If we were drafting a new Constitution today, should it include the 2nd Amendment or not?

As Martin Hyde remarks in this thread:

Just so. Therefore, let us set aside the question of what the FFs “meant” by the Second Amendment, and all the ventriloquism-in-a-cemetery that it invites, and instead debate the real issue on its own (contemporary) merits: Should the Constitution guarantee the right to keep and bear arms or not?

Yes. If we’re so worried about criminal acts with guns we should abolish our revolving door justice system and hammer the shitbags who commit the majority of violent acts. Movie theater and school ground shootings are actually very rare events.

Also, keep in mind that in modern times several states have added right to keep and bear arms clauses to their state constitutions. All of them very poignant as to their meaning and no room to debate militia mumble jumble. Most state constitutions can only be changed by a majority vote by the public. The fact that these changes have occurred is my evidence that it is still an important right in the hearts of the people.


No, there shouldn’t be. It’s a stupid and destructive Amendment.

Exact same wording?

No, it should not be in there. But it would probably wind up in there, since it drives a ton of single-issue voters.

Yes, it should, subject, like all rights, to reasonable restrictions and regulations. The right to self defense, which is part of our common-law tradition, demands access to the tools for self-defense. In the same way that prohibiting printing presses or the Internet is an infringement of the right to a free press, prohibiting firearms infringes on the right to self-defense.

As for phrasing, “Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to keep and bear arms” sounds fine to me.

The Constitution doesn’t guarantee a right to self defense.

BrainGlutton You looking at wrong in the UK and most of Europe it almost in possible to own gun and having gun for protection is no no.

The country is way smaller and less spread out so faster police response.

Now US when it was getting set up was so big and doing wild west you lucky if town had two sheriff deputies some places so remote can be long time before police show up. The civil war and war of Mexico and UK put lot of pressure for people to have guns of fear of take over from Mexico or UK.

Back than also military was not much better than you so fear of government that one should be armed evil government.

And I think that why US is more prone for guns even in Canada had they fought for independence like the US and had some civil wars and Mexico trying take them over they too probably be even more pro guns.

I think in modern world of fear of government that one must have guns is false now because the army have better guns and stuff than you . A civil war today would be nothing like was back than. And the UK or Mexico take over of the US today would be nothing like it was back than. In way guns are obsolete now with modern times for citizens army:o:o The only reason one may need gun is if you living in crime infested area or out in country or woods where it take 30 minutes to 60 minutes for police to get there.

There also trade of because so many people have guns the police are more scared. I have seen car chases where police come up to car with no weapon out in the US they call out of car with their guns out.

On the one hand you have the notion that guns level the playing field in a “God made men, Colonel Colt made them equal” sort of way. So criminals don’t have an advantage over the law abiding, the strong man’s advantage over the weak man is limited and zombies don’t have an advantage over the living.

On the other hand, guns cost 30,000 lives every year. Sure we would replace some of those gun deaths with fatal assaults but probably not 30,000 more fatal assaults. But we might see more rapes and non-fatal assaults than we do now.

On the gripping hand, there are over 350 million guns out there and unless you have a good plan on how to get rid of those guns, repealing the second amendment now isn’t going to do you a whole lot of good. Better to go back in time and repeal the second amendment around WWII and collect all the guns as part of the “war effort”

Mexico never tried to take over the U.S.

The core holding in D.C. v. Heller is that the Second Amendment is an individual right intimately tied to the natural right of self-defense.

Tell that to Tommy Tancredo.

The U.S. already has the world’s highest incarcerated population relative to the general population. Sentencing-laxity is not a problem we have here.

No the US took parts of Mexico that lead to Mexico war of US most south west states.

Nonsense. While we have a lot of people behind bars, on an individual basis they aren’t there long enough to make a difference.

For example, armed robbery carries a maximum penalty of 40 years. Those convicted rarely get more than 10% of that. A shitbag can’t shoot a convenience store clerk during a hold up if he’s still incarcerated for a previous offense. The increase in cost to keep our less than admirable citizens locked up is dwarfed by what we’re already spending on police, courts, and jails in our revolving door justice system. Not to mention the human suffering these thugs inflict on others between their times of incarceration.

In this hypothetical, are all the amendments up for revision, or just the Second?

It’s not “revision,” we’re writing a whole new constitution; but the discussion is limited to whether such new constitution should include something about a right to bear arms or not.

What are “arms”? Can I develop my own nuclear stockpile? Put up a rack in my garage for my flame throwers and grenade launchers? Buy a tank on the black market? Secure my lawn with land mines?

If the answer is “no” then our new Constitution needs to provide a little more guidance on where the line is drawn.

Yes, there should be a provision about keeping and bearing arms; but it should be subject to reasonable oversight and restrictions.