as federal and local law enforcement agencies would be willing and eager enforce the new law. The "war on guns" would begin.

That would be a terrifying scenario, in my opinion. I think violently enforcing a blanket ban on guns could prove to be an even bigger source of bloodshed than the current level of access to guns.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm asking it as an illustration of how easy it could be for freedoms and rights to backslide.

Your scenario doesn't look so easy.
Nay....the easier way to lose rights is to not
care about them, & then they're taken away
by due process.

There are millions of theocratically minded Americans.

So? There are millions of many kinds of groups.
I don't see what point you're making.

The idea that the US population would necessarily be up in arms (literally) over loss of rights seems questionable to me—at least unless the loss of those rights would affect the vast majority. Instead, I would expect such resistance to be selective and limited to specific issues (e.g., gun ownership).

The more important the right lost,
the greater the reaction.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Your scenario doesn't look so easy.
Nay....the easier way to lose rights is to not
care about them, & then they're taken away
by due process.

Almost everyone cares about some rights more than other rights. Joe Colter who loves his guns might not have batted an eye at abortion bans, but he would be outraged if he had to give up his revolver.

So? There are millions of many kinds of groups.
I don't see what point you're making.

My point is that violent resistance to a repeal of the Second Amendment would probably be more a function of the most affected demographic's passion for that specific freedom than a general concern for rights on their part.

The more important the right lost,
the greater the reaction.

The importance of a right seems to me a highly subjective value judgment, as in Joe Colter's example above. For instance, reproductive rights are of much greater concern to a lot of people than the ability to own a firearm, yet I think it would be highly unlikely to see a nationwide violent reaction to reversal of protection for access to abortion or contraceptives.

 

[Revoltingest]

Almost everyone cares about some rights more than other rights. Joe Colter who loves his guns might not have batted an eye at abortion bans, but he would be outraged if he had to give up his revolver.

Of course.

My point is that violent resistance to a repeal of the Second Amendment would probably be more a function of the most affected demographic's passion for that specific freedom than a general concern for rights on their part.

I think you underestimate the general reaction
to government's seizing unconstitutional power
to eliminate a right by fiat.
But even though some would greet such
authoritarianism with cheers, there are very
many gun owners. Such illegality would be
met with vigorous & sustained opposition.

The importance of a right seems to me a highly subjective value judgment, as in Joe Colter's example above. For instance, reproductive rights are of much greater concern to a lot of people than the ability to own a firearm, yet I think it would be highly unlikely to see a nationwide violent reaction to reversal of protection for access to abortion or contraceptives.

Of course it's subjective.
But this doesn't mean acquiescence
by those who value the right lost.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

while it is true that the militia was originally considered all white able bodied men, the right to keep and bear arms was noted as the people’s right. People as you know includes women.

But not blacks or Native Americans. I'm aware.

 

[Curious George]

But not blacks or Native Americans. I'm aware.

I am not sure there was any federal legislation against native Americans or blacks owning guns. Do you know of any?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I am not sure there was any federal legislation against native Americans or blacks owning guns. Do you know of any?

That's an interesting way to frame the question.

With relation to blacks, no. As far as I am aware there aren't specific federal laws banning ownership. These resided at the state level in various guises.

Sullivan Act - Wikipedia

The NRA Supported Gun Control When the Black Panthers Had the Weapons

As regards Native Americans, it's not direct laws banning their right to bear arms, but rather their exclusion from the Second Amendment entirely.
It was 1968 before parts of the Bill of Rights were applied to Native Americans...and the Second Amendment was not.

 

[Curious George]

That's an interesting way to frame the question.

With relation to blacks, no. As far as I am aware there aren't specific federal laws banning ownership. These resided at the state level in various guises.

Sullivan Act - Wikipedia

The NRA Supported Gun Control When the Black Panthers Had the Weapons

As regards Native Americans, it's not direct laws banning their right to bear arms, but rather their exclusion from the Second Amendment entirely.
It was 1968 before parts of the Bill of Rights were applied to Native Americans...and the Second Amendment was not.

I think it is important to note that there are no such federal laws. All of the bill of rights were directed towards the federal government. This means that when the second amendment was drafted, none of the people involved assumed that guns could not be regulated. The purpose of the second amendment was to ensure that the federal government could not create legislation that infringed on the People’s right.

Later the 13th Amendment was passed and due to concerns about African American rights, the 14rh Amendment was passed 3 years later.

this 14th amendment was originally read as only pertaining to that end, but was expanded over the course of time. Through the 14th amendment much of the bill of rights has been incorporated. The second amendment is among those (though it was not until relatively recently in 2010).

I do not think it was a fair criticism to suggest that there was no justification for women or elderly to keep and bear arms. I noted that the drafters could have used the words “the militia’s right” but instead used the words “the people’s rights.”

Not sure how we got on this tangent. You’re asserted that given the definition of a militia, there was no justification for women or the elderly to have firearms. I suggested this wasn’t true because the right to which the constitution referred was the people’s right not the militia’s right. Shall I assume you agree that there is justification or are you still proposing there is not justification. Perhaps I don’t understand what you are trying to convey at all.

 

[crossfire]

There are many liberals against the Second Amendment, though, so I do wonder what the overall reaction would be among more liberal parts of the population.

I would question the liberality of such ones who would remove such a restraint against the government. This is an authoritarian stance, not a liberal one. It's not even progressive, which would crack down on gun producers and add specific gun control measures. This is purely authoritarian.

The idea that some people would be willing to kill law enforcement officials over a repeal of the Second Amendment sounds both alien and disturbing to me, but I suppose every culture has something it would be especially touchy about losing. I think legalizing "blasphemy" could elicit a similarly violent reaction in some parts of the Muslim world, for instance.

I'm not talking about people killing law enforcement officials, by any means. Law enforcement officials would have had nothing to do with repealing the second amendment.

I think there's evidence that many wouldn't be so ready to engage in violence over the loss of a perceived right, though. The reversal of Roe v. Wade and consequent abortion bans in about half of the US seem to me an example of this.

Roe v Wade was a Supreme Court decision that was then reversed by the Supreme Court. We are talking about messing with the actual Bill of Rights here, which is a big deal with more grave consequences.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I can't think of a single country today that hasn't experienced bloody revolution at one point or another, and I know the US is the same.

Really?

 

[Debater Slayer]

Really?

Yes, at least most of the countries I'm very familiar with, even if not necessarily every single one.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

The U.S. is a big weapons exporter, but we're not the only ones. We send weapons to many countries so they can remain "free."

The key one right now of course, being ukraine. And notably, the 'left' in this country seems to show the most support for arming them. In thinking about that, I think I now likely agree with doing so, despite the nuclear chicken problem, though I railed against it before. I guess it ends up that the power exerted by unjust oppressors bothers me more

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I'd primarily be interested to know the specific thresholds defining "light and transient causes" or a "long train of abuses and usurpations." I would assume interpretation of each could be quite complicated in a legal context.

Well, undue pain 300 years ago is still undue pain now. Imagine you're a civilian in eastern Ukraine, and some military group comes up to occupy your house, and a new government wants to annex your town. These kinds of things happen in the world, and I'm not sure if any legal context really maps out what the reaction should be to such intense instability. It's something that just comes through the world almost like a natural disaster.

Where in such a case, does your security rest, if the layer of security above you in the hierarchy was disintegrated?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Really?

Shh, countries with giant pocket rats do not count obviously!!

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I think it is important to note that there are no such federal laws. All of the bill of rights were directed towards the federal government. This means that when the second amendment was drafted, none of the people involved assumed that guns could not be regulated. The purpose of the second amendment was to ensure that the federal government could not create legislation that infringed on the People’s right.

So noted. In response, I think it's worth noting that the Founding Father's ideas of 'the people' weren't as broad as today's ideas.

Later the 13th Amendment was passed and due to concerns about African American rights, the 14rh Amendment was passed 3 years later.

Sure. Which deals with federal protection of rights for one of the two groups I mentioned.

this 14th amendment was originally read as only pertaining to that end, but was expanded over the course of time. Through the 14th amendment much of the bill of rights has been incorporated. The second amendment is among those (though it was not until relatively recently in 2010).

Why did it need to be incorporated?

I do not think it was a fair criticism to suggest that there was no justification for women or elderly to keep and bear arms. I noted that the drafters could have used the words “the militia’s right” but instead used the words “the people’s rights.”

I'm not sure where I did that. My point...if somewhat pithily communicated, was that whilst women may have been considered people by those drafting the Constitution, blacks and Native Americans were not, in a full legal sense. So assuming that 'the people' means everyone is to pass a somewhat modern lens over the words.
Indeed, women weren't really full people in a legal sense either, but I sense you're talking more directly and specifically about the second amendment only, rather than the worldview of the authors, which is fine.

Not sure how we got on this tangent. You’re asserted that given the definition of a militia, there was no justification for women or the elderly to have firearms.

Nope.
Might be worth referring to my posts 107 and 110, as they weren't directed to you, and therefore I doubt you've seen them. But I'm pretty explicitly NOT doing this. We might just have misunderstood each other's intent. We have pretty different communication styles at times, I think.

I suggested this wasn’t true because the right to which the constitution referred was the people’s right not the militia’s right. Shall I assume you agree that there is justification or are you still proposing there is not justification. Perhaps I don’t understand what you are trying to convey at all.

The people didn't seem to include blacks (initially) hence the 14th amendment was required, and was later incorporated. And it didn't include Native Americans, even after the Civil Rights Act of 1968.

So, apart from just being pithy, what I'm suggesting is more that the Constitution practical impact has always been interpreted. There is no 'the people' that included everyone within the US. That's fine, and doesn't preclude people's rights, I just find it somewhat bemusing when people point to the Second Amendment as a timeless and crystal clear protection of individual rights to bear arms through US history. It's inaccurate. Nor does it speak to what sort of arms, or under what controls.

So...awesome. we have the Second Amendment. Now what?

I get that the OP asked a hypothetical about repeal of the Second Amendment, and that is the lens through which many are talking. But the removal of a guarantee of rights in some vague form doesn't preclude states from providing rights anyway. Or...apparently...from restricting them from some of 'the people' when and where it suits.