Is the 2nd Amendment an anachronism?

[BobLibDem]

@Airman_Doors_USAF

No they didn’t, not even Miller.

Sure they did. From this excellent piece.

For most of its history, the N.R.A. was chiefly a sporting and hunting association. To the extent that the N.R.A. had a political arm, it opposed some gun-control measures and supported many others, lobbying for new state laws in the nineteen-twenties and thirties, which introduced waiting periods for handgun buyers and required permits for anyone wishing to carry a concealed weapon. It also supported the 1934 National Firearms Act—the first major federal gun-control legislation—and the 1938 Federal Firearms Act, which together created a licensing system for dealers and prohibitively taxed the private ownership of automatic weapons (“machine guns”). The constitutionality of the 1934 act was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1939, in U.S. v. Miller, in which Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s solicitor general, Robert H. Jackson, argued that the Second Amendment is “restricted to the keeping and bearing of arms by the people collectively for their common defense and security.” Furthermore, Jackson said, the language of the amendment makes clear that the right “is not one which may be utilized for private purposes but only one which exists where the arms are borne in the militia or some other military organization provided for by law and intended for the protection of the state.” The Court agreed, unanimously. In 1957, when the N.R.A. moved into new headquarters, its motto, at the building’s entrance, read, “Firearms Safety Education, Marksmanship Training, Shooting for Recreation.” It didn’t say anything about freedom, or self-defense, or rights.

[furt]

@Cheesesteak

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.

It’s truly amazing how your posts have nothing to do with what I’ve said, or with the OP.

[furt]

@Alessan

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.

Sure, one can say that.

And if you know of a guaranteed way to disarm all the racists or other people worth resisting in 1870, 1970 or 2070, it’ll be a point worth making.

[rat_avatar]

@Czarcasm

What does “personal defense” specifically mean?

You may want to google Warren v. District of Columbia.

The police are not a protection force for the individual and they are not obligated to protect anyone who is not in custody.

[rat_avatar]

@furt

Sure, one can say that.

And if you know of a guaranteed way to disarm all the racists or other people worth resisting in 1870, 1970 or 2070, it’ll be a point worth making.

Superior force isn’t required, the ability to resist is often enough.

[rat_avatar]

@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.

Kadafi had his supporters as did Mubarak so i’m at a loss to what your point is here.

Our own revolution was not unanimous.

[rat_avatar]

IMHO the 2nd amendment, as a practical a function, is more about protecting us from the power of the military than it is to actually overthrow the government, if you consider we have had 230 years with no military take over of the government I would say it has worked so far.

That is quite a run with no battles over the hand over of power.

[Czarcasm]

@rat_avatar

IMHO the 2nd amendment, as a practical a function, is more about protecting us from the power of the military than it is to actually overthrow the government, if you consider we have had 230 years with no military take over of the government I would say it has worked so far.

That is quite a run with no battles over the hand over of power.

Do you really think that military takeovers were seriously contemplated by high ranking officers who had second thoughts after considering the might of armed citizens?

[jimpatro]

@Little_Nemo

I agree this is the fundamental point. Is the right to own a gun at the same level as the right of free speech or freedom of religion or the right to due process?

Personally I don’t think it is. I don’t think that anybody can argue there is a general right to own property and that the right to own a gun is like a right to own an automobile or the right to own a television. Nobody seems to regard these as constitutional rights - at most some people might feel it should be a constitutional right while acknowledging that such a general right is not recognized as existing. In reality, owning a gun is recognized as a right which is specific to guns as opposed to other items of property.

So why should fire-arms have a special right of ownership? The two bases seem to be resistance to government tyranny and personal defense against crime.

I’ve already addressed the resistance basis but let me repeat myself: it no longer has any foundation in reality. A mass of people armed with personal fire-arms can no longer form a credible resistance to government tyranny. As long as the tyranny holds the loyalty of the armed forces, those armed forces will be able to overwhelm any citizen resistance. A citizen militia cannot stand up to a modern military.

On the personal defense basis, I’ll acknowledge that there are cases where people use fire-arms to defend themselves against crime. But - and I hope gun supporters will return the favor in acknowledging reality - there are also cases where firearms are used to perpetuate crimes. So to me, it’s an issue of weighing the balance. Are the benefits gained from firearms as a means of preventing crime greater or lesser than the costs of firearms as a means of performing crimes? I feel the evidence shows that the cost greatly outweighs the benefits.

So do you really think that if guns are outlawed and citizens are told to turn them in, that citizen criminals will line up too?

[rat_avatar]

@Czarcasm

Do you really think that military takeovers were seriously contemplated by high ranking officers who had second thoughts after considering the might of armed citizens?

Yes…do you really think someone thinking about doing such an action doesn’t consider the response?

Or are you completely discounting the efficacy of small arms.

[John_Mace]

@Czarcasm

Do you really think that military takeovers were seriously contemplated by high ranking officers who had second thoughts after considering the might of armed citizens?

You obviously have never seen the documentary: Dr. Strangelove.

I’m still left wondering why gun ownership is seen to be an essential part of freedom, but no other item of commerce, not even food, is in the sane category. We don’t need a right to buy food or a right to buy drinking water. And saying that we need the right so that the government can’t take it away is circular reasoning.

The Colonists were obviously influenced by the issues of the day, and weren’t always able to see the difference between their particular hot buttons and universally timeless issues of freedom and democracy. Gun ownership seems to fall squarely in the former category. We’ve seen a lot of new countries formed in the last 20 or 30 years since the breakup of the USSR and the lifting of the Iron Curtain. How many of those new countries needed to ensure that gun ownership was a central part of their newly found freedom?

[Little_Nemo]

@rat_avatar

IMHO the 2nd amendment, as a practical a function, is more about protecting us from the power of the military than it is to actually overthrow the government, if you consider we have had 230 years with no military take over of the government I would say it has worked so far.

That is quite a run with no battles over the hand over of power.

The United Kingdom has had no battles over the handover of power in the last 230 years either. But they have no equivalent of the Second Amendment. So that’s evidence that a Second Amendment or its equivalent is not a necessity in preventing a dictatorship.

[Testy]

@Little_Nemo

<SNIP>

I’ve already addressed the resistance basis but let me repeat myself: it no longer has any foundation in reality. A mass of people armed with personal fire-arms can no longer form a credible resistance to government tyranny. As long as the tyranny holds the loyalty of the armed forces, those armed forces will be able to overwhelm any citizen resistance. A citizen militia cannot stand up to a modern military.

Little Nemo

I disagree strongly with this but I must admit that it depends on what you have in mind. A pitched battle between the 101st Airborne and a bunch of civilians, even if the civilians have scary black plastic stocks and flash hiders on their rifles, is only going to have one outcome. On the other hand, no one in their right mind will fight this kind of battle. There is that whole asymmetrical warfare thing like Iraq and Afghanistan. Both countries have accomplished a lot using not much more than small arms in the hands of the populace.

As several others have posted, the rebels would also have some of the military on their side. Depending on how bad the government was, the rebels might have a LOT of the army on their side. I know, you said “as long as the government retains the loyalty of the military,” but that is the problem, they won’t. The separation of the military into rebellious and loyal factions happens in many revolutions. (Libya and Egypt are good examples and it is starting to happen in Syria as well.)

On the personal defense basis, I’ll acknowledge that there are cases where people use fire-arms to defend themselves against crime. But - and I hope gun supporters will return the favor in acknowledging reality - there are also cases where firearms are used to perpetuate crimes. So to me, it’s an issue of weighing the balance. Are the benefits gained from firearms as a means of preventing crime greater or lesser than the costs of firearms as a means of performing crimes? I feel the evidence shows that the cost greatly outweighs the benefits.

Well, I have to agree that criminals use guns to commit crimes. Having said that, I feel that I am the one ultimately responsible for the defense of my family and home and self, and while improvised weapons can do a lot, I’d really like to have at least parity with the damn criminal that is trying to deprive me of whatever it is.

There are several reasons why I’d rather be able to depend on myself than some kind of law enforcement organization:

a) My response time is effectively zero. There is a funny bumper sticker around that says; “When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.” That’s just a funny sticker but there is an element of truth in it as well.
b) I’m at least as well trained as most police forces. I shoot as a hobby and for meat and have had training on various small arms.
c) I have more incentive. I’m not just trying to do a good job or uphold the law, I’m fighting for my life.

At the end of the day and aside from the personal defense issues, I consider an armed populace to be one more of the checks and balances that the country was founded upon. If someone in authority becomes excessively tyrannical or decides to become President-for-Life, they are going to need a LOT of bodyguards, and how do you trust them? The friends and relatives of those bodyguards are the ones you’re oppressing. And no matter how many you have, your populace is eventually going to get you. I suspect that Mr. Assad in Syria is staying strictly indoors these days, as are his family and friends and just about anyone with a high government position. Guns in the hands of the citizens makes the threat personal.

Those are the reasons I believe that guns, overall, are a good thing.

Regards

Testy

[Czarcasm]

@rat_avatar

Yes…do you really think someone thinking about doing such an action doesn’t consider the response?

Can you come up with a cite that this was ever a serious possibility?

[Little_Nemo]

@jimpatro

So do you really think that if guns are outlawed and citizens are told to turn them in, that citizen criminals will line up too?

No, I expect criminals are going to try to break the law. And I expect our legal system to enforce the law. Are you arguing there’s no point in enacting a law if some people are going to try to break it? Such an argument would pretty much eliminate the reason for every law. All we’d have left of the Constitution is the Third Amendment.

[rat_avatar]

@Czarcasm

Can you come up with a cite that this was ever a serious possibility?

For what?

That A few machine guns in a beer hall is a bad way to try and take over a country or that people we pay to make strategy tend to make strategy even when trying to use their force against the people?

I think it is you who need to provide the cite that military men some how toss all their training out the window when attempting to control the transfer of power in their favor by force.

[jimpatro]

@Little_Nemo

No, I expect criminals are going to try to break the law. And I expect our legal system to enforce the law. Are you arguing there’s no point in enacting a law if some people are going to try to break it? Such an argument would pretty much eliminate the reason for every law. All we’d have left of the Constitution is the Third Amendment.

Not much “balance” when law abiding citizens willfully turn in their guns but criminals keep their’s. We weren’t discussing every law. And law enforcement generally shows up after a crime is commited. Just a matter of numbers. There are many more civilians who may become victims than police to protect them.

[jimpatro]

@Little_Nemo

My personal two cents.

1. The Second Amendment guarantees the right for individuals to personally own fire-arms. That’s the intent and if I were a judge, that’s how I’d rule.

2. The right for individuals to personally own fire-arms is a really dumb idea and we should repeal the Second Amendment.

Okay, maybe it seemed like a good idea back in 1789 but times have changed. Fire-arms are a lot deadlier than they were back in the 18th century. And military technology has also advanced.

A citizens militia armed with personal weapons is not going to defeat a professional military. And a citizen is far more likely to be killed by an armed criminal than he is to defend himself from a criminal with a gun.

Time to throw the towel in on this one and toss the Second Amendment in with the original VP voting system, the 3/5 rule, and prohibition as a bad idea.

I’m not saying I’d ban all guns. But I think we should have some reasonable standards over who owns guns, how many guns they own, what kind of guns they own, and where they can use those guns. I think we should regulate guns to approximately the same level that we regulate automobiles.

“…far more likely to be killed by an armed criminal…”
This is supposed to be an argument against armed citizens?
If more citizens were armed they would be LESS likely to be killed.

[Czarcasm]

@jimpatro

“…far more likely to be killed by an armed criminal…”
This is supposed to be an argument against armed citizens?
If more citizens were armed they would be LESS likely to be killed.

It’s a gun, not a force field.

[pkbites]

@Czarcasm

And what the hell do you think is going to happen next if some idiot takes out a “rogue” county sheriff? This isn’t some poorly written men’s novel where the Guy In The White Stetson takes the badge off the body of evil Sheriff Whiplash, pins it on himself, and the grateful townsfolk cheer. You fuck with a county sheriff like that and the Feds will be down before you have time to reload.

Not so. My scenario actually happened. I’m looking for the cite but I’m very bust today so it may be a while. I tried to get someone here to do my work for me to no success. I believe it was in Tennessee, but when I find the cite I shall know for sure. And it wasn’t just one lone guy, it was an entire community that had it with the sheriff.