4 ms·

I will admit that I have mixed feelings about the Second Amendment. As does the Supreme Court; Heller was a 5-4 decision, in which the minority disagreed with

I will admit that I have mixed feelings about the Second Amendment. As does the Supreme Court; Heller was a 5-4 decision, in which the minority disagreed with the interpretation of the text that you claim is plain and indisputable. Furthermore, "Four times between 1876 and 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule that the Second Amendment protected individual gun ownership outside the context of a militia." [0] You could argue, I suppose, that the true meaning of the amendment was forgotten and has been recovered, but then I think you should attempt to explain why that happened. > Now you may say that this right is trumped by others' right to live peaceably without fear of being shot. I won't disagree. Okay -- we agree on something :-) > But what you should be agitating for is repeal of the second amendment This doesn't follow. We all know about restrictions on speech that are seen as legitimate -- yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater, etc.; the examples are familiar -- yet the arguments for these restrictions are not taken as arguments for repealing the First Amendment altogether. I certainly think that my right to live peaceably, as you say, without fear of being shot, is worthy of some protection and needs to be balanced against gun ownership rights. I also wonder how well even armed citizens can defend themselves against a tyrannical government in this era of militarized police, modern weapons, and SWAT teams. 240 years ago, the arms technology race had only barely started; now it is in full swing. We know how arms races end: the side with the most money wins. Even if the Second Amendment came to be read to permit citizens to own tanks, drones, etc., people can't afford them. Personally I think the right to communicate with my fellow citizens unmonitored is more important, and in the end more likely to be decisive. [0] https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/how-nra-rewrote-second-amendment https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/how-nra-rewrote-secon...

Pyxl101 11y ago
> I also wonder how well even armed citizens can defend themselves against a tyrannical government in this era of militarized police, modern weapons, and SWAT teams. Citizens have proven very capable of defending themselves in Iraq, Ukraine, Syria. It's true that a government willing to firebomb entire cities and murder literally everyone could overcome that resistance. However, in the modern era a government that did that would quickly see the entire world turning against them. It's also worth keeping in mind that even large, powerful, and well-armed militaries are only a fraction of the populace. In the US, something like 1/100 people are in the military. So if the US military turned against the population, and the population resisted, they'd have to fight a force that's potentially 100 times their number. Unless they were willing to firebomb their own cities and murder innocent civilians (as opposed to guerrilla fighters), they'd quickly be overcome.
- koide 11y ago
  That's awfully naive. That 1/100 number includes babies, the elderly and people not able or interested in actual fighting.
  - maratd 11y ago
    Even if it's 1/10, the point still stands.
    - koide 11y ago
      Nope it doesn't. A highly trained and armed soldier can easily overcome ten or more untrained but armed people
hga 11y ago
I will admit that I have mixed feelings about the Second Amendment. As does the Supreme Court; Heller was a 5-4 decision, in which the minority disagreed with the interpretation of the text that you claim is plain and indisputable. Wrong. All 9 Supremes interpreted it as an individual right, they could hardly do else so given the written history of all this and the plain language of the Bill of Rights (which amendments, after all, confer a collective vs. individual right?). What they split 5-4 on what did that really mean anything in practice, or, ultimately, could D.C. freeze its registration, and require to you keep your guns unloaded and disassembled until an intruder entered the room you were in. A set of laws I'll note were often nullified by sympathetic juries. Since Heller and McDonald, a majority of the court clearly holds that you only have a right to keep and bear arms in your home, they've denied cert on all relevant appeals since McDonald.
- ScottBurson 11y ago
  > All 9 Supremes interpreted it as an individual right No. There were two dissents, one by Stevens, one by Breyer. From Wikipedia [0]: The Stevens dissent seems to rest on four main points of disagreement: that the Founders would have made the individual right aspect of the Second Amendment express if that was what was intended; that the "militia" preamble and exact phrase "to keep and bear arms" demands the conclusion that the Second Amendment touches on state militia service only; that many lower courts' later "collective-right" reading of the Miller decision constitutes stare decisis, which may only be overturned at great peril; and that the Court has not considered gun-control laws (e.g., the National Firearms Act) unconstitutional. The dissent concludes, "The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.... I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice." Justice Stevens' dissent was joined by Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer. Justice Breyer filed a separate dissenting opinion, joined by the same dissenting Justices, which sought to demonstrate that, starting from the premise of an individual-rights view, the District of Columbia's handgun ban and trigger lock requirement would nevertheless be permissible limitations on the right. You must be thinking of the Breyer dissent. Even that does not stipulate that the right is individual, but just argues that even if it is, the DC law was permissible. Even people who agree with you on the issue recognize that the Stevens dissent does not support an individual right [1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Dissenting_opinions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller... [1] https://reason.com/blog/2010/06/28/justice-john-paul-stevens-is-w https://reason.com/blog/2010/06/28/justice-john-paul-stevens...

Pyxl101 11y ago

> I also wonder how well even armed citizens can defend themselves against a tyrannical government in this era of militarized police, modern weapons, and SWAT teams. Citizens have proven very capable of defending themselves in Iraq, Ukraine, Syria. It's true that a government willing to firebomb entire cities and murder literally everyone could overcome that resistance. However, in the modern era a government that did that would quickly see the entire world turning against them. It's also worth keeping in mind that even large, powerful, and well-armed militaries are only a fraction of the populace. In the US, something like 1/100 people are in the military. So if the US military turned against the population, and the population resisted, they'd have to fight a force that's potentially 100 times their number. Unless they were willing to firebomb their own cities and murder innocent civilians (as opposed to guerrilla fighters), they'd quickly be overcome.

koide 11y ago
That's awfully naive. That 1/100 number includes babies, the elderly and people not able or interested in actual fighting.
- maratd 11y ago
  Even if it's 1/10, the point still stands.
  - koide 11y ago
    Nope it doesn't. A highly trained and armed soldier can easily overcome ten or more untrained but armed people

hga 11y ago

I will admit that I have mixed feelings about the Second Amendment. As does the Supreme Court; Heller was a 5-4 decision, in which the minority disagreed with the interpretation of the text that you claim is plain and indisputable. Wrong. All 9 Supremes interpreted it as an individual right, they could hardly do else so given the written history of all this and the plain language of the Bill of Rights (which amendments, after all, confer a collective vs. individual right?). What they split 5-4 on what did that really mean anything in practice, or, ultimately, could D.C. freeze its registration, and require to you keep your guns unloaded and disassembled until an intruder entered the room you were in. A set of laws I'll note were often nullified by sympathetic juries. Since Heller and McDonald, a majority of the court clearly holds that you only have a right to keep and bear arms in your home, they've denied cert on all relevant appeals since McDonald.

ScottBurson 11y ago
> All 9 Supremes interpreted it as an individual right No. There were two dissents, one by Stevens, one by Breyer. From Wikipedia [0]: The Stevens dissent seems to rest on four main points of disagreement: that the Founders would have made the individual right aspect of the Second Amendment express if that was what was intended; that the "militia" preamble and exact phrase "to keep and bear arms" demands the conclusion that the Second Amendment touches on state militia service only; that many lower courts' later "collective-right" reading of the Miller decision constitutes stare decisis, which may only be overturned at great peril; and that the Court has not considered gun-control laws (e.g., the National Firearms Act) unconstitutional. The dissent concludes, "The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.... I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice." Justice Stevens' dissent was joined by Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer. Justice Breyer filed a separate dissenting opinion, joined by the same dissenting Justices, which sought to demonstrate that, starting from the premise of an individual-rights view, the District of Columbia's handgun ban and trigger lock requirement would nevertheless be permissible limitations on the right. You must be thinking of the Breyer dissent. Even that does not stipulate that the right is individual, but just argues that even if it is, the DC law was permissible. Even people who agree with you on the issue recognize that the Stevens dissent does not support an individual right [1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Dissenting_opinions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller... [1] https://reason.com/blog/2010/06/28/justice-john-paul-stevens-is-w https://reason.com/blog/2010/06/28/justice-john-paul-stevens...