# Time to change 2nd Amendment **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 15, 2012, 10:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-change-2nd-amendment/644102 "2012-12-15T10:46:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2012, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-change-2nd-amendment/644102/201 "2012-12-17T20:04:27Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > Good. You get partial credit for knowing that. The full credit response would include reference to the fact that security screening at airports and federal buildings is not considered an unreasonable search in the eyes of the law. To the contrary, it is considered quite reasonable, with some justification. I happen to think it is unnecessary and in many cases a royal pain in the ass, but it is clearly not a 4th Amendment violation. Oh, clearly not! Why, _someone_ can justify it, therefore it’s not. And when someone justifies doing whatever with your gun rights, it will likely “be considered quite reasonable, with some justification.” You honestly can’t see how those words won’t always mean exactly what you want them to mean? Every single right you have or will ever have will hinge on what people think is reasonable and what they think is justified. ---
**Author:** ![thelurkinghorror](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7c8e57/32.png) [@thelurkinghorror](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelurkinghorror)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2012, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-change-2nd-amendment/644102/202 "2012-12-17T20:13:42Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > It can be. I think it’s probably kneejerk that we have to take off our shoes in the airport because of one crazy dude with shoe bombs. For awhile there, we also couldn’t have lighters on planes, except shoe bomber used matches. Or when I went to see _the Dark Knight Rises_, they made me check a backpack, despite the fact that the Aurora guy came in through the exit and had no need of taking one through security (and before that shooting, I had no idea you could put things in bags!). Sometimes it’s a valid move. Sometimes it mainly exists to make people feel better, and so the TSA/theaters/etc. can say they did something. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2012, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-change-2nd-amendment/644102/203 "2012-12-17T20:16:33Z")
> [@thelurkinghorror](#): > > despite the fact that the Aurora guy came in through the exit and had no need of taking one through security (and before that shooting, I had no idea you could put things in bags!). Wait… you can put THINGS in BAGS? I don’t even understand this world any longer. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2012, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-change-2nd-amendment/644102/204 "2012-12-17T20:26:51Z")
> [@Saintly\_Loser](#): > > I know I wish she’d never bought those guns. I bet she would too, if she had survived. Don’t you? I know I wish there was better mental health evaluation and treatment in this country, so we don’t have [lunatics shooting up](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ut_tower_shootings) [schools](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olean_High_School_shooting), [gluing kids’ hands to walls](http://abcnews.go.com/US/texas-mom-glued-daughters-hands-wall-99-years/story?id=17436643#.UM9_TOQ1x8E), [cutting arms off babies](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dena_Schlosser), [blowing](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe_Elementary_School_bombing)up [schools](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster), [murdering people and keeping heads in freezers](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Dahmer), or doing any number of [Ed Gein](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Gein)-like things. All those things might have been avoided if this country had better mental health resources and monitoring. Like others have said, the vast, vast majority of gun owners are very law-abiding types, and it’s the crazies and criminals who use them for nefarious purposes. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2012, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-change-2nd-amendment/644102/205 "2012-12-17T20:41:14Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > There’s a constitutional right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures without probable cause. You’re just arguing that they are waiving that right by boarding an airplane or by entering a federal building. Someone else could argue that you are waiving your right to bear arms by doing any number of things, maybe leaving your house. Maybe giving a funny look. Maybe having more than one gun. > > You justify the burden on your rights based on what rights you consider to be more important and what goals you consider more worthy. Everyone does the same thing. Yes, but the standards enunciated by Oakminster are well-grounded in case law. The standards you suggest have absolutely no basis in case law, and in fact are contradicted by case law. ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2012, 7:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-change-2nd-amendment/644102/206 "2012-12-18T07:29:58Z")
> [@stui\_magpie](#): > > I’ll make exceptions for handguns for target shooters, but the kinds of handguns used in Olympic type competition are not the same as the ones that “normal” people own. Most handgun target shooting (even organised competitions, not just “plinking”) is done with “normal” handguns, or modified variants of them - not multi-thousand dollar Olympic Games-level guns. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2012, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-change-2nd-amendment/644102/207 "2012-12-18T14:09:23Z")
> [@Nom\_de\_Plume](#): > > Any chance of making such a thing happen? Hopefully, none whatsoever. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2012, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-change-2nd-amendment/644102/208 "2012-12-18T14:48:43Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, but the standards enunciated by Oakminster are well-grounded in case law. The standards you suggest have absolutely no basis in case law, and in fact are contradicted by case law. I’m not sure that’s a relevant point. It’s all well and good that Oak has the case law on his side, but the case law regarding searches is mostly arbitrary\*. There is no _constitutional_ reason why a search in an airport may be more intrusive than one in, say, a public library. \*Obviously, some are grounded in the text of the constitution or common sense, like the hot pursuit exception, but some are just make-law. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2012, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-change-2nd-amendment/644102/209 "2012-12-18T15:44:00Z")
> [@](#): > > I’m not sure that’s a relevant point. It’s all well and good that Oak has the case law on his side, but the case law regarding searches is mostly arbitrary\*. There is no constitutional reason why a search in an airport may be more intrusive than one in, say, a public library. There is a constitutional reason that a search triggered by entering a secure area of an airport is less intrusive than a search triggered by “maybe leaving your house.” ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2012, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-change-2nd-amendment/644102/210 "2012-12-18T17:36:42Z")
Fair enoufgh. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2012, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-change-2nd-amendment/644102/211 "2012-12-18T19:22:45Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I’m not sure that’s a relevant point. It’s all well and good that Oak has the case law on his side, but the case law regarding searches is mostly arbitrary\*. There is no _constitutional_ reason why a search in an airport may be more intrusive than one in, say, a public library. > > \*Obviously, some are grounded in the text of the constitution or common sense, like the hot pursuit exception, but some are just make-law. It doesn’t even matter if something is grounded in the text of the constitution if people get upset enough. The right in this country are constantly wailing about how the Supreme Court ignores the constitution when it feels like it, and then when the conversation turns to guns, argues that having the 2nd amendment is all they need. You need more than an amendment. You need the population behind you. Because those judges are members of the populace and anyone who thinks we’ve really moved beyond a wholesale Korematsu-type disregard of major chunks of the constitution is a fool. All it will take is for people to get scared and/or angry enough at the terrorists\* in our midst. Nothing makes Heller permanent. If there is a massive public mood shift against legal gun ownership, Heller won’t prevent anything, because it will be put aside and the court will say “Oh, Heller was wrong when it was decided. That first half of the 2nd amendment? SUPER important. That’s why it comes FIRST.” \*These sorts of shootings generally don’t seem to attract the label of “terrorism,” but that can change if people get fussed enough about them. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2012, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-change-2nd-amendment/644102/212 "2012-12-18T21:29:23Z")
Well, much as I think Heller was a stupid decision (parts of it, anyway), you can’t set policy based on the way the Court _might_ rule in the future. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2012, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-change-2nd-amendment/644102/213 "2012-12-18T21:41:04Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Well, much as I think Heller was a stupid decision (parts of it, anyway), you can’t set policy based on the way the Court _might_ rule in the future. It’s not about setting policy (at least so far as my argument is concerned). My commentary is simply that if you count on courts always ruling in your favor, you’re stupid (obviously not directed at you), and history provides ample examples of constitutional rights being abridged because legislatures and courts found it popular and expedient to do so. So it’s damned unwise to handwave history and claim that it doesn’t matter what happens to the public mood because the constitution is there protecting any particular right. The original post I was responding to said (paraphrased) and in reply to another post that it wasn’t kneejerk to react when lives were at stake. It certainly can be and our history shows that it’s certainly possible for the courts and legislatures to be caught up in human events and not too worried about constitutional rights. Ignoring this is folly. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-change-2nd-amendment/644102/214 "2012-12-19T01:58:38Z")
Pro-gun people are well aware of the irony of appealing to the federal government for defense of rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment (which was originally a limitation on the power of the federal government). But the 2nd is pretty much all we’ve got against state and local authorities, who have demonstrated for over a century that they’re willing to curtail the right to self-defense to the extreme of banning firearms. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-change-2nd-amendment/644102/215 "2012-12-19T16:57:55Z")
**Lumpy** , what right to \*self-defense \*has been curtailed “for over a century”, by which ban? :dubious: Are you referring to the assault-weapons ban (as if those are for self-defense), or the licensing requirements for machine gunes (as if \*those \*are for self-defense) or what? The recent history of legislation has been all about relaxing restrictions, dontcha know. Including the end of the assault weapons ban itself. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-change-2nd-amendment/644102/216 "2012-12-19T17:04:18Z")
State and local bans, just like it said in his post. Presumably he’s referring to municipal ordinances like the ones challenged in _Heller_ and _McDonald_. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-change-2nd-amendment/644102/217 "2012-12-19T17:29:43Z")
But not to all the concealed-carry laws that have sprung up in that same timeframe, presumably. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-change-2nd-amendment/644102/218 "2012-12-19T17:32:09Z")
I think it’s taken as read that not all legislatures are hostile to firearms. I am just as opposed to Alabama banning abortion as I am to any other state doing it. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-change-2nd-amendment/644102/219 "2012-12-19T17:37:30Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > **Lumpy** , Are you referring to the assault-weapons ban (as if those are for self-defense) The AR15 is very usable for self-defense, they are : Easier to shoot than a shotgun due to less recoil. Are more accurate due to better sights and innate accuaccy. More likely to stop a threat quickly due to the balistics of a high speed projectile. Lighter and easier for smaller framed indivduals to use. The small lightweight projectiles break up and are stopped quicker by walls etc.. than heavy slow moving buckshot or even pistol rounds. There is a very good reasons even the Police have mostly dumped shotguns for AR’s for entry teams. The fact you so dismissive and claim they are not usable for self-defense really just shows how your argument is based on pure ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2012, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-change-2nd-amendment/644102/220 "2012-12-19T17:42:19Z")
How often do you think a _sight_ is necessary in home defense situations? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-change-2nd-amendment/644102.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-change-2nd-amendment/644102.md?page=12)