# Is the 2nd Amendment an anachronism? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 16, 2012, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-2nd-amendment-an-anachronism/618976 "2012-04-16T17:55:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2012, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-2nd-amendment-an-anachronism/618976/81 "2012-04-17T14:26:05Z")
> [@furt](#): > > Ya’ll may wish to learn about a period of American history called “reconstruction.” Easy to miss, only lasted 50 years over about 1/3 of the country. I had totally forgotten how the Klan kept the freed slaves down by denying them concealed carry permits and semi-automatic rifles with pistol grips. It’s truly amazing how little the debate has changed in the last 100 years. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2012, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-2nd-amendment-an-anachronism/618976/82 "2012-04-17T14:37:48Z")
> [@furt](#): > > Ya’ll may wish to learn about a period of American history called “reconstruction.” Easy to miss, only lasted 50 years over about 1/3 of the country. One could say that one of the problems with reconstruction is not that black people weren’t allowed guns - it’s that white people _were_. Cite? You first. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2012, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-2nd-amendment-an-anachronism/618976/83 "2012-04-17T14:38:59Z")
> [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > In any event, you will be happy to know that DC is still incredibly oppressive with regard to firearms and that the number of people willing to waste several weeks of their life trying to get a firearm legal in DC is very small. Could the ineffectiveness of the DC gun laws have anything to do with the comparative ease of acquiring weaponry from neighboring states? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2012, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-2nd-amendment-an-anachronism/618976/84 "2012-04-17T14:49:56Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > I could equally point out that the local crack addict is supposed to be overseen by me local police department. So if I defend myself from the local crack addict when he tries to rape me, that is a tacit claim that you’re defying the government all the way up. Unless you’ve crossed the Macon County Line, the criminal who’s threatening is not a representative of the government. I said there were two bases involved: resistance to government tyranny and self-defense against criminals. What you’re describing is self-defense and has nothing to do with resistance. > [@Blake](#): > > A Black man in 1940 may have had recourse to defend himself from a lynch mob that happened to contain the local sheriff. A hotel owner in in 1930 may have had recourse to defend themself from a corrupt police officer in the pay of a gangster. In those circumstances there was no recourse to any overseeing body, yet you would argue that someone defending themself in those situations was in open rebellion against the US government, which seems extremely hyperbolic. And what happens in those situations? The Black man or the hotel owner shoots the sheriff or police officer. And then they get arrested themselves by the state police or the FBI. Guess what. Turns out there hasn’t been a breakdown in government and the higher levels were there working all along. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2012, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-2nd-amendment-an-anachronism/618976/85 "2012-04-17T14:51:08Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Could the ineffectiveness of the DC gun laws have anything to do with the comparative ease of acquiring weaponry from neighboring states? I don’t know how you could call DC’s gun laws ineffective. They do exactly what they are supposed to do, make it as difficult as possible for law-abiding citizens to avail themselves of their Constitutional rights under the guise of public safety. Perhaps you’re confusing the effectiveness of the law with the frequency with which it is broken. That is, of course, because criminals by definition do not obey laws. In any event, this thread has pretty much stayed on course. I’d prefer not to derail it with side issues. We’re weighing the merits of the 2nd Amendment, not individual local (!) gun laws. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2012, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-2nd-amendment-an-anachronism/618976/86 "2012-04-17T14:53:13Z")
> [@XT](#): > > And it’s almost like we don’t have the writings and papers of the men who wrote the Amendment that pretty clearly demonstrate exactly what their intent was. I personally don’t care what their intent was. They wrote what they wrote. They were a product of their times, this 21st century industrial society is nothing like the US of the 18th century. Give Tom Paine a time machine and have him come here, he might well look at the Zimmerman case and say “are you fucking nuts? We didn’t mean for this to happen!” ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2012, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-2nd-amendment-an-anachronism/618976/87 "2012-04-17T14:56:52Z")
> [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > In any event, this thread has pretty much stayed on course. I’d prefer not to derail it with side issues. We’re weighing the merits of the 2nd Amendment, not individual local (!) gun laws. QFT, and back to the actual topic we go. Would you agree that, even if the 2nd amendment isn’t an anachronism, it should at least be rewritten for clarity? ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2012, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-2nd-amendment-an-anachronism/618976/88 "2012-04-17T15:01:04Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > I personally don’t care what their intent was. They wrote what they wrote. They were a product of their times, this 21st century industrial society is nothing like the US of the 18th century. Give Tom Paine a time machine and have him come here, he might well look at the Zimmerman case and say “are you fucking nuts? We didn’t mean for this to happen!” That doesn’t matter. Remember how earlier in the thread you said you can’t have it both ways? Why should we care about what Thomas Jefferson said when we apply current views to the 1st Amendment and the separation of church and state? We could easily turn this country into a theocracy because the Founders had no idea what the future held so we can simply discard their intent. Ignoring the intent opens up a huge can of worms that I don’t think anybody wants to touch. Unless, of course, it’s something you don’t like or don’t care about, in which case it’s perfectly OK. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2012, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-2nd-amendment-an-anachronism/618976/89 "2012-04-17T15:02:25Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > QFT, and back to the actual topic we go. > Would you agree that, even if the 2nd amendment isn’t an anachronism, it should at least be rewritten for clarity? Maybe something like “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, I like ponies”? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2012, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-2nd-amendment-an-anachronism/618976/90 "2012-04-17T15:03:37Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > I personally don’t care what their intent was. They wrote what they wrote. They were a product of their times, this 21st century industrial society is nothing like the US of the 18th century. The Founding Fathers knew this perfectly well, and provided a means to address it when the culture changed enough that the Constitution needed to be changed. They put it in Article V. You could look it up! Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2012, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-2nd-amendment-an-anachronism/618976/91 "2012-04-17T15:04:52Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > QFT, and back to the actual topic we go. > Would you agree that, even if the 2nd amendment isn’t an anachronism, it should at least be rewritten for clarity? In theory, sure. In practice, not only no but HELL no. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2012, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-2nd-amendment-an-anachronism/618976/92 "2012-04-17T15:06:18Z")
> [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > In theory, sure. In practice, not only no but HELL no. Clarify, please? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2012, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-2nd-amendment-an-anachronism/618976/93 "2012-04-17T15:07:45Z")
[QUOTE=BobLibDem] I personally don’t care what their intent was. They wrote what they wrote. They were a product of their times, this 21st century industrial society is nothing like the US of the 18th century. [/QUOTE] Probably why they put in mechanisms to change it, ehe? 😛 For about the 5th time, if the 2nd is now anachronistic and irrelevant then change or strike it down. Of course, I figure why this doesn’t appeal to some folks in this debate and why the anti-gun types haven’t leaped on it is because while it might be anachronistic and irrelevant to THEM, it’s not to a large number of Americans. > [@](#): > > Give Tom Paine a time machine and have him come here, he might well look at the Zimmerman case and say “are you fucking nuts? We didn’t mean for this to happen!” Or he might shrug and not bat an eye. Hard to say unless one wants to try and put their own spin on what historical figures might think of things that happen today. You aren’t doing that, are you Bob? :eek: (You’d have been better off using Madison as your example btw) -XT ETA: On preview…what Shodan said. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2012, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-2nd-amendment-an-anachronism/618976/94 "2012-04-17T15:12:24Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Clarify, please? Sure. From my point of view, we have the thoughts of the Founders, Supreme Court decisions, and the weight of history to bring us to today’s climate. If we were to rewrite the Amendment, which way wold it be rewritten? Who would be involved in the writing? How many people would put in their two cents? Laws that are rewritten are usually needlessly complex and vague. There is zero possibility that the law would be rewritten to say “The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. The 2nd Amendment as it stands now is a paragon of clarity compared to what would happen if it were “clarified”. I’m content with the way things are now. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2012, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-2nd-amendment-an-anachronism/618976/95 "2012-04-17T15:15:10Z")
> [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > From my point of view, we have the thoughts of the Founders, Supreme Court decisions, and the weight of history to bring us to today’s climate. Until Heller, these things all supported the collectivist interpretation. > [@](#): > > I’m content with the way things are now. Because it’s so awesome that morons like Zimmerman get to pack heat? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2012, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-2nd-amendment-an-anachronism/618976/96 "2012-04-17T15:15:18Z")
> [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > Sure. From my point of view, we have the thoughts of the Founders, Supreme Court decisions, and the weight of history to bring us to today’s climate. If we were to rewrite the Amendment, which way wold it be rewritten? Who would be involved in the writing? How many people would put in their two cents? Laws that are rewritten are usually needlessly complex and vague. There is zero possibility that the law would be rewritten to say “The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. The 2nd Amendment as it stands now is a paragon of clarity compared to what would happen if it were “clarified”. > > I’m content with the way things are now. I can see that, and I’ll add in the unholy and unimaginable mess in general a Constitutional Convention would be today. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2012, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-2nd-amendment-an-anachronism/618976/97 "2012-04-17T15:15:58Z")
The thing is, I know America, and I know that no revolution will ever be the People against the Government - It’ll be one half of the People against the Government and the other half of the People. That means that as many privately-held firearms will be used to \*suppress \*the revolution as will be used to uphold it. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2012, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-2nd-amendment-an-anachronism/618976/98 "2012-04-17T15:18:36Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > The thing is, I know America, and I know that no revolution will ever be the People against the Government - It’ll be one half of the People against the Government and the other half of the People. That means that as many privately-held firearms will be used to \*suppress \*the revolution as will be used to uphold it. And what are the chances of an uprising _ever_ happening with conditions like those? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2012, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-2nd-amendment-an-anachronism/618976/99 "2012-04-17T15:20:28Z")
> [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > Yes. Without that Constitutional protection the right would not exist any longer. The very point of the Constitution’s protections is that it was recognized that those rights were at risk, else why did they specifically give them protection? If there were no possibility of the loss of freedom of speech there would be no need to protect it, yes? I’m not disputing that the Second Amendment does exist. I’m asking if it should exist. Not much point in arguing that a right should be in the Constitution because it’s a Constitutional right. > [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > Nobody regards them as Constitutional rights because they are not in need of protection. Nobody is trying to take away the right to own an automobile or a television. I think the reason nobody is trying to eliminate these things is because they don’t exist. You’d look kind of silly calling for a repeal of something that isn’t there. > [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > The idea of resistance against government tyranny is certainly quaint, but it’s arguable that the 2nd Amendment was ever intended for that purpose. Keep in mind that in 1812 the US was invaded and a war was fought for three years, which would be a prime example of what I believe they were talking about. The “free state” was challenged from without, not from within. > > I’ve said this before and I will say it again. Military members are US citizens as well. Were the United States to engage in revolution the military would fracture all the same, and the oath is to the Constitution, not to the government. A citizen militia would not have to stand up to a modern military, they would be augmenting the portion of the military that chooses to participate in the revolution, who would presumably bring weapons with them. I think the Second Amendment was intended for resistance to government. But regardless of whether it was that or national defense, the idea of a militia-based defense is outdated and can no longer be a valid basis for law. I agree that the military might split its loyalties in an actual revolution. But that’s not relevant to the topic of this debate. We’re discussing whether personal gun ownership is a good idea. That means the relevant discussion is whether personal gun ownership would be a significant factor in a revolution (via a citizen militia armed with personal weapons). If the military decides the outcome of the revolution, then personal weapons were not a significant factor. > [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > With regard to personal defense against crime, every person is entitled to defend themselves. Every person. A firearm is simply one way, and arguably the best way, of doing that. > > I will absolutely acknowledge the truth of that. However, I disagree with your conclusion. Crime is not something that exists because of firearms, and taking guns away will not diminish crime in any way. What it will do is take away (IMHO) the best means of self-defense for millions of people. I disagree with you on the self-defense issue. As I said before, firearms are much more likely to be used to commit a crime than to prevent the commission of a crime. That being the case, I’d argue that firearms are not the best way of defense against crime. Quite the opposite, if you accept the statistics (and real world evidence from other countries) restricting firearms reduces crime. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2012, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-2nd-amendment-an-anachronism/618976/100 "2012-04-17T15:30:01Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Until Heller, these things all supported the collectivist interpretation. No they didn’t, not even _Miller_. _Miller_ was a political decision by the Supreme Court, to say the least. The relevant quotes from the decision: > [@](#): > > In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. > [@](#): > > ``` > The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time. > > ``` Really? The military didn’t use short-barreled shotguns? They weren’t “in common use at the time”? That’s news to me. You can argue that _Heller_ and _McDonald_ were also political decisions, and I’m sure you will. Nevertheless, with millions of firearms commercially available and legal under the guise of the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the National Firearms Act of 1934, not to mention the ownership of firearms prior to that and the words of the Founders supporting firearm ownership, the analog to the 2nd Amendment in virtually every state constitution, and you have a situation where the “militia argument” no longer held even the little bit of water it did when it was decided. The decisions were easy to make and they were a long time coming (the Supreme Court ducked gun decisions for 69 years). > [@](#): > > Because it’s so awesome that morons like Zimmerman get to pack heat? Thank you for your rhetoric. I’ll file it in the appropriate place. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-2nd-amendment-an-anachronism/618976.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-2nd-amendment-an-anachronism/618976.md?page=6)