Except that the 2nd Amemdment does exist so this is a “Constitutional” question, whether you want it to be or not.
When the Bill of Rights was drawn up, the representatives of the thirteen colonies agreed that firearm ownership was important enough to be an unalienable right. The voters in the soon-to-be-States also agreed that all ten Amendments should be unalienable rights.
If you believe that the 2nd has outlived it’s usefulness, you’ll just have to create another Amendment to override the 2nd and then get it passed. I doubt that a majority of the voters will back your efforts.
And since another poster mentioned that there are no actual gun bans, you don’t need to change the Constitution. Gun regulation is allowed, as long as it doesn’t prevent law abiding citizens from obtaining firearms. The only reason you’d need to repeal the 2nd would be if you want more than just some prudent gun regulation.
Gun rights are part of civil rights. That was one of the ways that whites in the south used to oppress blacks, was by denying them the right to own guns.
Guns are an equalizer between weak and strong. Making it hard for the weak to protect themselves is actually a civil rights issue, at least until you can figure out a way to get police to a site within 10 seconds of a person being in danger.
To quote the hit Dixie Chicks song, “Goodbye Earl”, “Earl walked right through that restraining order and put her in intensive care.”
Of course, as the song says, poison is a great equalizer as well, but if you poison a guy you’re less likely to be able to plead self-defense.
Oakminster’s point was that federally-upheld rights trumped “local democratically elected representatives [and] laws that a majority of their constituents desire.”
No, Peremensoe accurately restated my point. Your post seemed to suggest that locally elected officials enacting laws a majority of their constituents desire was always a good thing. History proves that premise is false.
[QUOTE=Oakminster]
And you’re wrong, as usual. Without the 2nd Amendment, the Federal, State, or Local government could…and some definitely would…ban the private ownership of guns. That would be a horrible thing
[/QUOTE]
I guess I really missed the point because I said terrible instead of horrible.
I’ve never figured out what counts as fulfilling an imperative with a justification attached if the justification is false. If my boss tells me “Since we have a hundred customers today, you need to cook more steaks,” but my boss was misinformed, am I disobeying his order if I don’t cook more steaks? Arguably not, since his order came with a justification which seems to presuppose a condition. Since the condition is not fulfilled, the order does not apply, so by not cooking the steaks, I don’t disobey.
By that reasoning, we would not be breaking the second amendment if we made a law that says no one may own a firearm…
As this has been done to death, I have nothing fresh to bring to this. Then again, neither do you. The sides are well-known, the positions have long since been staked out, where’s the debate?
Sure it would. I would be less free under a country foolish enough to enact a gun ban, and my home would be less secure.
You will likely respond with something about how you are looking at a bigger picture, that America would be no more likely to be invaded by foreign powers, etc.
I’d counter by asserting individual liberty is a precious thing. Being free to bear arms is a significant part of my personal freedom. A government that would deprive me of that right might also deny my right to speak freely, publish as I will, peacefully assemble, suffer no state religion nor be prevented from practicing one or more of my choosing, avoid self-incrimination, etc. A government should not have that power, and ours does not.
If you put the 2nd Amendment on the chopping block, why not the 1st? 4th? 5th? 6th? For that matter, why not call a Constitutional Convention and start over? I am confident you would not like the result any more than I would (though likely for very different reasons). I do not believe the current Bill of Rights (as interpreted by caselaw) would obtain a super-majority in the current political climate. Even something as basic as the Establishment Clause would have significant opposition. I think there would be a non-zero chance of another Civil War, followed by a theocracy.
Government power should be strictly limited, and maximum liberty preserved for the citizens. Personal liberties should not be surrendered to Government absent compelling need.
It’s not today…but it was when that Amendment was written. If you want to remove that part from the Amendment I don’t think anyone would object (though today, ‘militia’ roughly equals National Guard and Reserves, which are still quite important).
Again, it was when it was written. We did have a regular army, but the founders didn’t trust regular armies much, considering the rather negative view they had of the British military at the time. They relied quite heavily on militia both during the revolution and after…and you needed that militia to be ‘well regulated’, i.e. under control and duly constituted. In the early days…yeah, it was ‘necessary to the security of a free State’.
Today there are. But when that Amendment was written there were no crystal balls about what the future would hold…AND the whole democracy thingy was in serious doubt as to whether it would be able to survive, thrive and keep to it’s core beliefs, especially without armed citizen soldiers that were ‘well regulated’ and able to protect and defend the republic.
Next time you are in a major disaster area, remind yourself how unnecessary the National Guard is.
Well, that’s your assertion anyway. Even if it’s true today, so what? It’s far from certain that in the early days of the republic that it would have survived without a well-regulated militia, or that it’s security would have been ensured without one. But, you know, if it bothers you now, 200+ years later, feel free to take that part out of the Amendment, and just leave in the actual intent part…i.e. the right to keep and bear arms.
XT, the point is, the “actual intent” part you mention is predicated on the necessity of the militia. If the militia’s no longer necessary, the status of the “actual intent” part is unclear. If it’s predicated on a falsehood, it is arguably null and void.
