3 ms·

The "indirection" here is on the intention of the 2nd amendment, which while written to provide for gun ownership is actually intended to provide for popular re

The "indirection" here is on the intention of the 2nd amendment, which while written to provide for gun ownership is actually intended to provide for popular revolution. Having said that, yes, I left out why a gun registry might restrict the probability of a revolution unstated. Let's imagine it's 1860, and the local ex-slave population is acting up. But, you have a registry of all ex-slaves who own guns. You drive around with a posse and confiscate them all before a popular revolution gets going. Is that in the best interests of the local people? Probably not, thus a registry in this context could be used to suppress the citizenry. The same thing is true today, but realistically there is no way individual gun ownership in 2016 is going to be sufficient to for a population to successfully revolt. It's not like we are letting people own gunships. However, the 2nd amendment hasn't been updated to reflect modern reality. In a lot of ways, this boils down to an "originalist vs living constitutional" argument.

jameshart 10y ago
But in that story it's the decision to use the database to carry out confiscation which is unconstitutional, not the existence of the database in the first place. If a government decided to confiscate all the cars from Hispanic people by using their vehicle registration database, that would be unconstitutional too - but that doesn't mean having a vehicle registry is invalid.
- dsfyu404ed 10y ago
  Practically everyone owns a car. There'd be some pretty obvious writing on the wall if a small vocal minority demonized cars and convinced the gov't to confiscate them from one minority (racial or otherwise) everyone else would catch on quick. Not as many people have skin in the game in terms of gun ownership. Why don't you trust the populace with their guns rather than ask the populace to trust the gov't with a registry? For X amount of bad things to happen (where X is a large number) you need a lot more coordinated or systemically encouraged action in the first situation whereas in the latter a few insulated members of the elite and a loud lobby by a few interest groups would suffice.
- chris_va 10y ago
  Sure, but the premise here is that the population no longer trusts the government to serve their best interests, nor perhaps abide by the constitution. It's all about checks and balances. The second amendment gives some power to the people to revolt (in theory), as a check against government power. If the people need to trust the government not to do something unconstitutional (i.e. not confiscate weapons) for that to be effective, then the check is no longer useful and it defeats the purpose of the second amendment.

jameshart 10y ago

But in that story it's the decision to use the database to carry out confiscation which is unconstitutional, not the existence of the database in the first place. If a government decided to confiscate all the cars from Hispanic people by using their vehicle registration database, that would be unconstitutional too - but that doesn't mean having a vehicle registry is invalid.

dsfyu404ed 10y ago
Practically everyone owns a car. There'd be some pretty obvious writing on the wall if a small vocal minority demonized cars and convinced the gov't to confiscate them from one minority (racial or otherwise) everyone else would catch on quick. Not as many people have skin in the game in terms of gun ownership. Why don't you trust the populace with their guns rather than ask the populace to trust the gov't with a registry? For X amount of bad things to happen (where X is a large number) you need a lot more coordinated or systemically encouraged action in the first situation whereas in the latter a few insulated members of the elite and a loud lobby by a few interest groups would suffice.
chris_va 10y ago
Sure, but the premise here is that the population no longer trusts the government to serve their best interests, nor perhaps abide by the constitution. It's all about checks and balances. The second amendment gives some power to the people to revolt (in theory), as a check against government power. If the people need to trust the government not to do something unconstitutional (i.e. not confiscate weapons) for that to be effective, then the check is no longer useful and it defeats the purpose of the second amendment.