A Philosophical argument for the repeal of Second Amendment

[ronl]

Blue Train, I respectfully disagree with your statement concerning the right of the people to overthrow an overbearing government. Mr. Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independence, stated clearly that it was not only a right but a duty. Those responsible for the founding of our government were the greatest collection of political thinkers ever assembled in the history of the world. They devised the greatest government ever wrought by mankind. I think we would all be better served by reaquainting ourselves with the precepts and ideas put forth by them.

[Quick Karl]

I second ronl's motion.

And, I encourage EVERYONE to read: The Creation of the American Republic 1776-1787, by Gordon S. Wood, to gleen for yourself the actual thoughts of the Founders, in their own words.

The proof is in the pudding.

[sthomper]

There is no way the authors of The Bill of Rights could ever have imagined semi-automatic firearms with 30-round magazines....................

why and so what?

[Quick Karl]

It was rhetorical, to make a point, not what I really believe.

[BGutzman]

There is no way the authors of The Bill of Rights could ever have imagined semi-automatic firearms with 30-round magazines....................

They didn't need too.. they allowed ordinary citizens to own cannon and fire some really nasty grapeshot which very much has an effect like automatic fire.. And they allowed citizens to use any weapon they could afford without limitation as to type..

[Warrior1256]

When the Founding Fathers put the 2nd amendment in the Constitution they did so so that the people could defend themselves against an all powerful government. Military style weapons were EXACTLY what they intended the people to have.

Kind of funny that the government is now trying to take these types of firearms from us isn't it.

[rwilson452]

ever hear of a letter of marquee? The way it worked is first you had to have a ship ready and armed first. During the dark ages all you needed was enough money.

I rather doubt that any person not a pirate during the late 18th century had cannon. They could have armed ships but only with license from the government. Even in the middle ages, one could simply not build a castle if one wanted to. You had to get a license. No forms, no inspections but you had to get permission from the government.

Add: As for repealing the 2nd, it ain't going to happen. It requires approval of 2/3 of the states. Go look at a map showing red states vs blue states.

[jackpine]

even more to the point it's not about what the tool can do but what it is for, the protection of liberty. In the modern ara you need a modern tool to face the ones that would take your liberty by force.

[Chaz88]

As for repealing the 2nd, it ain't going to happen. It requires approval of 2/3 of the states. Go look at a map showing red states vs blue states.

Just for a little clarity on how amendments are made to the constitution.

Either congress or the states can propose an amendment. Both houses must propose the same amendment with a 2/3 vote. Also the states can do the same thing if 2/3 of the states call for a constitutional convention.

Ratification has to be done by 3/4 of the states approving the amendment. Seven years are allowed for the ratification process.

See I did learn something in political science class.

[carguychris]

There seem to be several trains of thought going on in this thread simultaneously. I think a little clarification is in order.

It's very important to remember that the militia, in colonial times, was an institution that acted strictly under state control. Many states sanctioned private militia organizations, but they were required to follow the state governments' orders; this is an important part of the original meaning of the phrase "well regulated" in the 2A. Militiamen who refused to follow the state's orders would most likely be characterized as bandits or even rebels.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate the militia (Article I, Section 8) and gives the President the power to act as commander in chief of the militia (Article II, Section 2). Some states saw this as an overreach of federal power. The prefatory or militia clause of the 2A was enacted to prevent Congress or the President from using their Constitutionally-granted powers to emasculate the militia, either by ordering militamen to disarm outright, or by ordering them to store their arms in a remote armory where their guns could be confiscated.

I believe that the militia clause was intended to act in concert with the pre-existing common-law right to bear arms, in order to ensure that militiamen were able to wield personally-owned military-grade weapons and bring them to bear if the states had to act against the federal government... but this power would be exercised by the states, NOT by self-appointed and unsanctioned groups of citizens. The founders wanted protection from an out-of-control central government; they did NOT want anarchy!

It's important to remember that the founders had just watched the central government under the Articles of Confederation collapse, and they were well aware of the chaotic history of European royalty. Their main concern was that the central government would collapse again, or worse yet, that a weak Congress would acquiesce as the President declared himself King.

BTW the concept of the "unorganized" militia is a relatively recent one. The idea is actually intended as a dodge to ensure that military-age citizens can be drafted without requiring universal peacetime military conscription. The U.S. actually once had a universal conscription program under the Militia Acts, but it was unpopular, and the states steadily dismantled it by fabricating various reasons why certain and increasingly larger and larger portions of their military-age population were exempt. The unorganized militia is essentially a codification of this idea; it ensures that military-age citizens can be drafted in times of war, ensuring an adequate national defense, while not requiring anything from them in times of peace.

[Dr Big Bird PhD]

Carguy Chris, I completely understand your argument and justification for the wording of the 2A. I can't argue with it, as it makes very logical sense, moreso that anything than I've heard regarding the amendment. However, I must say that the civil war destroyed the State vs Federal government rights. For most government agencies functioning at various levels, they are merely imitative puppets of the central control nowadays. As much as I resent saying this, the rationale of your explanation is irrelevant to modern america.

[press1280]

I'm not so sure the founding fathers couldn't have imagined semi-auto(or full auto for that matter) rifles. I really don't see them as totally different than what we had back then. Just think about the first cars that were made and the cars today. They both do essentially the same thing, just that today's cars do it much better than the first cars.
Laser guns, nuclear weapons on the other hand maybe not. Even still Heller said the new technologies must be applied to the constitution, and that modern communications fall under 1A protection, even though the founders didn't know about phones or the internet.

[carguychris]

However, I must say that the civil war destroyed the State vs Federal government rights. For most government agencies functioning at various levels, they are merely imitative puppets of the central control nowadays.

Your point is debatable, and IMHO it's hard to reasonably argue that the 13A and 14A aren't beneficial to most Americans in most respects.

As much as I resent saying this, the rationale of your explanation is irrelevant to modern america.

I'm not precisely sure what part of my rationale you're addressing, but I'll be the first to agree that the colonial-era concept of the militia is obsolete and irrelevant to modern America. However, this doesn't neuter the 2A; it just makes the prefatory clause irrelevant too. There's no need to guarantee that the militia is armed when the militia has evolved into the National Guard, which is a militia in theory but IMHO actually operates as a de facto reserve force of the regular military.

If I had my druthers, I would create a constitutional amendment eliminating every reference to the militia, and replacing them all with a clause clarifying that the institution of a military draft is a legitimate power of Congress. OTOH the militia isn't the only legal dead weight in the document; after all, it's been over 150 years since Congress issued a letter of marque and reprisal!

[Dr Big Bird PhD]

Your point is debatable, and IMHO it's hard to reasonably argue that the 13A and 14A aren't beneficial to most Americans in most respects.

They are, but ultimately the point I was making is about the Federal government establishing a precedent of overruling state law.

I'm not precisely sure what part of my rationale you're addressing, but I'll be the first to agree that the colonial-era concept of the militia is obsolete and irrelevant to modern America. However, this doesn't neuter the 2A; it just makes the prefatory clause irrelevant too. There's no need to guarantee that the militia is armed when the militia has evolved into the National Guard, which is a militia in theory but IMHO actually operates as a de facto reserve force of the regular military.

The rationale of the right and establishment of the militia. Not your rationalization, I admit, but rather the one you were presenting. I apologize for the confusion.

If I had my druthers, I would create a constitutional amendment eliminating every reference to the militia, and replacing them all with a clause clarifying that the institution of a military draft is a legitimate power of Congress. OTOH the militia isn't the only legal dead weight in the document; after all, it's been over 150 years since Congress issued a letter of marque and reprisal!

I would just make an amendment that says the same thing as it does, without the prefatory clause, and then "shall not be infringed on any conditions whatsoever" haha

[egor20]

Well I got bored over on an online news site;

"The 2nd Amendment was drafted by the a bunch of men who used MUSKETS !!! The thought of a MILITARY ASSAULT WEAPON was inconceivable in those days !!"

My comment;


The 2nd Amendment was drafted by the a bunch of men who used printing presses !!!
The thought of the Internet was inconceivable in those days !!


So how about we ban the 1st Amendment because of the typewriter?



The silence was deafening.



Merry Christmas to all

[BlueTrain]

I will go along with Mr Carguychris in most respects, if not all. I don't think the type of weapon or arms, which is the word used, is important to the second amendment so much as the word militia. Most who argue the point ignore the first phrase, which you are certainly free to do, I suppose. But the concept of a militia is not dead and obsolete. Whether or not a modern militia would seem as strange to the writers as an M16 is also unimportant. Other things would seem just as strange. It is true, however, that the workings of a modern militia are generally unlike those of the 18th century. As a matter of fact, the only militia in the world that approaches the concept happens to be Canadian, which unit I can't remember the name of but I think it's simply the Canadian Rangers, not to be confused with the Rocky Mountain Rangers or the Queen's York Rangers (1st American Regiment), which is an armored unit. Interesting names, they are. However, the unit to which I refer has an active military role of patrolling the northern frontier of Canada, which for some reason other countries may have designs on. They do not wear regular uniform and they are armed with Lee-Enfield bolt action rifles. Do you think there's any justification for such a unit anywhere in this country?

In some ways, the Swiss system approaches a traditional form of a militia. They do have everything issued and keep everything at home, although some things have changed. I don't think ammo is kept at home anymore and when it was, it was in cans and strictly accounted for. And just like the colonial militia, it is not voluntary, which I suspect would be a sticking point for a lot of otherwise nice folks here.

So, whattya think?

[BlueTrain]

Here, go read about 'em: http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/land-te.../index-eng.asp.

Don't you wish you were Canadian?

[JimPage]

Over throw of government was part of the reason. Read the Federalist Papers.

If you think only muzzle loaders were included in the 2nd A, then you can't extend freedom of the press to radio, tv, indeed newspapers because they use electricity and not hand cranked printing presses.

The 2A means what it says. And "well regulated" in the language of the time means drilled, and equipped.

"the people" means all the people in the 2A just as the "the people" in the rest of the Constitution.

Generally you can't separate the Declaration of Independence from the Constition since essentially they are related having the same authors

[Al Norris]

A point of order.

Originally Posted by JimPage

Generally you can't separate the Declaration of Independence from the Constitution since essentially they are related having the same authors

Thomas Jefferson penned the Declaration and was Ambassador to France when the Constitution was written. He had no hand in that writing.

[BlueTrain]

The Federalist Papers were not passed by the constitutional convention. Again, you can't argue what they thought or what they wanted. You can only argue what they did: the constituition. And if you think they thought overthrowing the government was okay, then no wonder gun owners are a little suspect. What makes you think any new government would be better?

[Romeo 33 Delta]

On overthrowning the government ... what makes you think the new one would be any better?

Nailed that one! Does the phrase "Arab Spring" come to mind? Seems to me that in each and every instance is more like an "Arab Winter".

Replacing an existing government yields: New government better ... new government no better, no worse ... new government worse.

Seems to me like it's 2 out 3 against being better. Just sayin'! Let's just say that we got lucky first time around. Want to roll them bones again?

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

[Eghad]

if you view the first document the Declaration of Independence: "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence"

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Then the Second Amendment: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The Second Amendment was to provide citizens means to defend themselves against others and against despots who tried to oppress citizens. The founding fathers did not trust a standing army in fact they disbanded the Continental Army. Alexander Hamilton said that militia must be trained and have discipline and should be armed as well.

Keeping that in mind would they have the militia armed with with something inferior to what standing armies were carrying? If these Citizen Soldiers who formed the militia were to face standing armies I beleive the intent was to have them armed with firearms of the same quality.

If you could bring them back show them an M-4 and tell them that this is what the military carries and then tell them the citizens shouldn't be armed with these they would disagree with you.

[BlueTrain]

No, I keep saying that what the arms are does not matter. Other things matter, however. But if you want to change the government, go ahead. But do it the right way. Remember, however, that if the government is overthrown by revolution, which did happen, the old constitution also goes. You have to start all over again.

Because you also have the right to peacefully assemble, the first thing you do is to have a state convention, or perhaps a national convention. There's nothing sacred about the idea of our state governments. We could just have adminstrative districts or something like that. Anyway, that's where you get together and talk about exactly what it is you don't like about our form of government. We have them every four years anyway, only for a different purpose.

Oh, yes! We're talking about changing the form of government. After all, remember that the oppressive government you don't like is one that got elected, in theory, by the majority of voters. Perhaps only a bare majority but a majority just the same. You'll have that to deal with, too. Finally, once all that's out of the way, then you can have your little revolting change of government.

It won't be easy but there are some things to do to expedite the process. First, you have to get the army on your side. That's the way it's done in other countries. Don't imagine you're going to do something that's never been done before. Failing that, you have to have a foreign power to help you out. You're simply not going to get anywhere with nothing but Bushmaster rifles. You're also going to need a whole lot of ammunition.

Good luck!

[JimPage]

Arguing the intent of the 2A doesn't mean one is advocating overthrow. I believe the statement was to show the one of the prime reasons for the 2A.

Al Norris: "Thomas Jefferson penned the Declaration and was Ambassador to France when the Constitution was written. He had no hand in that writing."

What you say, Al, is true. But philosophy of the documents was common among the founders. I still maintain that they should be taken as a group because they are inextricably related to both history and philosophy. To say Jefferson has no influence on the Constitution is bisarre.

[Baba Louie]

A Philosophical argument for the repeal of Second Amendment

That WE the people (or 2/3rds thereof) acknowledge we do NOT live in a Free State and furthermore do not DESIRE to live in a state of FREEDOM, we hereby repeal the second amendment abrogating the rights and NEED of the people to arm bears, to include anyone and all, other than the Federal government's Standing Army, and/or their respective appointed agents, reserving for that august body alone, the Right to keep and bear arms to be used as they see fit and this Shall Not Be Infringed (and we mean it this time)

(I'll allow the lawyers among us to clean up the language to a better point of strangulation)

Now THAT might actually pass muster with some, sadly (couldnt resist arming bears, mea culpa). I'm sure most everyone, save one or two rebels to the cause, in the District of Columbia and the self appointed intelligentsia of academia and the media would think it fine and natural.

But why stop there? If you're on a roll, turn the entire document into squeezably soft bumwad.