I can’t speak for what anybody else thinks, but I think it made perfect sense at the time. They wanted to be able to form an army in a hurry without paying for guns. They didn’t want some state banning all the guns and preventing them from having armed soldiers on hand. So they made this amendment.
It’s pretty likely they were entirely unconcerned about things like school shootings. I’m of the opinion that the current ‘fad’ of mass murder is entirely fueled by the massive nationwide press coverage such things get. Back then there wasn’t that type of press, so there weren’t those kind of shootings. So there was no downside to everyone and their twelve-year-old daughter being armed. Times have changed, of course - but that doesn’t make the amendment into nonsense words or anything. It’s just now both useless for its intended purpose, and it also has bad side effects in general. The very second I’m elected god emperor I’ll strike it down without mercy.
Well, we have interpreted the other amendments such that they can be regulated as long as the spirit isn’t violated. We don’t have totally free speech, for instance, and lawful assembly is also regulated to an extent. Yes, the 18th wasn’t just vacated by the 21st, but we COULD do an amendment that set it aside, or said it wasn’t a protected right…or just that militias were no longer necessary for the security of a free state, perhaps enshrine our volunteer military model and preclude future conscription or something. It would be up to us, collectively, if we could agree to do it at all. Or we could just limp along with what we have as we have done, and regulate to the extent we do today. Personally, I’d go the vacate route, as I said, and just get rid of it completely, then figure out where we stand on guns and gun control from the perspective of having arms not be a protected right but just another dangerous thing society needs to determine what it’s risk acceptance level is. YMMV and what you are saying would work as well.
Actually, until the 2nd was incorporated in 2010, it was unclear that a STATE couldn’t ban all guns. The FEDERAL government couldn’t ban all guns, but an unincorporated right has no clear bearing on the states.
(Currently, your state can bunk as many soldiers in your house as it wants - it will go to court and become an incorporated right, and then they won’t be able to. But for now, there is nothing in the Constitution or the way the Constitution is interpreted by courts to prevent quartering of soldiers in private homes BY STATES. This is why you aren’t entitled to a Grand Jury in all states (but you are in Federal Court)).
(And when I’m dictator of the United States we will teach Con Law in high school - not the law school version, but the simplified stuff).
But we’ve pretty much determined that a well-regulated militia is not necessary to a free state in the modern world, and we’ve also determined that there is nothing well regulated about current gun laws.
So like the 3/5s compromise, the second amendment is archaic. The reason behind the FF granting the “right” no longer exists. It cannot be argued that gun ownership is a “natural right” (especially in a nation where health care and food are not “natural rights”) - so the reason its still around is “we like guns” - we like cars too, and illegal drugs - but those weren’t necessary to keeping slaves in their place and taking land from Natives when the country was founded, so they didn’t get protected 200 years ago.
The militias were not to repel invaders, or overthrow tyranny. The militias, regulated by the states, were originally formed to put down slave rebellions.
If we had determined that, we would amend the Second to remove that clause.
But let’s do the Elvisl1ves thing, and say that we have amended the Constitution and removed that clause. The second clause remains - what are the arguments for gun control then?
We’ve gone over this several time in this thread, but the short answer is that the first clause depends on the second clause (in the minds of the authors) but the second clause isn’t dependent on the first to be valid…i.e. you need an armed population to have a strong militia, but the right to keep and bear arms isn’t dependent on being in the militia or having a militia. The authors certainly wanted to stress that the militia was important, but the main goal was to carve out a right of the people to keep and bear arms that could not be infringed the way they had seen it infringed by the crown in their own recent past.
As has been noted, we don’t need a strong militia anymore. And it’s debatable if we need an armed population anymore. So, if there is sufficient support to vacate the amendment and basically not have a RIGHT to keep and bear arms (regardless of the militia) then that’s what we should do. Getting rid of the 2nd wouldn’t necessarily get rid of arms in the US (I personally doubt anything would at this point) but would clear the way for more stringent regulations or category bannings if that’s what the people want.
Thank you for posting that, and others for the discussion around it.
For some reason, I had always read “militia” as an active or ready group of fighters. Further research agrees that “militia” more properly refers to the population from which fighters may be drawn. That difference completely changes my understanding of the Second Amendment.
At any rate: some folks question whether even intelligent discussion can change opinions. I changed my mind based on this discussion. Ignorance fought. Thanks.
Maybe someday you’ll provide an answer for the original question, though the odds are now pretty long. It really doesn’t help you to mock it.
The arguments for gun control, since you ask, are about saving lives. That, as I’m sure you’ve heard, is the most basic precept of human morality. That it’s even a question for you says all it needs to.
OK, so the difference is that it isn’t their decision. It’s the decision of the CiC.
And, even the CiC has constraints, though the president can do stupendous amounts of damage before the legislature can do anything about it, as long as the military doesn’t mutiny.
Remember that the 2nd Amendment says “arms” and not “guns” so we already severely restrict the 2nd Amendment since the average citizen does not have access to most “arms” that exist.
I’m willing to bet you are ok with those restrictions on the 2nd Amendment so your fussing about it seems disingenuous. Want to be an unflinching advocate for the 2nd Amendment then advocate for a citizen’s right to own ground to air missiles or grenades or nukes or bio-weapons. As you would have it that is what a clean reading of the 2nd gets you.
If you do not support that then you are just working with others as to where the line that already exists should be and you’ve already given up most of your rights as is. Scratching off a few more gun types hardly seems too far at this point.
Imagine a hypothetical amendment that said, “As efficient travel is necessary for commerce, the right of the people to keep and own horses shall not be infringed.”
Would you argue that as we no longer use horses for travel that the amendment is null and void? I say no. The right exists and requires an amendment to repeal it.
Sounds like Dangerosa is making an argument for an amendment to repeal it, because it is archaic and useless, not that it should just be considered null and void for those reasons.