Should we repeal the 2nd Amendment?

[Hercules56]

The 2nd Amendment gives Americans and legal residents the right to protect themselves, their families and the public with firearms from violence.

Many Americans are AGAINST this right, and feel we should not be able to defend ourselves with deadly weapons like guns.

Should we repeal this right?

 

[Hercules56]

I own guns and believe we should definitely have the right to protect ourselves, family and the public with deadly force when necessary.

However I think the 2nd Amendment should be amended to make it clear that States have the right to perform criminal background checks and mental health checks to make sure prospective gun owners are mentally fit to possess and use a firearm. A history of severe mental illness and current untreated mental illness is a major red flag. So is a history of violence.

 

[Mike!]

This is one of the key things Trump supporters fail to consider when he says things about suspending the Constitution, it doesn't just make the parts they hate go away, it also takes away the first and second amendments too. He's already said, 'we'll confiscate the guns and sort it out later.' But that's really, kind of off topic. So to stay on topic, yes, it needs a good deal of clarification, so amend it.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

No, ye just need to disapply the insane court rulings that say it means the opposite of what it says.

If the second amendment were actually applied as written the US would have one of the most restrictive gun control policies in the world.

 

[Tero]

It does not need to be repealed. Just enforce it. Those who serve in state militia can bring guns home. All others owning guns are governed by state law.

 

[angrysoba]

The 2nd Amendment gives Americans and legal residents the right to protect themselves, their families and the public with firearms from violence.

Many Americans are AGAINST this right, and feel we should not be able to defend ourselves with deadly weapons like guns.

Should we repeal this right?

Hmmmm... not a very even-handed way of setting up the poll.

I would like to hear your argument for why it should be repealed.

 

[Hercules56]

"The right of the people, to keep & bear arms, shall not be infringed"

Earlier concepts of this right included:

Pennsylvania, September 28, 1776
Article 13. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power

Vermont, July 8, 1777
Chapter 1. Section XVIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of the themselves and the State; and as standing armies, in the time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power

Yes, there is evidence that the people have a personal right to personal defense, not simply to defend the state in times of war and rebellion, was a part of this whole debate before the 2nd Am was ratified. It is silly and ignorant to suggest otherwise.

Personal defense was always part of the equation.

 

[angrysoba]

"The right of the people, to keep & bear arms, shall not be infringed"

Earlier concepts of this right included:

Pennsylvania, September 28, 1776
Article 13. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power

Vermont, July 8, 1777
Chapter 1. Section XVIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of the themselves and the State; and as standing armies, in the time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power

Yes, there is evidence that the people have a personal right to personal defense, not simply to defend the state in times of war and rebellion, was a part of this whole debate before the 2nd Am was ratified. It is silly and ignorant to suggest otherwise.

Personal defense was always part of the equation.

It's even earlier than that. It goes back to the English Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights 1689 allowed Protestant citizens of England to "have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law" and restricted the ability of the English Crown to have a standing army or to interfere with Protestants' right to bear arms "when Papists were both Armed and Imployed contrary to Law" and established that Parliament, not the Crown, could regulate the right to bear arms.[4][5]

Sir William Blackstone wrote in the 18th century that the right to have arms was auxiliary to the "natural right of resistance and self-preservation" subject to suitability and allowance by law.[6] The term arms, as used in the 1600s, refers to the process of equipping for war.[7] It is commonly used as a synonym for weapon.[8]

Link

 

[Tero]

"The right of the people, to keep & bear arms, shall not be infringed"

Earlier concepts of this right included:

Pennsylvania, September 28, 1776
Article 13. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power

Vermont, July 8, 1777
Chapter 1. Section XVIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of the themselves and the State; and as standing armies, in the time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power

Yes, there is evidence that the people have a personal right to personal defense, not simply to defend the state in times of war and rebellion, was a part of this whole debate before the 2nd Am was ratified. It is silly and ignorant to suggest otherwise.

Personal defense was always part of the equation.

Then go right ahead. Defend in PA and Vermont. Whatever states need guns to fight...Indians and Brits...can keep arms. Civilizes states can hand this over to the militias. The 2nd amendment militias.

 

[Hercules56]

Then go right ahead. Defend in PA and Vermont. Whatever states need guns to fight...Indians and Brits...can keep arms. Civilizes states can hand this over to the militias. The 2nd amendment militias.

The arming of the militia was already handled by the Constitution in 1787. Nothing else was needed to make sure they had guns and other weapons.

Clearly the 2nd Amendment was for something different.

"Article I, Section 8, Clause 16:

[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; . . ."

 

[Beelzebuddy]

You never hear about a well-regulated militia shooting up a school. People understand the 2nd amendment fine. They're just lying to suit their purpose.

If you want a real solution, it's available. Point out that gun ownership applies to those people too, and resistance to gun control will evaporate. California had one of the least restrictive gun laws in the nation, until the Black Panthers started arming up in the 60s for their own personal defense, and then whaddya know suddenly no one minded gun regulations as much. No repealing necessary.

 

[Hercules56]

You never hear about a well-regulated militia shooting up a school. People understand the 2nd amendment fine. They're just lying to suit their purpose.

If you want a real solution, it's available. Point out that gun ownership applies to those people too, and resistance to gun control will evaporate. California had one of the least restrictive gun laws in the nation, until the Black Panthers started arming up in the 60s for their own personal defense, and then whaddya know suddenly no one minded gun regulations as much. No repealing necessary.

Its funny how folks think right after we fought a violent and bloody revolution (with guns) against a tyrannical and authoritarian regime, the Founders would not allow their citizens to protect & defend themselves collectively AND individually.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Its funny how folks think right after we fought a violent and bloody revolution (with guns) against a tyrannical and authoritarian regime, the Founders would not allow their citizens to protect & defend themselves collectively AND individually.

Regardless of what they thought about individual gun ownership, it was collective defence they felt necessary to include, an interpretation which worked just fine through the wild west, a civil war, prohibition-era mob violence, right up until the far right lost segregation for good and needed to invent a new issue to rally their political base around.

 

[Hercules56]

Regardless of what they thought about individual gun ownership, it was collective defence they felt necessary to include, an interpretation which worked just fine through the wild west, a civil war, prohibition-era mob violence, right up until the far right lost segregation for good and needed to invent a new issue to rally their political base around.

Collective defense was already established and handled by the US Constitution in 1787:

"Article I, Section 8, Clause 16:

[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; . . ."

 

[Thermal]

The 2nd Amendment gives Americans and legal residents the right to protect themselves, their families and the public with firearms from violence.

Many Americans are AGAINST this right, and feel we should not be able to defend ourselves with deadly weapons like guns.
Should we repeal this right?

I don't believe the hilited is true. I would agree that many are against the right for any random whack job to easily access high powered killing tools, but that's a very different thing. Entirely different. Like night and day.

Eta: as gets pointed out often, T Jefferson thought that the Constitution would be trashed within 20 years and something else take its place, as times change. At the time, Redcoats were still a bit of an ongoing problem. The founders really, really weren't looking centuries into the future to figure out how their ambiguously worded Constitution would be applied to a different world.

To clarify: no, active British occupation was not the threat, but armed political warring was fresh on everyone's mind while they were tending their wounds

 

[Hans]

The founders also didn't consider that technology would evolve beyond a one shot -20 seconds to reload and fire again mechanism to having fully automatic weapons with large magazines, high velocity rounds and body armor. I own guns and I have no problem having them registered, and that people must have training before they buy one, and that those with mental problems/criminal backgrounds, be prohibited from gaining the military style weapons.

 

[Hercules56]

The founders also didn't consider that technology would evolve beyond a one shot -20 seconds to reload and fire again mechanism to having fully automatic weapons with large magazines, high velocity rounds and body armor. I own guns and I have no problem having them registered, and that people must have training before they buy one, and that those with mental problems/criminal backgrounds, be prohibited from gaining the military style weapons.

That's why I believe strict regulation of machine guns and other military weaponry is Constitutional.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

What about an option to replace the 2nd amendment with something that isn't as ambiguous and is more relevant to 21st century Americans than the current 2nd amendment is? One motivation (IMHO, the primary motivation) for the 2nd amendment was to allow states to maintain their own militias. This made sense in the 1700's when battles consisted of forming 2 lines and shooting at each other, but modern battle tactics are much more complex and can't really be mastered by people who train a couple of days a month. Was an intent of the 2nd amendment to allow the citizens to become heavily armed enough to overthrow the government by force if necessary if they were unhappy with it (not likely, IMHO)? If so, state that explicitly. If the concern is that there is a need to ensure that citizens have the right to own weapons for self-defense and/or hunting, state that explicitly.

 

[Darat]

Its funny how folks think right after we fought a violent and bloody revolution (with guns) against a tyrannical and authoritarian regime, the Founders would not allow their citizens to protect & defend themselves collectively AND individually.

"the Founders" were not a hive mind - they had radically (in both the literal and figurative meaning) different ideas, everything they created was a compromise amongst people with different opinions and beliefs, often with lots of horse trading involved.

The idea that you can go back to what "the Founders" wanted as if there was a coherent, and agreed single position is ludicrous.

Plus, my opinion is that if you want to use any of the "the Founders" you first of all need to establish why they are an authority, especially one that is relevant to the world today. Otherwise, they need to be treated with no more consideration than any other "my mate Bob from the pub said...." anecdote.


ETA: To the question in the opening post - the USA needs to reduce the murders and mutilations caused by guns, start with that goal and then decide what needs to be done to implement that.

 

[Thermal]

As an anecdotal exercise, I'm doing the math in my head of people I know shot or killed, versus people I know who defended themselves against intruders/muggers/carjackers/whatever with a gun. Score's a bit lopsided.