View Single Post
  #48  
Old 09-09-2019, 04:38 PM
Corry El is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,158
There are plausible arguments in favor of repealing the 2nd amendment, though I personally would not support doing so. Various of these arguments have been made in the thread, repeating innumerable other threads here and everyplace else.

But the arguments that the 2nd amendment can be ignored by the legislative and executive branches because 'it's obsolete' or 'it means the National Guard' are much, much weaker. Not really serious ones IMO.

Likewise that what the drafters of the document meant is irrelevant. The left side of mainstream jurisprudence (like actual judges) doesn't really think that. 'Originalism' is a matter of degree but 'the Federalist Papers are irrelevant where they directly explain intent' is again not a serious argument IMO.

Again if you set out to repeal the amendment (good luck and be well!) it's perfectly fair to explain you do so because the provision no longer meets the times, isn't in the common interest, etc. But the gambit of pretending it just says the *government* can have military organizations below the federal level when the amendment says *the people* can bear arms...weak. A return to 'non political judges', and I wonder who that is, RBG? but even 9 justices like her are not going to write a decision saying 'it means the National Guard and otherwise it refers to nothing'.

Also as in every other tired debate about '2nd amendment', the US federal legislature doesn't have to votes to reinstate a limited 'ban' (just a ban on new sales) on box magazine semi automatic rifles (aka 'assault weapons'). Which was never found unconstitutional when previously in force. It's just not the will of the legislature, and I don't think it would be if the Democrats gained a majority in the Senate (the House might now vote for such a ban but because they knew the Senate would never take it up). Democratic majorities depend on states/districts where voting for that is how you lose that state/district. Why is it so important what the 2nd amendment says when you can actually highly restrict firearms without violating it (or not yet ruled it violates, say NYC's gun laws) without it, yet don't have the votes to even do that? Which also makes repeal of course a ridiculous conversation practically speaking. But 'let's just ignore it and/or pretend it says something other than what it obviously does' doesn't look any better as argument even after considering those practicalities.

Last edited by Corry El; 09-09-2019 at 04:41 PM.