4 ms·

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-r

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.)

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.)