Resolved: The Second Amendment should be repealed.

Great Debates
1

I say the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, guaranteeing that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” (at least, not by the federal government), should be repealed. It was a bad idea in 1791 and it’s an even worse idea now.

In saying this, I am not calling for any particular gun-control program. A case can be made that allowing individuals to own firearms has some social value. All I say is, THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS DOES NOT DESERVE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION. Whatever value it may have, it is not important enough to be ranked with the rights of press freedom, religious freedom and trial by jury as something which is enshrined in the higher law of the Constitution and insulated from the give-and-take of ordinary electoral and legislative politics.

Before we go on, let’s get something straight: Since I am arguing for the REPEAL of the Second Amendment, any legal or historical arguments about what the amendment “really” means, or should mean, are irrelevant to this discussion. There’s already a thread about that going on right now in the GD forum, “The Straight Dope on the Second Amendment,” posted by Razorsharp.

Look, WHY do people want guns? First there are the hunters and the gun collectors. Both groups are small minorities in our population. There is no obvious reason why they should have a constitutionally guaranteed right to pursue their hobbies. By the same token, they are not really a big part of any problem, and any gun-control program could be designed to exempt hunters and collectors, or subject them to different regulations.

Apart from those groups, when gun owners defend their right to bear arms, everything they say comes down to two, and only two, assertions:

  1. I need my gun so I can defend myself, my property and my family against aggressive criminals, because I do not trust the police to do that job for me adequately.

  2. I need my gun so that, if it becomes necessary, I can shoot  at the police, or the National Guard, or the U.S. Army.  In this view -- known as the "insurrectionary theory" of the Second Amendment -- the "well-ordered militia" is not an instrument of the state, but a countervailing popular force against the state -- or else an instrument of an individual state against the federal government.

The first consideration is arguably an important one, but it is not of a constitutional order of importance. It is not a question of fundamental personal rights, it is a matter of ordinary public policy. An individual’s interest in self-defense obviously must be balanced against innumerable other considerations and circumstances – or else who could deny that individuals and corporations have the right to own their own machine guns and artillery pieces and weapons of mass destruction? That kind of balancing and compromising is best done in legislative assemblies, not courtrooms. Our legislators and congresscritters should have the opportunity to tackle the problem of just how much weaponry the populace actually needs, without their hands being tied by a constitutional prohibition.

The second consideration is completely indefensible. It might actually be close to the original intention of the Second Amendment, but it is still indefensible, no matter what our Founding Fathers thought about the matter. No constitution should be a suicide pact. Revolutions are sometimes necessary and sometimes justified, but no viable legal or political system can base itself on the premise that the people, individually or collectively, have any LEGAL RIGHT to resist public authority. And no such right exists in our system. That was decided in the test case of Grant vs. Lee, decision rendered at Appomattox Courthouse, Virginia, April 9, 1865.

Besides, even if you had a theoretical “right” to use your guns against the state, what good would it do you? Based on recent news reports, the Iraqi populace is very well armed; it is not unusual for a man to tote an AK-47 on a walk to the corner market. Nevertheless they could not overthrow or resist Hussein’s regime, because the government was better armed and better organized. You have a rifle? Fine, the army has flamethrowers, mortars, grenade launchers, tanks, and that’s just the stuff we’ll admit to; now shut up and pay your taxes. And so it is here. No American “militia” group will ever present a credible military challenge to the U.S. Army, or even to the local police. If you think our government is tyrannical, sell your guns and vote Libertarian, or Green, or America First.

2

First of all, repealing the second ammendment will do nothing to eliminate guns. The second ammendment does not “give” anyone the right to bear arms, that is a human right endowed by the creator. So taking away the second amendment will not “take away” anything.

Furthermore, most state constitutions also have the same guarantee similar to the federal second amendment. Repealing the federal second ammendment will not affect any state constitutions.

The easiest answer to you, since you dont seem to like guns, is to not own one. No one is forcing you to own a gun. It doesnt bother me at all that you dont own one.

Lastly, citizens in most of the countries of the world, do not have any right to bear arms, so there are lots of places for people who dont like guns to go to. People who dont like guns should avoid living in the United States or Switzerland. Why anyone who does not like guns would ever want to live in the United States or Switzerland is beyond me. It is very easy to find a country which will not allow you to own a gun.

3

Cite?

4

I would favor an amendment that (a) repealed the 2nd amendment and (b) gave the Federal government the right to regulate and/or ban weapons while © allowing state governments to add additional regulations and bans as they see fit.

I just don’t think it’s good public policy to leave such an important public policy bouncing around in the gray area. By passing such an amendment, we could regulate or unregulate weapons as we see fit.

5

Guns are a God given right?? Where the hell do you get that? Or are you saying the inventors of the firearm gave you the right?

:rolleyes:

6

I want the Supreme Court to very clearly explicate what the 2nd amendment means before I’d consider repealing it. Why repeal it if we aren’t sure what it does?

If what it grants is a State Right, I think it would be bad to take it away. Every state should be able to have a (well regulated) militia. I don’t have a problem with that.

But if it’s an individual right, I’m ambivalent.

7

This is funny in a surreal kind of way. If you repeal the 2nd ammendment and ban the use of all firearms then policemen wount have guns. They are civilian. If the people they are fighting are unarmed then why would you arm the cops? Ahh but criminals have guns of course and they dont really care what the law or constitution says, you see thats why they are criminals. So cops have to have guns. But what about off duty policemen? theyre not on all the time. Why should they get guns? Oh thats right coz you might never know when some officer needs help and theres no time to put on the uniform to aid a fellow officer. Why is that? because one policeman in a modern city patrols a couple of square miles each. One person in charge of one great big large community. God help him if the community doesnt like cops.

Now lets take your Saddam example. Everyone is armed but no one opposes the regime. Maybe because the regime has no scruples and would kill your friends and family just to get at you? Could it be that they arrest you when you are not armed? Could it possibly be that any armed resistance is instanly punisable by death? could it be they only allow guns to those they can trust and losing that trust means losing your job, your house, your freedom or your life? Actually its none of that.

What works in Iraq is fear. You dont know who is your friend and who would rat you out. You cant form a group because that is banned. You can speak out against the govt because thats a death penalty. You cant go out and find like minded people because for one thing they have checkpoints keeping track of your movements and for another you dont know if one in your group is a saddam loyalist waiting for his chance to get promoted.

In the USA, those things that are banned in Iraq are guaranteed. You can form groups, you can go anywhere you like, you can speak out against the govt or its leader and you can do so armed. Its part of the constitution. You mess with any part of that and you will go the way of Iraq.

and as far as being a credible challenge to the police or US army., remember the one policeman per 2 square mile rule? Iraq is the size of california with a good portion of it unihabitable dessert with no place to hide. America is made up of plains, mountains, beaches, forests, caves, cities and towns. There is not a single army in the world that can secure that 100%.

I have a handgun and a soldier has a rifle, I kill him and now I have a rifle. I have a rifle and a soldier has an RPG. I kill him and now I have an RPG. Youve seen the Iraq news. We could get an Apache and all its armanents. These things fall out of the sky practically. An apache crash lands in East LA and that thing is stripped bare before the army even knew it was missing. Its not a question of how well an army is equipted. It is a question of how smart are you compared to the army.

8

RESOLVED: To repeal a Constitutional amendment, you’d need to get 37 state legislatures to agree, and there’s absolutely no chance in Hell you’d ever get even 25.

9

I’ll presume you are not intentionally pretending to misunderstand the post to which you responded but are instead really simply not getting the point.

It is not “guns” that are given this status but all rights. At heart is the origin of rights. Do rights exist merely when a government legalizes them or do they exist regardless of whether or not a government legalizes them?

Please be so kind as to read me through to the end before responding and not letting knee-jerk, mindless reaction take over.

If the former, then there is no such thing as an “inherent” right at all. Indeed, any argument made in favor of “civil rights” is only valid inasmuch as CURRENT law “grants” that right. If the law does not “grant” that right, then the right does not exist in the first place.

If the latter, then one can validly make an argument that people have the “right” to speak their minds even if a government makes it illegal.

Did Russians have the right to disagree with Stalin? If rights are merely “granted” by law, then no. If they pre-exist law and are merely “recognized” by law, then yes.

If one believes that governments actually can legitimately determine what is and is not a right, then one can argue that there is no “right” to change the government unless that government “creates” that right!!!

Now I come to guns. The real question to ask is not whether or not having guns is Divinely appointed (or “inherent in human dignity” or “part of the fundamental structure of a free society”, pick your drink). The real question to ask is whether or not having guns is a right in the first place.

Presuming that rights exist even if a government does not “permit” them (and if they do not, then the subjects of an oppressive government HAVE NO CIVIL RIGHTS THEY CAN DEMAND AT ALL UNLESS THE GOVERNMENT GIVES THEM PERMISSION TO DEMAND SAID RIGHTS), then if it is not actually a right, its classification as such in the US Constitution is erroneous and repeal of the Second Amendment is merely correcting an error of fact.

If it is a right, then that right cannot be actually eradicated, no matter what the law might say.

Now, if owning guns is a privilige, a government can legitimately limit or even ban it.

Unfortunately, there is a strong strain of crypto-fascism running through humanity that presumes that a government is what “creates” rights. But if a government actually has the power to “create” rights, then the people have no right to demand rights that a government does not already “create”.

So the real question is whether or not owning guns is a right or a privilige.

10

Dogface, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that you view the right to own guns as a right which transcends legal frameworks (similar to how many people would view the right to, oh, say, procreate or something).

I’m curious as to what basis you are using to arrive at this conclusion. Is it religious or historical in nature, or something else? Thanks.

11

I’d assume it has something to do with the natural right to defend yourself and what is yours, effectively. Which, when you get down to it, fits under “shelter”, I suppose.

12

Just a nitpick. That’s not crypto-fascism…that idea is older than fascism. That idea is a hallmark of conservativism…the idea that rights come either from government grant or the established customs of a society. From Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France

13

Actually, they may very well be other countries where guns are not an issue. However, choosing to go there, and being allowed to emigrate to such a country are entirely two different things.

If your observation is a clouded opinion that if you don’t like it then leave, you fail again here. For the life of me, differing opinions, and the right to express and advocate for them, is under attack these days. The OP has every right to advocate for their position without being threatened to leave their own country.

14

Funny, I missed the part of the OP endorsing either gun control or a ban on guns.

As for removing Constitutional protection, I’d support it. But I wouldn’t support an outright federal prohibition on firearms either.

15

Well, of course, Susanann is right, the Creator does endow us wit the right to bear arms; it’s in the Book of Armaments, Chapter 5, verse 23. But we can’t base a modern constitutional system on Scripture.

Nor does an enumeration of certain “rights” a society decides need constitutional protection have to match up completely with an enumeration of our most basic human or ethical rights, whatever those are. Laws and constitutions are based, have to be based, on many practical and policy considerations having nothing to do with ethics or justice as such. I don’t see how any philosopher could prove the existence of a “natural right” to have your case tried by a jury. It’s just something the English invented, and it usually seemed to produce justice, and it provided the justice system with an extra correction mechanism immune to political influence. Our Founders thought it was important enough to enshrine in the Constitution for those reasons, and I agree.

But I admit there should always be some essential connection between legal rights and ethical rights, in constitutional law as in lesser spheres of the law. If you want to make a case that you have a basic human right to take care of yourself, and that includes the right to defend yourself, I’ll follow you that far but no farther. I’m not talking about eliminating the right of self-defense, to the degree that you would always be bound in law to turn the other cheek if attacked; I’m only talking about removing the constitutionally protected status of certain kinds of instruments of self-defense.

16

RESOLVED: Starting a thread with “resolved” is pretentious, pompous, arrogant, and demeans the strength of the entire argument.

Since this is GD, I can’t imply that you are those things, but I can most certainly point out that you set a pretty counterproductive tone for your argument by starting it that way.

Now, of course, I completely disagree with your overall position, but this issue is so redux around here I don’t see the point in bothering. Anti-gun groups like Fat, Untalented, Loud-Mouthed Talk Show Hosts Against Guns have made this an emotionally charged issue, and polarized the population to the point that I don’t think it’s even worth bothering to discuss it reasonably.

Besides, we’re at an impasse. I think your point #2 is the very reason we still need the 2nd Amendment, because the government is becoming as intrusive now as it ever was under the British monarchy. No viable political system can base itself on the right of insurrection you say, but you miss the point. The American government is not about maintaining a system. Rights are not derived from the soveriegnty of a particular state, and our system was to leave the people free to reassert those rights if and when the government began to confiscate them. I think of government as a potentially dangerous force that erodes natural rights and uses the power of coercive force against the people. But since you disagree about that point, and have a candyland vision of government, there’s no way for us to reach agreement.

So ditch the “resolved” stuff, and just admit that your argument hinges on assumptions that not everyone shares, assumptions that may well be wrong. When people start with two different sets of assumptions, they arrive at different answers. Short of abandoning the assumptions, there’s no way for one party to convince the other, so why bother debating issues like this ad nauseum?

17

**

Why was it a bad idea in 1787 and why is it a bad idea now? Obviously the folks who ratified the U.S. Constitution thought it was a decent idea that ranked right up there with the other 9 Amendments.

**

I disagree, I believe the right to bear arms is every bit as important as free speech, trial by jury, or the right to not self-incriminate onself.

**

That is of course incorrect. If you want to repeal a law you’ve got to have a good reason for doing so. If you don’t understand why the Amendment was added in the first place how can you even justify removing it?

**

That’s a good point. Good thing the amendment was never meant to protect hobbies. Uh oh, we’re talking about history now.

**

So you say. I say that it is as important as any other amendment.

**

Couldn’t this same arguement apply to any other amendment? Our Congress could decide what kind of speech the populace actually needs. Sorry, this isssue is far from resolved.

Marc

18

Oh for Heaven’s sake!!! Wouldn’t the world be so much better if my view-point was the law? People would worship me because I know perfectly well what they need!! Why do people even listen to opposing ideas? Why can’t people grasp this? I know exactly what is best for every-body.

19

Hallmark of conservatism? Well maybe, that is if you are referring to the current brand of “neo-conservatism” that has infected today’s body politic. But that is not conservatism in the tradition of Washington, Madison, Jefferson and others known as the Founding Fathers of America.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,…”
– The Declaration of Independence–

20

Right. We shouldn’t kowtow to minorities. Look at homosexuals, always screaming about their “rights”. They keep saying they want the right to marry each other. Why should we change our laws so that they can pursue their hobbies? And some people want to legalize marijuana. Outrageous! Then you have those anti-war protesters. Somebody ought to put a muzzle on them! Oh, and people keep complaining about “invasion of privacy” and “Fourth Ammendment violations”! Look. If they have nothing to hide, then they have nothing to fear; right?