Should the Second Amendment be repealed?

[Corry_El]

@steronz

You may have a point on this whole “both sides use the slippery slope” argument, but I don’t think abortion is the best example. I’ve not heard the slippery slope argument used here, because every little law that the pro-life crowd manages to slip under the courts’ nose, from mandated ultrasounds to requiring abortion clinics to be equipped like hospitals, has the potential to be one hurdle too many between a desperate pregnant woman and safe access to a potentially life-altering (for the better) procedure. Which is to say, I don’t think magazine size restrictions drastically affect anyone’s life, which is why the slippery slope argument ultimately comes into play (what’s the big deal, right? Well I’ll tell you why, because it’s step 1 towards…). But a single abortion clinic shutting down could mean some women carrying unwanted pregancies to term, with all of the trouble that goes along with that. Or worse, seeking unsafe alternatives.

Now, you could argue that guns save lives, and each restriction on gun rights might be one hurdle too many for someone in desperate need of self defense. But, come on. There are charities that exist to, amongst other things, pay for women to have access to abortions, because (mostly liberals) feel that safe family planning is vitally important. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I just searched and there’s no charities that give guns to people, except for one guy who made the news in 2013 with the Armed Citizen Project, but whose website, 3.5 years later, just says, “coming soon.” So I think it’s fair to say that these issues are quite different.

No two issues are entirely the same or we’d call them the same issue. But while you make some good points, seems to me they are in opposite directions in the first and second paragraphs. In the first you seem to say that ‘moving the ball’ politically on abortion at all has a real effect because some women won’t get an abortion who ‘should’ have, whereas it’s implied gun restrictions (as they would be, realistically) couldn’t prevent any person legitimately defending themselves. But then in second paragraph you admit that private charity can/does provide a around at least some real world abortion restrictions, but no similar mechanism helps people prevented by gun restrictions from defending themselves.

And you are cherry picking one example of a gun restriction (a magazine size limit), somebody else could cherry pick just one example of an abortion restriction.

Where I live for example owners of convenience stores in bad neighborhoods have a heck of time legally having a gun in the store. Not federal law, and totally different in most US states. But likewise significant abortion restrictions by and large apply to the most anti-abortion states, I live in one of the most anti-gun states. You could argue to the store owner the gun doesn’t really make him any safer…from your crime safe neighborhood and job (the general you, not you personally), but might not convince him. And it may be an objective fact he suffers fear and stress because he has choose between being strictly law abiding or having a gun at hand.

In any case I think the position of very pro-abortion rights and very pro-gun rights people is more similar than different on ‘slippery slope’. They don’t want to give ground mainly because they think it will embolden their opponents to seek further advances, not because the effect of a little given ground is that categorically different in the two cases.

[Dangerosa]

I’m a liberal and no - but I think the “well regulated” needs to be better enforced and probably additionally legislated. It isn’t “well regulated” not to have a national database of gun ownership.

It is completely reasonable to hunt with guns. Its completely reasonable to shoot a pistol at a range as a hobby activity. Its reasonable to keep a gun in the house for self defense - although if you have young children at home, you should keep it locked up - which makes self defense hard. It is not reasonable to be so paranoid about gun ownership that you legislate no database.

[bobot]

I voted No, and I don’t identify as a Liberal/Progressive. I tend to vote that way, however, because I only really have 2 options come vote time. I just have a hangup with labels.
No, it shouldn’t be repealed. Gun laws should be enforced, updated/rewritten if needed, and guns should be registered like cars are. Taking rights away from Americans is not something I could ever support.

[pkbites]

@jtur88

If it were repealed, people would still have the right to bear arms, unless and until laws were in place to restrict the bearing of arms. Such laws would still have the burden of showing that they are not an infringement on the pursuit of happiness.

You’re confusing the Constitution with The Declaration of Independence, which has no legal status.

There may be a 10th Amendment fight seeing that most states have a right to bear arms clause in their constitutions. But seeing that the 10th is ignored already the Feds would probably tie highway funds or something to it to get around that. :rolleyes:

[Pantastic]

@Icarus

As I stated in my first response, the 2nd acts a rock-in-the-road preventing any further discussion.

A middle could include discussions of who could and could not possess a gun, and under what circumstances.

It’s already illegal for felons, people convicted of DV, and people who have been involuntarily committed to purchase a gun. The laws have been upheld in courts repeatedly. In some states, like New York and Illinois, people must go through a licensing procedure to possess a gun. The NRA backed the creation of the NICS background check system in the 1990s over the objections of gun control groups (who wanted a waiting period with no background check). The NRA recently backed a bill that would increase the sharing of mental health information with the NICS system, but it was voted down by anti-gun forces because it also included due process protections for information that shouldn’t disqualify a person being used to disqualify them.

The discussion of who could and could not possess a gun, and under what circumstances has happened, happens routinely, and is upheld by the courts. The largest pro-gun organization in the US routinely talks about the topic, and has supported laws on the matter. So your contention here is simply untrue.

Because TRUE BELIEVERS subscribe to the canard that any discussion automatically in all cases ever = confiscating all guns from everyone. That is why I advocate repealing, because of the continued existence of the 2nd we are unable to move in any direction.

The problem with this line of reasoning is, again, that the only legal effect the 2nd amendment has is to prevent comprehensive gun bans, like what DC and Chicago had before Heller. If you don’t want DC-style prohibition on private gun ownership, then the 2nd amendment does nothing legally in your way, it’s only a philosophical barrier. So by pressing to revoke the 2nd amendment, you give the clear impression that you want a general ban, since it has no other legal effect. If you simply convinced people not to use it to stop discussion (which isn’t really true anyway), then you wouldn’t need to revoke it because it would cause no problem, and it’s not possible to revoke it without convincing people of that anyway.

If you actually want any kind of gun control, discussion about revoking the second amendment is the worst way to get anyone to talk to you.

A middle could include discussions of research to make guns safer so they do not unintentionally cause harm.

The research happens, and people discuss it routinely. Anti-gun groups have attempted to require the use of untested, ill-conceived, and even non-existent safety devices multiple times in the past in a sideways attempt at a gun ban for private citizens, which is actually what has poisoned the topic. Specifically, the New Jersey law that passed in 2002 and imposes a comprehensive ban on all non-smart guns within 30 months of any smart gun being sold anywhere in the US, no matter the price or effectiveness, means that no gun store is willing to sell an experimental model because by doing so they’re effectively banning handguns in New Jersey.

A New Jersey Law That's Kept Smart Guns Off Shelves Nationwide : All Tech Considered : NPR

[River_Hippie]

I’m a centrist Democrat and quite liberal on some issues. The Second Amendment is one of the things I’m a conservative about, meaning I support it. Unlike many 2nd supporters I do sometimes question my own feelings about it.
I voted no.

[ekedolphin]

No. I’m a Democrat who isn’t comfortable with how many guns there are in the country, and I don’t think people need to be going around buying AK-47s. But it’s too late now. Repealing the Second Amendments would just give gun-nuts a conniption fit, and make them more likely to mow down innocent police officers and civilians.

[Projammer]

@Pabitel

Ultra liberal here, it should not be repealed, it should be enforced as conceived and written.

It is supposed to be a “well regulated militia” not an assault rifle for any loony who wants to shoot stuff.

Gun control proponents keep using those words. I do not think they mean what they want them to mean. Phrases and words have changed much in meaning over the last 200 years.

Well regulated

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.

Nothing about being under the control of a governmental entity.

What do the terms arms, well regulated, and militia mean in the Second Amendment?

Because the Founders did not define “the militia” the way most moderns do, as some variant of the National Guard. For just two examples:

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials. - George Mason


The militia are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms. - Richard Henry Lee


And despite the modern public misconception of this, the law itself is clear. 10 U.S. Code § 311(a) reads: "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age …

So in the context of the time. All able-bodied men from ages 17-45 well trained in the use of weapons shall not be prohibited from keeping and bearing arms.

Though in today’s more progressive society we should reasonably extend the recognition of this right to women and people over 45.

[thelurkinghorror]

I am a political independent who is pretty liberal on social issues, moderate on fiscal. I grew up in one of the most liberal areas of the country, and work in one of the most liberal professions. But I am considered “conservative” on gun issues. However, I do not think it is a left/right issue, even if there is a strong correlation. It has only recently in history that this has been tied to political parties, and not too long ago many on the left supported gun rights. I actually think gun control is an illiberal position, especially in the original definition of “liberal,” sharing hallmarks with attitudes of certain current Republicans.

I am especially turned off by Democratic politicians who are either a) outright lying about the state of guns in America and how they work, or b) completely ignorant about them and thus should not be in charge of passing laws on something they don’t understand. I don’t expect them to be experts about the nuances of say, single action vs double action, but I would expect them to approach things scientifically instead of with emotions, and be willing to learn. For every Newsom, Carolyn McCarthy, or de Leon spreading disinformation about firearms, I see an ideology analogous to the religious right.

If this does not make sense to you, I consider it equivalent to Republican politicians speaking candidly about “legitimate rape”. Or somehow being a bigger expert about climate change than legitimate scientists. I think many of them probably believe this is true, but ideology trumps (heh) actual facts.

So no, I don’t support repealing it, and even if you don’t particularly like guns, it sets a bad precedent to do so. But if you want to, it’s super easy: just get a supermajority of both parts of Congress or the states to propose it, then get a bigger majority (75%) of the state legislatures to agree (a strong majority almost certainly will not). Or you could continue to use backhanded tactics to chip away at gun rights which have zero correlation to crime (“ban ‘assault weapons’! They kill as many as 1 person every 5 years!”), but affect people willing to obey the law.

[boytyperanma]

Sure I think it should be repealed then we could have a much more reasonable conversation about gun control. I’m not against guns I just think there should be better controls.

I think the second is a hurdle liberals refuse to take on and for that they can’t win. So long as the second exists people have a right to their guns. I feel a lot of liberal attempts at gun control are similar to conservative attempts at stopping abortion. If someone has a right to something it’s unreasonable to pass laws to make that right so difficult it can never be achieved. Don’t play around the issue, if you don’t want people to have something come out say it and lobby for a constitutional amendment.

I doubt I’ll see it repealed in my lifetime.

[DorkVader]

@boytyperanma

Sure I think it should be repealed then we could have a much more reasonable conversation about gun control. I’m not against guns I just think there should be better controls.

snip

I’m not sure what you mean by this, but taken at its face value, what possible “more reasonable” conversation could we have about gun control after you’ve certainly taken away the right to have them, and potentially (probably?) made it outright illegal?

[UDS]

@guestchaz

I’m not sure what you mean by this, but taken at its face value, what possible “more reasonable” conversation could we have about gun control after you’ve certainly taken away the right to have them, and potentially (probably?) made it outright illegal?

Well, a reasonable conversation about gun control doesn’t start from the assertion that eliminating the constitutional right to have guns means “potentially (probably?) made it outright illegal”. Most of the world does not recognise a constitutional right to have guns; they have reasonable conversations in which the public interest in allowing people to have guns is balanced with the public interest in restricting people’s rights to have guns, and solutions emerge. I don’t see any a priori reason to assume that Americans are incapable of doing that; there are lots of things that Americans have no constitutional right to have, but the law allows them to have them anyway, with minimal or no restrictions, and with any restrictions usually being the subject of reasonable conversations.

[jtur88]

@Projammer

Gun control proponents keep using those words. I do not think they mean what they want them to mean. Phrases and words have changed much in meaning over the last 200 years.
(snip)

Nothing about being under the control of a governmental entity.
.

Nobody is saying it needs to be under the control of a government entity. But “regulated” certainly implies that it be under the control of somebody, internally if not externally. Where is the chain of command, inventory of arms, roster or troopes, organization of logistics? You know, those silly little things that make something at least have the appearance of being “regulated”? Our “well regulated militia” is like a kitchen drawer, at best. In terms of a citizen’s militia, what do you want the term
well-regulated" to mean?

[Dangerosa]

The well regulated militia is an interesting thing. Much of the logic of a well regulated militia at the time had to do with the probability of putting down slave revolts. Needing to arm white men was a necessary part of the system (as was keeping weapons out of the hands of the black slaves), since your average cotton plantation, unarmed slaves could easily overwhelm unarmed white people with numbers alone. The other part of the issue was the division between the Democratic Republicans and the Federalists on the need for a standing army. The idea was that we’d have no professional army, but that our citizens would answer the call as needed - which, of course, means that the citizenry needs to be armed and ready to answer the call. Which works for a small scale agrarian nation state in the 18th century - it does not work for a world superpower in the 21st.

[Projammer]

@jtur88

Nobody is saying it needs to be under the control of a government entity. But “regulated” certainly implies that it be under the control of somebody, internally if not externally. Where is the chain of command, inventory of arms, roster or troopes, organization of logistics? You know, those silly little things that make something at least have the appearance of being “regulated”? Our “well regulated militia” is like a kitchen drawer, at best. In terms of a citizen’s militia, what do you want the term well-regulated" to mean?

You reiterate the point of my post nicely. It’s not about what I want it to mean. It is about what the term meant at the time it was incorporated into the amendment. When the amendment was crafted, ‘well regulated’ meant properly functioning or trained. The term has only recently (relatively) been co-opted to mean under the control of an entity, whether a person or agency.

And again, ‘militia’ referred to either everyone, or all men ages 17 to 45 and some women. “The militia are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.” - Richard Henry Lee

[DSeid]

@R3d_Anonymous

I want to see if there is a significant proportion of liberals or progressives that are in favor of repealing the Second Amendment.

Not one to interrupt the ongoing rehash of ten thousand past GD threads but to return to the op - it is I think worth noting that on a board that skews to an over-representation of highly educated liberal-progressive intellectuals, a solid majority of those who self-select into participating in a second amendment thread, who would self-identify (if forced to choose) as “liberal/progressive” are against appealing the second amendment.

A venue and thread that should demonstrate the most possible selection bias for those most likely to be “gun-grabbers”, to the degree that those fabled creatures actually exist, and the HO of most of even them would be against repealing the second amendment.

Just thought that was worth noting. I can state with confidence that it will have no impact on the strawman being put up again and again.

Carry on.

[Bridget_Burke]

@Dangerosa

The well regulated militia is an interesting thing. Much of the logic of a well regulated militia at the time had to do with the probability of putting down slave revolts. Needing to arm white men was a necessary part of the system (as was keeping weapons out of the hands of the black slaves), since your average cotton plantation, unarmed slaves could easily overwhelm unarmed white people with numbers alone. The other part of the issue was the division between the Democratic Republicans and the Federalists on the need for a standing army. The idea was that we’d have no professional army, but that our citizens would answer the call as needed - which, of course, means that the citizenry needs to be armed and ready to answer the call. Which works for a small scale agrarian nation state in the 18th century - it does not work for a world superpower in the 21st.

The Militia didn’t work all that well in the 18th century, either. George Washington had a lot of trouble working with them; they tended to have short enlistments & balked at following orders. Eventually, he learned how to use them–often interspersed with Continentals to make it harder to flee from battle. But he also learned to prefer a real Army. (As did his trusted aide, Alexander Hamilton.)

As wartime governor of Virginia, Thomas Jefferson found the Militia weak & poorly armed–after he overcame his convictions about a Weak Executive & got around to giving them orders. The British invasion–including General Benedict Arnold in his new red coat–finally got his attention. Then his term ended & he fled on horseback.

As President, TJ cut back the military severely–he suspected many officers of Federalist leanings. Which caused problems when his good friend Madison declared war in 1812. As Secretary of Defense, James Monroe (a veteran, unlike TJ & Madison) built up the Army again…

Sorry for the historical digression. But the Militia were real organizations, not just “every man.”

[Pabitel]

@Projammer

calibrated correctly

Exactly, what apparatus for calibration do we have, save regulation.

[Dangerosa]

TJ was probably one of the world’s greatest intellectuals. His pragmatic streak ran a little towards “this is how the world SHOULD work” instead of “this is how the world works” and his actions and ideals were often at odds. His theories of militias and armies are a good example of this.

(We should send an army to France to help them overcome the king! But we shouldn’t have taxes or a standing army - and since I spent the revolution in France, I really have no clear idea of what I’m asking of my countrymen.)

[DCnDC]

Guns aren’t toys. They’re for family protection, hunting dangerous or delicious animals, and keeping the King of England out of your face.