Should the Second Amendment be repealed?

In My Humble Opinion
61

Why isn’t a reasonable conversation one that starts on the basis of looking at evidence and history? The only legal effect that the 2nd amendment has had is to prevent blanket gun bans like the one in DC, so arguing fervently that it should be revoked clearly implies that is what you want. I’ll use the example again, if there was a history of states trying to quarter troops in people’s houses, and someone came along asking ‘should the third amendment be repealed’, wouldn’t you think they wanted to quarter troops in people’s houses? What reason would there be for wanting to go through the expense (both monetary and political) of revoking an amendment if you didn’t want to do something that amendment prevents?

I will also note that none of the people arguing for repeal because they want a ‘conversation’ will actually say what sort of gun control agenda they want to advance, that is whether they’d like a scheme that looks like NYC, pre-Heller DC, current DC, UK, or something along those lines. They don’t even actively deny that they want something that would amount to a comprehensive gun ban, they just argue that it’s unreasonable to presume that it’s what they want.

62

I’ll note you are wrong. As someone who supports a repeal of the second, I have no interest in a comprehensive gun ban. I don’t think the default should be everyone has a right to a gun. I’d rather, like driving privileges, that people interested in gun ownership apply for it and register and insure thier guns.

So I actively deny I want a gun ban and it’s unreasonable for you to assume I do.

63

I’m glad you do not want a gun ban. However, I, as well as many 2nd Amendment supporters, gun owners, self-defense advocates, target shooters, sportsmen, hunters, and NRA members, believe that any attempt to repeal the 2nd is just one more step in a never ending attempt to ban firearms. And that every politician/elected representative who advocates for the repeal of the 2nd, or promotes gun bans, should be opposed or un-elected.

It’s important to remember that all of the rights enumerated in the U.S. Bill of Rights are rights of the individual, aka the People, and NOT rights of the government. Ratification of the U.S. Constitution created the government, and passing the Bill of (Individual) Rights established limits on the federal government’s power.
As you are no doubt aware, the 2nd Amendment states -

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

You wish to establish regulations, like driving privileges, over “Arms” (firearms, pistols, rifles, shotguns, swords, knives, axes, etc.). It should be obvious that all of these “Arms” are currently regulated to some extent.

What the 2nd has prevented, with the decision of District of Columbia v. Heller, is that the government’s total ban on an entire class of arms in DC is unconstitutional.
*District of Columbia v. Heller

Facts of the case

Provisions of the District of Columbia Code made it illegal to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibited the registration of handguns, though the chief of police could issue one-year licenses for handguns. The Code also contained provisions that required owners of lawfully registered firearms to keep them unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or other similar device unless the firearms were located in a place of business or being used for legal recreational activities.

Dick Anthony Heller was a D.C. special police officer who was authorized to carry a handgun while on duty. He applied for a one-year license for a handgun he wished to keep at home, but his application was denied. Heller sued the District of Columbia. He sought an injunction against the enforcement of the relevant parts of the Code and argued that they violated his Second Amendment right to keep a functional firearm in his home without a license.

Conclusion

The ban on registering handguns and the requirement to keep guns in the home disassembled or nonfunctional with a trigger lock mechanism violate the Second Amendment. Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the opinion for the 5-4 majority. The Court held that the first clause of the Second Amendment that references a “militia” is a prefatory clause that does not limit the operative clause of the Amendment. Additionally, the term “militia” should not be confined to those serving in the military, because at the time the term referred to all able-bodied men who were capable of being called to such service. To read the Amendment as limiting the right to bear arms only to those in a governed military force would be to create exactly the type of state-sponsored force against which the Amendment was meant to protect people. Because the text of the Amendment should be read in the manner that gives greatest effect to the plain meaning it would have had at the time it was written, the operative clause should be read to “guarantee an individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” This reading is also in line with legal writing of the time and subsequent scholarship. Therefore, banning handguns, an entire class of arms that is commonly used for protection purposes, and prohibiting firearms from being kept functional in the home, the area traditionally in need of protection, violates the Second Amendment.*

64

And you reiterated mine nicely. “Properly functioning and trained”. How, exactly, is our current well-regulated militia being trained to perform its proper function? How exactly do you define “militia”, as distinct from a bunch of yahoos with guns? If I buy a gun, I suddenly, by that fact alone, become “properly functioning and trained”?

If a militia is not under at least the control of itself, with some modicum of internal order, it is not a militia.

Good for Richard Henry Lee for including all street thugs, but no women. Nice quote. Just because he (whom you hae cherry picked) says something, does not make it true. Luckily.

65

This is why I advocate “repeal and replace.” We’ll keep the good parts of the 2nd amendment, and replace it with something even better that will allow reasonable regulation without anyone having to worry about broad gun bans. A true win-win.

66

My answer is Hell Yes plus the Electoral College with it. Come on, the thing is fucked up beyond repair.

67

Take accidents out of the discussion, or you have to apply them to anything that can accidentally harm a human. ( cars anyone )
Leave in 50% savings on suicides because it would be too hard for those that really want to do it. ( Might be a joke but I have never been concerned with a suicide close to me. Auto deaths… You betcha…

I think a lot of people want the guns out of the criminals hands.
That is the biggest “never gonna happen” even if you could magically make US of A people into English people with the hundreds of years of history riding in their veins.

The idea that it would make it harder for criminals to get gun is so farfetched what with the number of guns in the country, the ease of making one, the black market or that they are going to in anyway obey the rules is such a joke that I see folks here are not making that statement anymore.

Individual fear or Religious influence seems to be the driving force for the most part.

The low numbers of accidental deaths make me being hit by lightning twice in my life to be a cuse for me to never go outside again.

Yes, autos, motorcycles, almost all the big killers are never mentioned as it would be too easy to make real progress there but they are either ‘okay’ because I think they are useful to me or I am familiar with them and think I know how to use them properly, or heart disease which requires me to make a substantial change that I can’t make you do for me. IMO

But, but GUNS…

Guns are not the problem, people are and that would require EVERYONE to make a change to suit you which is not going to happen anymore than you making a change to accommodate others.

100% fact, not having a gun did not keep my daughter from being murdered, nor did it keep one of my sisters from being raped.

There are so few assault rifles on the loose in the US of A and that is so a known fact, the people who keep talking as it there are can only be trying to use scare words and so they are being dishonest from the get go…

What about mandatory driving test for everyone over 60? Use the money being spent on drug testing of people on or wanting government assistance.

I find that the number of folks that are so pro-more restrictions live in larger towns/cities.

They will not respond to the failure of rule/control, whatever anti-gun thing going on in Chicago, Washington DC, Detroit etc., because it is so obvious it is not working/does not work.

Education
jobs
tolerance
Those work because that is what changes people.

We need the second amendment because there will always be those who admit that they know nothing about (most anything ) that scares them and they want it to go away no matter what.

Doing away with the Second would do so little to change anything and so many would die because there would be no more good people able to help.

News:
Cops killing and going full military kill squad in practice and mentality… See any of that SCARY stuff on your news feeds? Does not effect you or affect you, you wish.
Gang killing, all those law abiding kids, to young to be prosecuted for murder who are doing much of the gang killing now, not a worry?

But yes, lets take everyone who abides by the law more so than the average and punish him for what criminals do.

Numbers of under 12 year old killed by swimming pools vs those killed in accidents?

Mass shootings, schools or otherwise, those sick teenagers will not do that anymore because of gun control? ( I say I have a bridge for sale… )

The guns are not sick & stupid, the people are what is wrong.
The cars are not sick & stupid, the people are.
The swimming pols are not to blame, people are.

See the trend. That is why we really need the Constitution because of the people, they are the problem.

Drug war?
Illegal immigration?
Medical drug availability?

Nah, to be safe, we need to keep good people from having a real ability to defend themselves.

68

The supreme court has explicitly ruled that the second amendment allowes gun licensing, so you don’t actually need to revoke it to implement the scheme you want. And ‘may issue’ licensing has repeatedly turned into ‘no issue for anyone without political connections and/or a lot of money’, so by saying that people need to ‘apply for it’ you’re actually coming rather close to the position you deny. The description you posted above would apply to DC pre-Heller, for example, which I would certainly consider to be a comprehensive gun ban.

It’s perfectly reasonable for me to infer that you do from your support of an an action that would only be neccessary if you wanted to create a comprehensive gun ban. And from the fact that you support may-issue gun licensing, which we’ve seen repeatedly means, in practice, a comprehensive gun ban for regular people.

69

Again, what exactly do you mean by ‘reasonable regulation’ that is prohibited today by the 2A but would be allowed under your ‘repeal and replace’ plan? The only thing that it’s been used to block are broad gun bans like DC and Chicago, so it sounds like what you mean by ‘reasonable’ is ‘completely impossible for a normal person’.

70

It is devolving into a million previous discussions in the internet, not just here, where the count of minds changed is, if not zero, really really low. :slight_smile: As far as I’ve ever been able to tell.

But I’d reiterate your point. Can people who ‘want’ (which wouldn’t happen without a truly mind boggling change in political alignment, probably reflective of a very different real world, so kind of a puzzling concept to me, but anyway…) to repeal the 2nd amendment first lay out their understanding of what gun regulations it actually prevents.

National registry? probably not prohibited by the amendment, just no way no how politically. Which is like repealing the amendment. So maybe this is the confusion, grouping together ‘no way politically’ gun regulation proposals with repealing the 2nd because it’s also obviously not going to happen? But the amendment itself isn’t what’s standing in the way of a national registry, it’s public sentiment: the votes aren’t there.

Same with some fairly rigorous if not altogether prohibitive insurance requirement, or obviously, a federal ‘assault gun’ ban. The latter actually was politically feasible not terribly long ago (though in relatively ineffective ‘grandfathered’ form only). Not now, but even a non-grandfathered ‘assault gun’ ban (require hand in of existing ones) would probably be found constitutional. It’s just a complete pipe dream politically.

Or, I live in NJ. 500 people have concealed carry permits here in a population of 9 million. Thus in practical terms concealed carry of guns is banned in NJ. But in legal terms it appears to be constitutional, at least based on the lack of evidence of a successful court challenge. Could you pass such a law nationally through any likely Congress? Obviously not, but it’s a different constraint. I think the two constraints, what’s at all likely politically and what the 2nd amendment prohibits legally, are being confused. I guess the semi-logic of that confusion is that if you have a political environment where repealing the 2nd amendment was remotely realistic, that same environment would allow lots of additional federal gun control. The missing half of the logic is that a lot of that extra gun control wouldn’t actually require a repeal of the 2nd amendment, just a total change in the political environment like a 2nd repeal would require.