4 ms·
That doesn't require a repeal of the second amendment. That just requires a willingness to interpret the full text of the amendment, instead of focusing only on
by japhyr 4y ago
That doesn't require a repeal of the second amendment. That just requires a willingness to interpret the full text of the amendment, instead of focusing only on the last four words.
School shootings are far down the list as far as fatalities go. But that's a poor way to measure the impact of school shootings. The trauma inflicted by each of these events goes way beyond the number of children killed. Everyone who has heard actual gunshots in their own school building feels life-changing trauma.
When a kid in the US says "I'm scared to go to school," you can't tell them they have nothing to be scared of. You can tell them "It's not likely to happen at your school today." That's small comfort.
- bitwize 4y agoThe full text of the amendment is pretty clear that "a well-regulated militia" depends upon "the right of the people to keep and bear arms", it does not limit that right. In order to train farmers and craftsmen into an effective reserve fighting force, they have to have weapons of their own they can practice with. Times have changed, obviously, and civil society no longer depends on citizen firearm ownership. You can put together a Supreme Court to overturn Heller and other decisions on this issue, but constitutional scholars are likely to consider it rickety jurisprudence. Repealing the 2nd would be a full-throated declaration that wielding weaponry is a privilege, not a right. We should probably repeal and replace the First Amendment while we're at it, and tie up some loose ends like Citizens United and the inability of U.S. governments to criminally punish hate speech.
- r2_pilot 4y agoRemember, the Constitution was crafted by men of their time, and they explicitly stated it was not a suicide pact and that future generations were fully allowed to amend it should they find the desire. We can probably find a compromise that greatly reduces gun violence, if only compromise could be made.
- WalterBright 4y ago> We should probably repeal and replace the First Amendment while we're at it, and tie up some loose ends like Citizens United and the inability of U.S. governments to criminally punish hate speech. I am not a gun nut, and have little interest in owning/shooting guns. I've done it, and found it boring. But my defense of the 2nd Amendment is based on the domino theory that if the 2nd can be ignored, there goes the First and every other "inconvenient" right enshrined in the Constitution. The First is the most important of all those Rights. Thanks for illustrating I am right that the First would be put on the chopping block right after the Second.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- zirgs 4y agoThere's still freedom of speech in countries with stricter gun laws. Also in my country prostitution and abortions are legal. So stricter gun laws don't always lead to other restrictions.
- WalterBright 4y agoThe difference is the 2nd Amendment is not a law, it's in the Constitution. The Constitution ain't worth nothing if it is not respected. I don't care about gun rights. I do care about the Constitution, and I very much care about the First Amendment.
- zol 4y agoSince the second amendment doesn’t specify what arms I have the right to bear does that mean I should be allowed to wander down to my local gun store to pick up a surface to air missile so that I can shoot down an airliner? Of course not, that would be insane. So why not put similar limits on automatic weapons that can mow down an auditorium full of kids?
- bitwize 4y agoAutomatic weapons that can mow down an auditorium are already illegal without a special license. What's needed is a ban on semiauto rifles and pistols in civilian hands without a license. While we're doing that, may as well restrict all firearms.