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

So, we are talking about whether we should retroactively write it into the Constitution today, or whether the FF’s should have put it in the original Constitution (presumably instead of using an Amendment)? If we are talking about whether, today, it should be in there (hopefully in a more clear and easily understood way), then obviously the answer is yes. Clearly there are a lot of people who want to take away personal ownership of firearms away from the average citizen (not regulate them, but ban them), yet the majority of Americans opposes that. Q.E.D. there needs to be a protected right to personal fire arms ownership today, especially considering the tactics that have been attempted to circumvent the actual freaking process we DO have and ban the things by hook or by crook in any way they could in the past. Possible, if the ban them all folks had been a bit less disingenuous in the past we wouldn’t need a protected right…but then, clearly we need freedom of speech rights for similar reasons. After all, we wouldn’t need them if people didn’t try, for our own good I’m sure, to take them away. Would we?

No. Tools don’t belong in the Constitution.

Because of the controversy in modern times it would never make it into a new Constitution. I doubt we’d have any significant rights left if a new version were written. Maybe you get some weasel language left that says the public can’t be disarmed, and then we’d be right back in the same boat with people arguing over the definition of arms.

My same thread from not quite a year ago.

See post #18.

SCOTUS disagrees. And even if you were right, it should.

Not necessarily, that’s open for discussion. So are the reasons for it, and whether “militia” has any relevance or not.

There are no natural rights, no more than there is natural law.

Argumentum ad populum is really not relevant to this kind of discussion. What the majority wants at any given moment is expressed through the ordinary political/legislative process; we are debating what things should be set above-and-beyond that process. That’s what this kind of constitutional provision is for.

Has a modern democracy (that is one enjoying universal sufferage) ever done the opposite; from the position of not permitting personal ownership of firearms, held a referendum on whether citizens should have that right?

I fear it might not succeed …

Based on such logic you must oppose both Roe v. Wade and Griswold.

Do you really think that the Supreme Court was wrong to rule that there is a constitutional right to purchase birth control and get abortions?

Please explain your reasoning.

You really should do research before making such foolish claims.

The US has lots of people in jail but due to parole, prison overcrowding and other factors, criminals including those convicted of violent crimes serve less time than their counterparts in other countries.

For example, it’s common for convicted rapists to get out of jail within 3 years and murderers in less than 10.

Are you actually saying, presumably with a straight face, that in a democracy protecting a right that the majority of the population (or even a large minority) want is not relevant when discussing what rights should be protected in some theoretical new Constitution? And that by pointing this out I’m making a logical fallacy? Seriously? :confused:

There are cogent philosophies that disagree with this (and I’m not talking about religious belief). I don’t want to get into a discussion of what rights are and where they come from, but I don’t believe we can take your statement as a given.

While I agree with a previous poster that self-defense is a natural right possessed by default by every human, I don’t believe that it leads by necessity to the right to own a particular kind of self-defense mechanism, i.e. a gun.

As Damuri Ajashi pointed out, the biggest obstacle to any change in this issue is the large number of guns extant, many of them in the hands of people who are not, by habit. law-abiding. Any attempt to curtail the current right to own guns has to deal in a practical way with this issue.

I think I’d probably have some protections to prevent complete banning of firearms. But I’d word if far differently:

*Individuals have the right to acquire and keep arms in their homes for self defense. This right shall not be denied to any adult unless demonstrated to be of unsound mind, unfit, or of poor character. The arms owned can be limited and regulated for issues of public safety, but said regulations cannot be utilized to deny reasonable access to acquiring arms or the implements to keep arms in operating condition. Arms cannot be prohibited unless they are shown to exceed the capability necessary for reasonable self defense.

States and subordinate government can choose to allow the carrying of arms in public places, they can promulgate whatever regulations they feel appropriate on this privilege. On Federal property Congress has authority over the carrying of arms and can promulgate whatever regulations they feel appropriate.*

I’m wondering if you believe that the more you say this the more it makes it true. Or even more fantastical, if you believe that you are are the arbiter of what does or does not exist in the realm of philosophical constructs. How ridiculously arrogant.

I don’t think BG is denying that the philosophical construct of natural law has been promulgated. I think he’s saying there’s no actual thing as a natural law. I’m in full agreement, rights and laws are creations of men. What rights and what laws a society respects are determined by that society, rights that you cannot either defend yourself through force or convince a society of peers to respect have no reality whatsoever.

The second amendment is unnecessary, because the Founders didn’t realize tyranny and representative government are mutually exclusive.

What seems to happen is “representative government” sometimes gets its arse whacked by the nasty people. Witness the Weimar Republic.

Incarcerated statistics are generally based on incarceration as of a particular date, not, e.g., “has been incarcerated during the year.”

The claim may be foolish, but it is correct. Whether your claim about violent crimes is true or not, the simple fact is that a larger portion of Americans are incarcerated right now than of any other country.

Here’s a table comparing that rate with other countries.