4 ms·
The 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 t
by bitwize 4y ago
The 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.
- maxerickson 4y agoRepealing am amendment isn't ignoring it. It's the opposite. You could clarify that you mean the rights stated in the amendments of course.
- WalterBright 4y agoThe while we're at it, let's get rid of the rest of the Bill of Rights, is terrifying.
- bitwize 4y agoThere are countries freer than the USA where the government reserves the right to severely restrict speech and even criminalize some forms of political speech, if it serves the public interest. If you express Nazi views in Germany, for instance, you go to jail. Guess what -- Germany hasn't had to deal with a Nazi problem significant enough to turn into a real political movement in nearly 80 years. The USA, by contrast, had a near miss with Hitler 2 actually occupying the White House. Sorry, but the first amendment, as currently formulated, really needs to go. It should be replaced with a formulation of freedom expression that better balances individual freedom with the public interest according to modern political standards. In fact, given the problems with corruption in the American system and first-past-the-post voting leading to money-driven, rather than truly democratic, politics, the entire constitution probably needs to be rethought. No less of an American political thinker than Justice Ginsburg has opined that the US constitution is no longer, in the current era, a model for good governance. This should happen in a civilized fashion with a convention and ratification much like the current constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation, but it nonetheless needs to happen.
- WalterBright 4y ago> There are countries freer than the USA where the government reserves the right to severely restrict speech and even criminalize some forms of political speech No, there aren't. > the first amendment, as currently formulated, really needs to go That's the first thing the Nazis did, as well as Mussolini, and every other repressive government. Without free speech, the rest of your rights go down the drain. If Ginsburg advocated getting rid of free speech, I'd like to see a cite from you about that.
- 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.