# Time to kick out the second amendment
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-kick-out-the-second-amendment/261193
**Category:** The BBQ Pit
**Created:** [August 24, 2004, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-kick-out-the-second-amendment/261193 "2004-08-24T01:31:49Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 5
### Author:  [@roger\_thornhill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/roger_thornhill)
#### Post date: [August 24, 2004, 12:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-kick-out-the-second-amendment/261193/81 "2004-08-24T12:04:43Z")
> [@Liberal](#):
>
> I have no idea where Mikey got his stats, but it sounds to me like an argument advocating that more people need to join the NRA’s skills programs.
Regarding Mike’s use of stats, I’m reminded of Churchill’s observation that he would never trust any statistics that he hadn’t falsified himself.
---
### Author:  [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)
#### Post date: [August 24, 2004, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-kick-out-the-second-amendment/261193/82 "2004-08-24T12:34:48Z")
> [@](#):
>
> **Liberal** said:
> I have no idea where Mikey got his stats, but it sounds to me like an argument advocating that more people need to join the NRA’s skills programs.
Or take a trip to [Thunder Ranch](http://www.thunderranchinc.com/) to hone their skills and learn to use firearms as defensive tools.
---
### Author:  [@roger\_thornhill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/roger_thornhill)
#### Post date: [August 24, 2004, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-kick-out-the-second-amendment/261193/83 "2004-08-24T12:38:42Z")
‘Urban Rifle’ course. Mmm…
---
### Author:  [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)
#### Post date: [August 24, 2004, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-kick-out-the-second-amendment/261193/84 "2004-08-24T15:25:10Z")
> [@smartini](#):
>
> Personally I think the Second Ammendment referred to muskets and the FF would possibly have reconsidered had they been privy to the firepower at our disposal today.
Personally, I think the First Amendment referred to one-page-at-a-time, hand set type screw presses and the FF would possibly have reconsidered had they been privy to the bandwidth at our disposal today. :dubious:
---
### Author:  [@GaWd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GaWd)
#### Post date: [August 24, 2004, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-kick-out-the-second-amendment/261193/85 "2004-08-24T15:49:26Z")
Getting back to the OP for just a second, there is almost nor eason to repeal the 2nd Amendment. The high court and lower courts treatment of, decisions concerning and interpretation of the second amendment make it very easy to eliminate guns. In fact, California’s Constitution contains no “Right to Keep and Bear Arms”(RKBA), provision.
Further, the California high court has interpreted that The 2nd Amendment RKBA clause refers to _trained militiamen_, i.e.-State and Federal troops, not the common man.
Sam
---
### Author:  [@Bongmaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bongmaster)
#### Post date: [August 24, 2004, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-kick-out-the-second-amendment/261193/86 "2004-08-24T15:59:46Z")
> [@Una Persson](#):
>
> By a few generations from now schoolchildren will giggle nervously at the absurd thought that anyone could ever have had any “right” to possess a weapon to defend themselves, shoot for “sport”, or even kill an actual animal - “hunting”, I think it was called?
Yes, until another 100 years go by and the country is totally disarmed and completely unable to mount an armed insurrection against a goverment gone wild. I honestly believe that part of the reason the laws were crafted to allow gun ownership was to keep the idea of a completely controlled society out of the minds of those in a position to make it happen. If the citizens are completely without weapons what keeps the shadowy people with great power from controlling everything?
---
### Author:  [@Kluge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kluge)
#### Post date: [August 24, 2004, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-kick-out-the-second-amendment/261193/87 "2004-08-24T18:43:43Z")
> [@roger thornhill](#):
>
> So, would it be reasonable to assume that gun ownership was lower, pro rata, among black American adults than among white American adults? **Any stats for this?** Or comments from people who have discussed this with black friends? Or, best of all, from black people themselves?
> [@roger thornhill](#):
>
> I’m asking for comments from black people, **not stats**. Read it again!
Bolding mine.
Okay, I read it again. Care to explain?
> [@Bongmaster](#):
>
> Yes, until another 100 years go by and the country is totally disarmed and completely unable to mount an armed insurrection against a goverment gone wild. I honestly believe that part of the reason the laws were crafted to allow gun ownership was to keep the idea of a completely controlled society out of the minds of those in a position to make it happen. If the citizens are completely without weapons what keeps the shadowy people with great power from controlling everything?
Why can’t we have passive resistance in such a situation? And don’t laugh it off, this is a serious question.
---
### Author:  [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)
#### Post date: [August 24, 2004, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-kick-out-the-second-amendment/261193/88 "2004-08-24T20:46:56Z")
> [@roger thornhill](#):
>
> Is this the classic liberal position on guns?
The answer to this question hinges upon how you are defining ‘classic liberal’? If you define the phrase as Milton Friedman did, then the answer may be yes. If you are defining the phrase as Glenn Beck might then the answer may well be no.
> [@roger thornhill](#):
>
> Do you understand Moore as subscribing to this view?
No.
---
### Author:  [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)
#### Post date: [August 24, 2004, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-kick-out-the-second-amendment/261193/89 "2004-08-24T21:24:20Z")
> [@Kluge](#):
>
> Why can’t we have passive resistance in such a situation? And don’t laugh it off, this is a serious question.
For the same reason you have to ask us not to laugh; it’s naive and the world doesn’t work that way. Do you think passive resistance would have done any good against the likes of Hussein, Stalin, Castro, Amin, the Iranian Mullahs and so on?
I think a good analogy here would be the recent theft of the painting _Scream_. It was stolen from a museum in a country where even the police don’t carry guns (they keep them under lock and key in their cars, apparently). Needless to say, the museum guards had no guns either. So someone comes in with a gun and controls the whole place: guards, customers and employees alike. And they brazenly make off with two highly valuable paintings virtually unchallenged. (Or virtually, hell…they _were_ unchallenged!)
What chance did anyone have to stop the thefts or to protect innocent bystanders from whatever the robbers decided to do? And what role did the fact that museum guards and even the police were unarmed play in their decision to pull off the robbery in the first place?
There are simply too many people in this world who are more than willing to take advantage of pacifists through the use of force and/or weaponry for pacifism to work…and attempting passive resistance will likely only get you (or your family) imprisoned or killed for even trying it. Passive resistance only works when you have governments that are controlled by the people. When the government controls the people, you do what you are told to do, and you behave the way you are told to behave, or you pay the price.
---
### Author:  [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)
#### Post date: [August 24, 2004, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-kick-out-the-second-amendment/261193/90 "2004-08-24T21:29:05Z")
> [@Kluge](#):
>
> Why can’t we have passive resistance in such a situation? And don’t laugh it off, this is a serious question.
Passive resistance works great if you’ve got a semi-rational government in charge, but a brutal, totalitarian regime ain’t gonna care squat about folks using passive resistance.
---
### Author:  [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)
#### Post date: [August 24, 2004, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-kick-out-the-second-amendment/261193/91 "2004-08-24T21:40:14Z")
> [@GaWd](#):
>
> Further, the California high court has interpreted that The 2nd Amendment RKBA clause refers to _trained militiamen_, i.e.-State and Federal troops, not the common man.
So you’re saying the California Supreme Court has determined that a constitutional amendment was needed in order for the United States and its individual states to be able to maintain a militia, and a “trained” one, at that? Sounds to me like more judicial activism where you have judges using twisted logic to in effect create laws where none would have been possible by the will of the people.
I would have thought, since virtually every country of any size has a military, that it would go without saying that we would have the right to maintain an army. I don’t really believe this is what the founding fathers had in mind. The overwhelming desire of the founding fathers was that the people rule the country, not the government. They knew from past experience what happens when you have an armed government and an unarmed citizenry, and it’s my belief that they felt an armed citizenry would be a deterrant to take over by the government, just as they felt all the other checks and balances they built in would limit the ability of the government to achieve too much power over the citizenry.
---
### Author:  [@Kluge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kluge)
#### Post date: [August 24, 2004, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-kick-out-the-second-amendment/261193/92 "2004-08-24T21:49:04Z")
> [@Tuckerfan](#):
>
> Passive resistance works great if you’ve got a semi-rational government in charge, but a brutal, totalitarian regime ain’t gonna care squat about folks using passive resistance.
I figured someone would say that. But if they’re that brutal, then they’ll care even less about crushing armed resistance. Let me point to **Marley** ’s wonderfully written post.
> [@Marley23](#):
>
> > [@PaulFitzroy](#):
> >
> > Keep in mind that the American military fighting an innsurection on its own ground would not be able to use daisy-cutters and “blow it all to hell” tactics.
>
> Sure they could. In Iraq, we’re attempting to fight the insurgency without causing further problems (more insurgents, more hatred of the US in Iraq and elsewhere, not too much political blowback, etc). If the government was really tyrannical and felt it was threatened at home, it wouldn’t worry about that crap. Pockets of resistance in New York? Have the police kill some civilians and family members. Then level a few neighborhoods and see what that does to the insurgency. Saves you from losing men you need, and it’s not as if the military will run out of bombs. And a resistance will not likely have aircraft, a navy and tanks.
As you can see, there’s not much difference between whether you have guns or not when you’re attempting to stand up to a brutal, totalitarian regime. You’ll still be crushed if the military still supports the regime. At least that’s my view of it and I have yet to be convinced otherwise.
But again, I support the way guns are handled now. I think that personal and family protection is a valid reason for the second amendment. I just don’t like all this “preventing government misbehavior” BS.
---
### Author:  [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)
#### Post date: [August 24, 2004, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-kick-out-the-second-amendment/261193/93 "2004-08-24T21:51:48Z")
You have to understand that the California Supreme Court has always been packed with far-left judges. It will come as no surprise, then, that they issue rulings that attempt to disarm the population.
---
### Author:  [@GaWd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GaWd)
#### Post date: [August 24, 2004, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-kick-out-the-second-amendment/261193/94 "2004-08-24T21:54:38Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#):
>
> So you’re saying the California Supreme Court has determined that a constitutional amendment was needed in order for the United States and its individual states to be able to maintain a militia, and a “trained” one, at that? Sounds to me like more judicial activism where you have judges using twisted logic to in effect create laws where none would have been possible by the will of the people.
No, read what I said again.
The California State Supreme Court( I _think_ it was the state supreme court\*) invalidated the 2nd amendment by stating that in today’s day and age the RKBA was to be applied only to the National Guard and that the citizenry don’t necessarily has a right to bear arms. Since our state constitution lacks an official RKBA clause, the citizens of the great state of California are not owed the latitude that other states are when gun ownership is considered.
If you’re really interested, I can dig up some case names and decisions for you.
Sam
---
### Author:  [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)
#### Post date: [August 24, 2004, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-kick-out-the-second-amendment/261193/95 "2004-08-24T22:06:09Z")
> [@Kluge](#):
>
> As you can see, there’s not much difference between whether you have guns or not when you’re attempting to stand up to a brutal, totalitarian regime. You’ll still be crushed if the military still supports the regime. At least that’s my view of it and I have yet to be convinced otherwise.
>
> But again, I support the way guns are handled now. I think that personal and family protection is a valid reason for the second amendment. I just don’t like all this “preventing government misbehavior” BS.
Yes, but a long established democracy rarely becomes a brutal, totalitarian state overnight. So while an armed populace would have a difficult time over throwing a hideously corrupt regime, they might well be able to slow the advance or even stop a despots climb to power. After all, the _last_ thing someone trying to consolidate their power wants is a large movement, which can generate lots and lots of bad PR (in the early days of the coup when it’s trying to show that it’s better than the previous regime). Non-violent protests can work, but a heavy handed response to a violent uprising is going to breed more dissent that it suppresses.
---
### Author:  [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)
#### Post date: [August 24, 2004, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-kick-out-the-second-amendment/261193/96 "2004-08-24T22:18:57Z")
Well, I’m sorry, Sam (GaWd), but I did reread it and it appears to sound like the California Supreme Court has either invalidated or attempted to invalidate the 2nd amendment. Your words were:
“Further, the California high court has interpreted that The 2nd Amendment RKBA clause refers to trained militiamen, i.e.-State and Federal troops, not the common man.”
This sounds to me like they are saying the 2nd amendment does not provide a constitutional right to the citizenry to own guns, and I’ve extrapolated from that that they are saying that Californians therefore don’t have a right under the U.S. constitution to own firearms.
I’m not quite sure what you mean by including California’s constitution in the discussion. Are you saying that since there is no right-to-bear-arms provision in the California constitution that they have ruled no such right exists because the 2nd amendment of the U.S. constitution only applies to militias?
If so, it still sounds like more of the same to me. They appear to be trying to invalidate an interpretation of the 2nd amendment that has existed since its creation to suit their own purposes.
You don’t need to go to the trouble of looking up cite, although I appreciate you offer to do so. Perhaps if you could just clarify the points I brought up above it would help me understand what you’re saying.
---
### Author:  [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)
#### Post date: [August 24, 2004, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-kick-out-the-second-amendment/261193/97 "2004-08-24T22:20:21Z")
> [@silenus](#):
>
> You have to understand that the California Supreme Court has always been packed with far-left judges. It will come as no surprise, then, that they issue rulings that attempt to disarm the population.
I couldn’t agree more.
---
### Author:  [@Kluge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kluge)
#### Post date: [August 24, 2004, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-kick-out-the-second-amendment/261193/98 "2004-08-24T22:22:23Z")
> [@Tuckerfan](#):
>
> Yes, but a long established democracy rarely becomes a brutal, totalitarian state overnight. So while an armed populace would have a difficult time over throwing a hideously corrupt regime, they might well be able to slow the advance or even stop a despots climb to power.
The same can be said of an unarmed populace using passive resistance.
> [@](#):
>
> After all, the _last_ thing someone trying to consolidate their power wants is a large movement, which can generate lots and lots of bad PR (in the early days of the coup when it’s trying to show that it’s better than the previous regime).
I’m of the opinion that a non-violent movement will receive much more sympathy than a violent movement, and as such, will be more effective at generating bad PR, or at least just as effective as a violent movement.
> [@](#):
>
> Non-violent protests can work, but a heavy handed response to a violent uprising is going to breed more dissent that it suppresses.
You’re kidding, right? I’ll agree that a heavy handed response to a violent uprising will breed more dissent than it suppresses, but a heavy handed response to a non-violent uprising will breed even more dissent. Now of course, if you believe you can stop a strong non-violent uprising without a heavy handed approach, then you need to reread your history.
---
### Author:  [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)
#### Post date: [August 24, 2004, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-kick-out-the-second-amendment/261193/99 "2004-08-24T22:39:10Z")
> [@Kluge](#):
>
> The same can be said of an unarmed populace using passive resistance.
It all depends upon the ideological stance of those in power. Passive resistance alone didn’t end Apartied in South Africa, it took international sanctions as well.
> [@](#):
>
> I’m of the opinion that a non-violent movement will receive much more sympathy than a violent movement, and as such, will be more effective at generating bad PR, or at least just as effective as a violent movement.
Opinion noted, however, I think that if the non-violent arm is a bunch of PETA-like nutbags, then they’re not going to make much progress.
> [@](#):
>
> You’re kidding, right? I’ll agree that a heavy handed response to a violent uprising will breed more dissent than it suppresses, but a heavy handed response to a non-violent uprising will breed even more dissent. Now of course, if you believe you can stop a strong non-violent uprising without a heavy handed approach, then you need to reread your history.
Hmm, the crack down of the folks in Tiananmen Square pretty much ground the pro-democracy movement in China to a halt as I recall. As for putting down a non-violent protest without a heavy hand, I can’t think of any examples where it’s been done (though it’s entirely possible that it might have happened), but what if the government simply ignores the non-violent protest? After all, one of the ways a protest of _any_ gains momentum is by the attentions paid to it by those in power. If they choose to ignore the protestors, then the movement could lose steam, since they wouldn’t be getting any kind of reaction to all their efforts.
---
### Author:  [@GaWd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GaWd)
#### Post date: [August 24, 2004, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-kick-out-the-second-amendment/261193/100 "2004-08-24T23:06:57Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#):
>
> Well, I’m sorry, Sam (GaWd), but I did reread it and it appears to sound like the California Supreme Court has either invalidated or attempted to invalidate the 2nd amendment.
Starving, My point was very simple: The rights to keep and bear arms as put forth have been curtailed by the rights of the state of california due to the absence of a state constitution RKBA clause, and it will only be a matter of time until this happens more often. The law office I work for authored a ballot measure to change this, but it won’t be on the ballot this year.
I’m not a lawyer, and cannot explain the intracacies of the multiple decisions supporting this(both state and federal), or how exactly it works out on a constitutional level, but it does. And will continue to.
A case called Nordyke is the current 2nd Amendment case in the laps of the Federal Supreme Court right now.
Sam
P.S.- Sorry about the “read it again” I had intended on deleting that as I thought it set the wrong tone and forgot.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-kick-out-the-second-amendment/261193.md?page=4)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/time-to-kick-out-the-second-amendment/261193.md?page=6)