4 ms·

> I like all of the amendments. I'm not an NRA member, but the idea of repealing the 2nd Amendment, or worse, interpreting it out of existence has bothered me

> I like all of the amendments. I'm not an NRA member, but the idea of repealing the 2nd Amendment, or worse, interpreting it out of existence has bothered me in ways I couldn't quite put my finger on. I finally realized what it was. If we decide one of the rights is "archaic", "obsolete", "insane", or any of the epithets routinely leveled at it, we set a terrible precedent. How long will it be before the rest fall when they are inevitably inconvenient? We need to stand for all the BoR. Not whatever is convenient.

arwhatever 9y ago
Scott Greenfield covered your exact point pretty well over at his "Simple Justice" law blog https://blog.simplejustice.us/2015/10/06/ten-favs-from-the-bill-of-rights/ https://blog.simplejustice.us/2015/10/06/ten-favs-from-the-b...
- nraynaud 9y ago
  This amendment feels so random, tho. Why firearms and not other weapons? Why not general means of defense? There are also consistency issues, the prohibition was an amendment, what made that thing negociable? Other fundamental rules are completely inconsistent like being 21 to drink while the majority is 18.
  - IIAOPSW 9y ago
    >This amendment feels so random, tho. Why firearms and not other weapons? But it does cover other weapons. You can own as my knives as you want. The exact text is "the right to keep and bear arms". Firearms isn't specified. >prohibition was an amendment, what made that thing negociable? It wasn't negotiable. There was another amendment to repeal it. >Other fundamental rules are completely inconsistent like being 21 to drink while the majority is 18. While true this is inconsistent, it isn't actually in the constitution. In theory states can set drinking and majority age as high and low as they want.
  - bitwize 9y ago
    > Why firearms and not other weapons? Something something bringing a knife to a gun fight... The amendment doesn't specify firearms; it just so happens that firearms are the most contentious weapons protected under it, for obvious reasons: firearms are among the most deadly weapons in common use, but hoplophilic citizens do not want to be denied access to weapons their enemies have access to. Nevertheless, there was a Second Amendment case brought to the Supremes (Caetano v. Massachusetts) about a woman's right to buy a stun gun, which was illegal in Massachusetts. The Supremes found in her favor. As for why the Second is considered "special" -- it's part of the Bill of Rights. There's nothing stopping anybody from repealing it, but the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights are considered special in American legal tradition because the promise of their passage was essential to the ratification of the Constitution itself. So it would take much more effort to gather support for repeal of a Bill of Rights amendment than the Eighteenth Amendment (which was largely passed because of the temporary political vogue of the temperance movement).
- skookumchuck 9y ago
  Glad to see my opinion is shared, and he writes a lot better than I do, too!
- kelnos 9y ago
  Kinda a straw man, though. If you're of the crowd that thinks the government should legislate the 2nd away, then sure, you should take Greenfield's words to heart and have a good think. But nowhere does he suggest that a constitutional amendment to repeal the 2nd would be a bad thing; he doesn't even touch on the amendment process at all. (Also I don't get where he's saying that conservatives love the 1st and second, liberals love the 4th, 5th, and 6th, and they both hate what the other loves. I have a dim view of the 2nd but I'm pretty happy with the other 9. It's kinda ridiculous to suggest that liberal are against the 1st.)
kelnos 9y ago
I would absolutely be in favor of a repeal of the 2nd Amendment, and I would be very afraid to see the right to bear arms be legislated out of existence (without a repeal) because of the precedent that would set regarding not just the rest of the Bill of Rights, or the rest of the Amendments, but the entire Constitution itself. I'm not talking about the 2nd being inconvenient. I'm talking about it being a mistake. Just like prohibition was. Just because we might collectively decide that giving people the right to arm themselves in ridiculous ways was a mistake, it doesn't follow that we're obviously going to decide that freedom of speech was a mistake, too. I'm absolutely not buying a slippery-slope argument here; that's just a fancy way of saying "I don't want positive change because I'm afraid of negative change as well". The Bill of Rights is not some magical thing. Amendments are simply late additions to the Constitution. They are a part of the constitution. Suggesting that we shouldn't repeal an Amendment is suggesting that the Constitution's own amendment process should be tossed aside as invalid. > We need to stand for all the BoR. Not whatever is convenient. No, we don't. We need to stand for what makes sense for our society. "Convenience" has nothing to do with it.
- zaroth 9y ago
  Exactly how do you imagine an attempt to confiscate a few hundred million guns would play out in this country? Advocating for repeal of the 2nd seems to me to be advocating for civil war and literal decimation of the country.
  - direfungasaur 9y ago
    Are you implying that gun-owners would suddenly wage war on the nation if they were told to hand over (some portion of) their guns in the next year or face civil penalties? Doesn't it seem far more likely that most law-abiding folks would hand over their weapons to avoid interruption to their lives, possibly retaining one or two illegally? Most of the people I know would complain and protest any confiscation, but I doubt they would shoot a law officer to protect that privilege. They would simply lose too much in return for that exchange.
    - 9y ago
stdbrouw 9y ago
In Europe, democratic countries regularly amend their constitution because parts of it have become archaic, obsolete or insane. We have yet to descend into chaos or tyranny.
- seren 9y ago
  As a fellow European, I am also regularly surprised by the absolute reverence to the US Constitution. Sure, it is a fundamental law and it cannot be changed lightly, but like any other piece of legislation it seems normal to update it regularly. Edit : after looking at the actual list of amendments, at least one was repelled after being introduced (regarding the Prohibition) so it seems they are not as immutable as I believed.
  - adamrezich 9y ago
    The whole amendment process is designed exactly for this reason. The problem is, nobody seems to want to actually propose a 2nd Amendment repeal and begin the legal process and see if it actually works (because it won't). So instead, everyone gets to whine about gun rights on social media instead of actually working towards accomplishing the goals they claim to be in favor of.
- skookumchuck 9y ago
  Your rights are under constant attack as well, and you've definitely got fewer ones than in the US.
  - seren 9y ago
    You mean like the GDPR ?
    - jakeogh 9y ago
      The EU is going to dissolve under it's own regulatory weight. The GDPR is tactical incrementalism of "compliance" procedures. If it lasts long enough people will realize it's not about making them more free.
bitwize 9y ago
This is what I, as a pro-gun-control person, keep saying. By all means, agitate for gun control. But in order to do so you need to successfully present a case for Second Amendment repeal. Anything less -- such as the collective-rights argument -- means that you've empowered the courts to interpret away the force of the Second Amendment. And once you've unleashed that beast, you won't be able to control it. The courts will interpret away the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments, and then we're in really deep shit.
UncleMeat 9y ago
Why? Did repealing the 18th set off a rash of destruction of right?

arwhatever 9y ago

Scott Greenfield covered your exact point pretty well over at his "Simple Justice" law blog https://blog.simplejustice.us/2015/10/06/ten-favs-from-the-bill-of-rights/ https://blog.simplejustice.us/2015/10/06/ten-favs-from-the-b...

nraynaud 9y ago
This amendment feels so random, tho. Why firearms and not other weapons? Why not general means of defense? There are also consistency issues, the prohibition was an amendment, what made that thing negociable? Other fundamental rules are completely inconsistent like being 21 to drink while the majority is 18.
- IIAOPSW 9y ago
  >This amendment feels so random, tho. Why firearms and not other weapons? But it does cover other weapons. You can own as my knives as you want. The exact text is "the right to keep and bear arms". Firearms isn't specified. >prohibition was an amendment, what made that thing negociable? It wasn't negotiable. There was another amendment to repeal it. >Other fundamental rules are completely inconsistent like being 21 to drink while the majority is 18. While true this is inconsistent, it isn't actually in the constitution. In theory states can set drinking and majority age as high and low as they want.
- bitwize 9y ago
  > Why firearms and not other weapons? Something something bringing a knife to a gun fight... The amendment doesn't specify firearms; it just so happens that firearms are the most contentious weapons protected under it, for obvious reasons: firearms are among the most deadly weapons in common use, but hoplophilic citizens do not want to be denied access to weapons their enemies have access to. Nevertheless, there was a Second Amendment case brought to the Supremes (Caetano v. Massachusetts) about a woman's right to buy a stun gun, which was illegal in Massachusetts. The Supremes found in her favor. As for why the Second is considered "special" -- it's part of the Bill of Rights. There's nothing stopping anybody from repealing it, but the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights are considered special in American legal tradition because the promise of their passage was essential to the ratification of the Constitution itself. So it would take much more effort to gather support for repeal of a Bill of Rights amendment than the Eighteenth Amendment (which was largely passed because of the temporary political vogue of the temperance movement).
skookumchuck 9y ago
Glad to see my opinion is shared, and he writes a lot better than I do, too!
kelnos 9y ago
Kinda a straw man, though. If you're of the crowd that thinks the government should legislate the 2nd away, then sure, you should take Greenfield's words to heart and have a good think. But nowhere does he suggest that a constitutional amendment to repeal the 2nd would be a bad thing; he doesn't even touch on the amendment process at all. (Also I don't get where he's saying that conservatives love the 1st and second, liberals love the 4th, 5th, and 6th, and they both hate what the other loves. I have a dim view of the 2nd but I'm pretty happy with the other 9. It's kinda ridiculous to suggest that liberal are against the 1st.)

kelnos 9y ago

I would absolutely be in favor of a repeal of the 2nd Amendment, and I would be very afraid to see the right to bear arms be legislated out of existence (without a repeal) because of the precedent that would set regarding not just the rest of the Bill of Rights, or the rest of the Amendments, but the entire Constitution itself. I'm not talking about the 2nd being inconvenient. I'm talking about it being a mistake. Just like prohibition was. Just because we might collectively decide that giving people the right to arm themselves in ridiculous ways was a mistake, it doesn't follow that we're obviously going to decide that freedom of speech was a mistake, too. I'm absolutely not buying a slippery-slope argument here; that's just a fancy way of saying "I don't want positive change because I'm afraid of negative change as well". The Bill of Rights is not some magical thing. Amendments are simply late additions to the Constitution. They are a part of the constitution. Suggesting that we shouldn't repeal an Amendment is suggesting that the Constitution's own amendment process should be tossed aside as invalid. > We need to stand for all the BoR. Not whatever is convenient. No, we don't. We need to stand for what makes sense for our society. "Convenience" has nothing to do with it.

zaroth 9y ago
Exactly how do you imagine an attempt to confiscate a few hundred million guns would play out in this country? Advocating for repeal of the 2nd seems to me to be advocating for civil war and literal decimation of the country.
- direfungasaur 9y ago
  Are you implying that gun-owners would suddenly wage war on the nation if they were told to hand over (some portion of) their guns in the next year or face civil penalties? Doesn't it seem far more likely that most law-abiding folks would hand over their weapons to avoid interruption to their lives, possibly retaining one or two illegally? Most of the people I know would complain and protest any confiscation, but I doubt they would shoot a law officer to protect that privilege. They would simply lose too much in return for that exchange.
  - 9y ago

stdbrouw 9y ago

In Europe, democratic countries regularly amend their constitution because parts of it have become archaic, obsolete or insane. We have yet to descend into chaos or tyranny.

seren 9y ago
As a fellow European, I am also regularly surprised by the absolute reverence to the US Constitution. Sure, it is a fundamental law and it cannot be changed lightly, but like any other piece of legislation it seems normal to update it regularly. Edit : after looking at the actual list of amendments, at least one was repelled after being introduced (regarding the Prohibition) so it seems they are not as immutable as I believed.
- adamrezich 9y ago
  The whole amendment process is designed exactly for this reason. The problem is, nobody seems to want to actually propose a 2nd Amendment repeal and begin the legal process and see if it actually works (because it won't). So instead, everyone gets to whine about gun rights on social media instead of actually working towards accomplishing the goals they claim to be in favor of.
skookumchuck 9y ago
Your rights are under constant attack as well, and you've definitely got fewer ones than in the US.
- seren 9y ago
  You mean like the GDPR ?
  - jakeogh 9y ago
    The EU is going to dissolve under it's own regulatory weight. The GDPR is tactical incrementalism of "compliance" procedures. If it lasts long enough people will realize it's not about making them more free.

bitwize 9y ago

This is what I, as a pro-gun-control person, keep saying. By all means, agitate for gun control. But in order to do so you need to successfully present a case for Second Amendment repeal. Anything less -- such as the collective-rights argument -- means that you've empowered the courts to interpret away the force of the Second Amendment. And once you've unleashed that beast, you won't be able to control it. The courts will interpret away the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments, and then we're in really deep shit.

UncleMeat 9y ago

Why? Did repealing the 18th set off a rash of destruction of right?