Is the 2nd Amendment an anachronism?

[John_Mace]

The 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution, that is.

@US Constitution

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.

I think so. The idea that the citizens need to be able to take on the federal government by force is not only laughable, it seems rather a quaint idea whose time has come and gone. Besides, if it comes to the point of revolution, the Constitution won’t be worth the paper it’s written on.

Under what circumstances would it be legal for a citizen to take up arms against the government?

Anyway, I’m not arguing that people shouldn’t be allowed to have guns for hunting or even for self-defense, but that seems like a matter for the various legislatures to decide, and that the “right to bear arms” isn’t really something the state should guarantee if the purpose is to be able to overthrow the state.

Full disclosure: I am not a hunter nor do I even own a gun. Other than the BB gun I had as a kid, I’ve never owned a firearm. I also realize that it would be impractical in the US to overturn the 2nd amendment, but that doesn’t stop me from wondering what the hell we need that for anyway.

[Alpha_Twit]

@John_Mace

Under what circumstances would it be legal for a citizen to take up arms against the government?

Never of course. That’s not the point. As has often been pointed out, the fact that an act my be illegal has no bearing on its ethic or on its necessity.

[John_Mace]

@Alpha_Twit

Never of course. That’s not the point. As has often been pointed out, the fact that an act my be illegal has no bearing on its ethic or on its necessity.

You need to give me more than that. Point out by whom, when and why?

The constitution does not concern itself with ethics or necessity, but with the law.

[yoyodyne]

When is revolution legal?

[Alpha_Twit]

@John_Mace

The constitution does not concern itself with ethics or necessity, but with the law.

Which is precisely as it should be.

You want specifics though. OK, when can you legally start a revolution? When you can get enough of the population roused to pick up a rifle and fire it in the general direction of people you don’t like. Get enough of them and do it often it often enough and you might just win your revolution. When you win your revolution against the government you and your mates perceive as corrupt and intolerable then you can declare your actions legal. Until that happens, you’re on shaky legal ground.

[Ravenman]

Honest question: besides that one Jefferson quote about the tree of liberty (which expresses an opinion that I consider to be bizarre and worthy of violent ideologues like Trotsky), is there historical evidence that there was a consensus or general feeling among the Founders that the amendment was intended to make revolution feasible?

It just seems totally against the philosophical underpinning of the Constitution, to make an enduring yet changeable framework of government for the ages.

[Czarcasm]

@Alpha_Twit

Which is precisely as it should be.

You want specifics though. OK, when can you legally start a revolution? When you can get enough of the population roused to pick up a rifle and fire it in the general direction of people you don’t like. Get enough of them and do it often it often enough and you might just win your revolution. When you win your revolution against the government you and your mates perceive as corrupt and intolerable then you can declare your actions legal. Until that happens, you’re on shaky legal ground.

That isn’t making starting a revolution legal-that is declaring that particular revolution to be legal after the fact.

[Bisected8]

@yoyodyne

When is revolution legal?

Generally speaking, when it’s successful.

[Ravenman]

And also, stating that laws have no bearing on the ethics of any particular act is way too rich for my taste. Yes, legality is not a perfect indicator of ethics, but the law is a fairly good indicator of unethical actions. Of for no other reason than that most laws are a reflection of a society’s views on the ethics and morals of particular actions. Surely there is some connection between laws and rightful actions.

[John_Mace]

@Ravenman

And also, stating that laws have no bearing on the ethics of any particular act is way too rich for my taste. Yes, legality is not a perfect indicator of ethics, but the law is a fairly good indicator of unethical actions. Of for no other reason than that most laws are a reflection of a society’s views on the ethics and morals of particular actions. Surely there is some connection between laws and rightful actions.

It was not my intention to imply there wasn’t. What I posted is only relevant wrt to what I was responding to, and shouldn’t be taken out of that context.

[Pleonast]

@US Constitution

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.

It seems to me the original intent of the second amendment is that the people themselves should retain the means to defend the state–both against internal threats (crime, revolution) and external ones (invasion). That is, the amendment is to prevent revolutions, not encourage them.

So when Senator Palpatine stages a White House coup against President Binks, the people will have the means to resist.

[John_Mace]

@Pleonast

It seems to me the original intent of the second amendment is that the people themselves should retain the means to defend the state–both against internal threats (crime, revolution) and external ones (invasion). That is, the amendment is to prevent revolutions, not encourage them.

So when Senator Palpatine stages a White House coup against President Binks, the people will have the means to resist.

Well, that sounds like an anachronism to me!

[Ravenman]

@John_Mace

It was not my intention to imply there wasn’t. What I posted is only relevant wrt to what I was responding to, and shouldn’t be taken out of that context.

I should have quoted Alpha Twit’s comment, “the fact that an act my be illegal has no bearing on its ethic or on its necessity.”

[Saint_Cad]

I’ll agree with the idea that the 2nd Amendment is meant to prevent revolution. The militia is to preserve order and so in a case like the Dorr Rebellion or the Wheeling Convention, the supporters of the legal Republican form of government as decided by Congress (Article 4) can take up arms against the rebellion.

[Polycarp]

Point one, on the justification for revolutions:

@Thomas Jefferson

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. 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.

An indictment of George III’s Government follows. I think Jefferson’s point is clear: governments should not be overthrown just any old time for whatever reason floats someone’s boat, nor can you set specific criteria when it is appropriate, but when enough measures counted detestable by a popular majority back up behind each other, there does come a tipping point when revo0lution is justified. It is a brilliant analysis of conditions previling in the 1770s and why they were so cordially despised.

Point the second is that we are not a solidly urbanized nation from sea to shining sea. To be sure, you do not need guns when the police station is so close they stand a chance of arriving before the second round is fired. But:
[ul][li]Much as we would like to believe otherwise, there do remain ghettoes with inadequate policing and often a high crime rate;[/li][li]While some exurban and rural areas, such as the ones we’ve been living in, have a nice neighborly network in place for protection, there are others where isolation is present and self-reliance is called for;[/li]Wilderness areas, whether officially designated or simply private property out in the boondocks, constitute a special circumstance. Bears and mountain lions have no moral or prudential rationale for reading and complying with the statute law. Neither, it would seem, do some sociopathic humans.[/ul]

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

Overall, I tend to think that the founders should be regarding as analogous to Newton: totally brilliant thinkers within their field, but also creatures of their time, some of whose ideas are now outdated. Just as I don’t think we should treat Newton as canon, nor should we treat the Constitution as sacred.

The second amendment is one of those cases. A well-regulated militia is no longer necessary to the security of a free state. To the extent that something like the National Guard counts as a well-regulated militia, the second amendment is irrelevant to it: members of the NG aren’t expected to provide their own arms, but rather are issued arms specifically for use in their NG work.

And if the first part of the amendment is unnecessary, we should cast a highly skeptical eye at the second half.

I also don’t own guns, but I have family members who have bought guns for personal self-defense, and I certainly understand their reasons for doing so. I’m not necessarily opposed to gun ownership. But I don’t think it needs to be a constitutional issue.

Edit:

@Polycarp quoting Thomas Jefferson

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

• Take Our Declaration of Independence Quiz and Test Your Knowledge of America’s Great Freedom Document

this totally cracked me up.

[Saint_Cad]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

The second amendment is one of those cases. A well-regulated militia is no longer necessary to the security of a free state. To the extent that something like the National Guard counts as a well-regulated militia, the second amendment is irrelevant to it: members of the NG aren’t expected to provide their own arms, but rather are issued arms specifically for use in their NG work.

And if the first part of the amendment is unnecessary, we should cast a highly skeptical eye at the second half.

I also don’t own guns, but I have family members who have bought guns for personal self-defense, and I certainly understand their reasons for doing so. I’m not necessarily opposed to gun ownership. But I don’t think it needs to be a constitutional issue.

So let’s say the Mountain Minutemen (name made up) decide to march on Denver to overthrow the Colorado State government. Under the 2nd Amendment, would I have a right to defend my state government or not because I am not part of a “well-regulated” militia?

[BobLibDem]

I could have bought the notion that an armed citizenry is a safeguard against an oppressive government back when the government had muskets and the citizens had muskets. Now that the citizens have rifles, shotguns, and handguns, they’re no match for a government with tanks, warplanes, machine guns, and predator drones. If a group of rifle-bearing citizens took up arms against the US government, their asses would be blown to smithereens so small that the crows wouldn’t bother to pick them up. So drop any pretense that the Second protects us from our government, or that the Second Amendment preserves the other nine. That ship sailed back when ships actually sailed.

I’d love to see it all repealed, personally.

[Chronos]

Are we talking ideally, or as a politically realistic matter? Because I would argue that the Second Amendment never had any actual positive effect, but we’re now so steeped in the idea that a gun is somehow a useful tool for defense that I can’t see how we could get rid of it. The need is obsolete, but the belief in the need is not.

[Little_Nemo]

My personal two cents.

1. The Second Amendment guarantees the right for individuals to personally own fire-arms. That’s the intent and if I were a judge, that’s how I’d rule.

2. The right for individuals to personally own fire-arms is a really dumb idea and we should repeal the Second Amendment.

Okay, maybe it seemed like a good idea back in 1789 but times have changed. Fire-arms are a lot deadlier than they were back in the 18th century. And military technology has also advanced.

A citizens militia armed with personal weapons is not going to defeat a professional military. And a citizen is far more likely to be killed by an armed criminal than he is to defend himself from a criminal with a gun.

Time to throw the towel in on this one and toss the Second Amendment in with the original VP voting system, the 3/5 rule, and prohibition as a bad idea.

I’m not saying I’d ban all guns. But I think we should have some reasonable standards over who owns guns, how many guns they own, what kind of guns they own, and where they can use those guns. I think we should regulate guns to approximately the same level that we regulate automobiles.