Thursday, September 26, 2013

Why Not Repeal the 2nd Amendment Now?





On all gun safety issues the "second amendment" people refuse to give an inch while the gun safety people try to get minor concessions. Wrong question. The question that should be asked is: Should we repeal the Second Amendment? Not a single candidate or current office holder is asking this question, so I will.

The Second Amendment was added to the Constitution in 1791, 222 years ago. At that time, the arms people had the right to bear were either a flintlock musket or a flintlock pistol that took forever to re-load. Today an "arm" can be a 100 shot semi-automatic rifle that can reload in seconds with kits available to convert it into a machine gun.

Why not repeal this outmoded amendment now? We can replace it with an amendment that makes sense in the twenty-first century. We don't have to ban guns, just set sane regulations, without the confused wording of the Second Amendment. Repealing an amendment isn't easy but we repealed the eighteenth amendment.

What makes perfect sense to me is this: The 2nd Amendment was enacted when the "people had the right to bear either a flintlock musket or a flintlock pistol that took forever to re-load. Today an "arm" can be a 100 shot semi-automatic rifle"

I challenge any pro-gun advocate to argue against that logic without referring to the 1st Amendment.

33 comments:

  1. You folk seemed quite happy having it there when The collective right opinion was in vogue. I would heartily encourage whatever group wants to take the initiative to begin the process to repeal the second amendment.
    I truly think it would be very educational. Perhaps the MAIG could sponsor the repeal....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Given that the Amendment is supposed to be to enable the militia, it already HAS been repealed. (I've gone over this before--try to use your brains to find it).

      Fortunately, you have 5 Supreme Court justices who have said that it allows possession of registered handguns in the home for personal defence, but they haven't taken it beyond that. In fact, they have made it clear that their opinion was not intended on getting rid of firearms regulation.

      It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 54). We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here. Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms. McDonald at 39-40

      Delete
    2. The amendment has not been repealed. It is not tied to militia service. And the Heller ruling does not require any restrictions. I always use my brain. Perhaps you'd like to try yours.

      Delete
    3. Laci,
      I believe it is the seventh circuit and the Illinois Supreme Court has supported that the right to carry outside the home is supported by Heller. Though again, with restrictions by the state. This led to the permit system in Illinois being implemented. It is sort of a shame that the Illinois AG didn't appeal it to SCOTUS. Though perhaps that is why she didn't. Better to lose a little than to lose big.

      Delete
    4. The "deliverance" boys (NRA Greg and TN) use their brains to track down their next victim in the woods.

      Delete
    5. Greg, stretching the boundaries of rational thought, said: "And the Heller ruling does not require any restrictions."

      Delete
    6. Laci, your first sentence doesn't make any sense. Even if your collective right/militia right was the proper interpretation, the amendment hasn't been repealed in any way.

      Or did you mean that it has been repealed in the sense of an individual right being repealed? If so, that makes no sense since no amendment abolishing an individual right has been passed, and the 2nd is silent on individual rights, within your framework.

      Delete
    7. Mike,

      How is that stretching the boundaries of rational thought--Heller said some restrictions were allowed. That doesn't mean that they are required in any way, only that the government is free to make them within the allowed bounds.

      Delete
    8. T., "Does not require any" and "some restrictions are allowed," are two very different ways of expressing the thing. But, of course you come to the defense of your buddy.

      It's fucking misleading to say it the way Greg did. That's what he's all about, you too, misleading the reader from the truth. In this case the truth is, restrictions on the right are appropriate, not only acceptable, but appropriate.

      Delete
    9. Mikeb, if you're going to accuse me of stretching the truth, especially in such a foul tone, you shouldn't state beliefs as facts. Heller said some restrictions may be constitutional. That does not require any restrictions. It merely says that some may be acceptable--to be determined at a later date. You say that restrictions are appropriate, but that's your belief talking, not legal fact.

      Delete
    10. Mike,

      The case said that some restrictions are allowed. The reason Greg said that it doesn't require any is because Laci, in the past, has used the same section he quoted to claim that the Court's decision Requires us to have such restrictions.

      Laci didn't repeat that here, but he has said it several times in the past, which is why I knew, in context of past arguments, why he made that statement, and why I, therefore, defended him.

      I understand if you forgot what Laci said in the past, but now that you know why Greg said what he did, I hope you can see that Greg was not trying to mislead, but to engage Laci on a position Laci has held in the past and not defended (he's stated it several times, but not explained how the quoted passage requires restrictions).

      Delete
  2. The Eighteenth Amendment restricted the freedom of Americans. That's why it was repealed. But nothing in the Second Amendment or any other has a sunset provision for when technology changes. The author of that idiotic letter thinks that it took "forever" to reload the firearms of the time, but with a little practice, it takes only about twenty seconds. That was state of the art at the time. The amendment could have limited people to matchlocks, for example, if it intended to keep us at a disadvantage, but no such limit was written.

    The author claims that "we" don't want to ban guns, but we know that the goal of gun control freaks is a total ban. Mikeb, you'll claim again that you don't, but I simply don't believe you. Your side cannot be trusted.

    But do try to repeal the amendment. Defeating you control freaks would be a pleasure.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. People are frightened in The US. Parents are buying bullet-proof backpacks for crissake, Greg. You don't think that's restriction freedom? Are you so self-centered that you can't see the other side's concerns.

      Delete
    2. Oh, please, people are buying bullet-resistant backpacks? That's the best you have? No, I don't consider the concerns of histrionic people to be sufficient cause for violating the rights of millions of Americans, any more than I consider it enough to say that Jim Crow should return because an interracial couple makes some people uncomfortable. This isn't about being self-centered. It's about rights.

      Delete
    3. I have yet to meet anyone who has actually bought one of those backpacks, but even if they are, how is that restricting their freedom? They still go where they choose, buy what they choose, etc. If they want a bulletproof backpack because they think it will be needed, they can buy it . . . so long as it's not outlawed as body armor restricted for police and military use only within their jurisdiction.

      Delete
    4. You guys are concerned with the millions of gun owners who would be affected by stricter laws, but there are millions more who are afraid to go to the shopping mall or the the public school. They have a continual thought in the back of their minds that another shooting might happen. That infringes upon their freedom, in my opinion, in a worse way than stricter gun laws would infringe upon yours.

      Delete
    5. I keep hearing this line about people being "afraid to go" and having a "continual thought in the back of their mind" that they might get shot while they're out. These are not rational thoughts or reactions. These are descriptions of phobias.

      We don't require the wearing of gloves and masks to make hypochondriacs more comfortable. We don't ask Muslim women to dress like everyone else because people can't get over the fear, scratching at the back of their mind, that the woman with the scarf might blow herself up. Etc.

      Delete
    6. I don't think it's a phobia or paranoia to seriously consider the possibility of running into a shooting when you're out and about in the US. You're always on Yellow Alert.

      http://mikeb302000.blogspot.it/2013/10/for-gun-violence-us-is-always-on-yellow.html

      Delete
    7. You didn't say that they consider the possibility of it happening--you said that they were afraid to go anywhere--that they have a continual thought in the back of their mind when they DO go there. Your words go far beyond acknowledging the possibility and having a plan.

      But, I thought that it was a sign of paranoia and mental imbalance to carry a gun due to the possibility of being attacked/mugged, and that is a far more likely thing to happen to a person than getting shot in a mass shooting.

      You can't decide whether we should be concerned and take countermeasures or not. If we carry a gun, that's a sign of mental imbalance. If we don't, we have a lot more leeway to freak out about minor issues.

      Delete
    8. T., reasonable people in the US live with the fear of running into a criminal with a gun or a law-abiding gun owner who turns out to be a bumbling unfit idiot like the ones we read about every day in the news.

      This is an infringement of their pursuit of happiness, having to be on Yellow Alert at all times.

      Delete
    9. Is that in the same way that it's an infringement on their pursuit of happiness to have to be on Yellow Alert all the time because of fear that the Muslim down the street might snap and blow them up?

      Is it an infringement on the pursuit of happiness of minorities to have to live with the freedom of racists to spout their vile shit?

      The right to the pursuit of happiness is a right to Pursue it, not to have it completely and at all times. It does not justify banning behaviors and infringing on other rights just because they make some people uncomfortable.

      Delete
  3. A push to repeal the amendment would be an acknowledgement of the rectitude of the individual rights interpretation. If your collective/militia rights interpretation were the proper one, why would you want to repeal the amendment--at most you would want to pass an amendment clarifying your interpretation.

    Regarding the technology available at the time, single shot flintlocks were the most common weapons, but they were not the only weapons in use. There was a repeating air rifle being developed in Europe at the time which was soon known in America. The idea of the revolver was another technology that, while not common, had already been invented centuries before hand--here's a picture of a matchlock revolver:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Drehling_GNM_W1984_ca_1580.jpg
    Moreover, it was common and acceptable for people to own multiple weapons--something that enables quicker shooting.

    Finally, Aymette, one of the cases Laci likes to mis-cite to support his "collective right" interpretation assumed that the individual, Aymette, had the right to own the revolver he owned in the 1890's. The case didn't even question whether this right extended to a revolver rather than just a flintlock.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good point, which is exactly why I have often favored the obsolete and anachronistic view.

      Delete
    2. And would that be the collective or individual rights version of it being obsolete and anachronistic?

      Delete
  4. MikeB says,

    "I challenge any pro-gun advocate to argue against that logic without referring to the 1st Amendment."

    Why not refer to ANY amendment? Are they not ALL civil rights? Do they not all apply equally without regard to technology?
    Lets take the 3rd amendment for example. It has been long thought that this is also an outdated and unneeded amendment, really never used. So lets get rid of that one as well, after all, its just cluttering up the works right?

    Oh wait! There is a 3rd amendment challenge in court right now!

    A civil right is a civil right. I don't care which one you want to challenge, you still have to treat them all with the same scrutiny. It is therefore the utmost dishonesty to do otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Utmost dishonesty? What are you talking about. The right to own other human beings changed after a while. The right to deny women equal rights is still in the process of changing. Those rights had no impact on the 1st Amendment, or the 2A for that matter.

      Delete
    2. We have went over this too Mike, its still another dishonest comparison. The civil rights belonged to them as well. Their civil rights were denied and were finally corrected and treated as equals under the law.

      The problem with the change that your talking about is denying the rights of the unborn, and that is still being debated upon. There is no rights denied to women what so ever at the Federal Constitutional level. The opinions of women rights at state level is the problem and only concerns abortion.

      So quit being dishonest Mike. ALL civil rights are afforded to ALL people.

      Delete
    3. Who's talking about the unborn? I was referring to women's struggle to get equal pay for equal work.

      What we consider "civil rights" changes with the times. The bizarre idea that owning or carrying a gun concealed is a civil right is nonsense. As a society, we'll outgrow that one the way we did slavery and the subjugation of women.

      Delete
    4. When you get the White House to pay women equal pay for equal work then that concept may work its way down. However I know lots of jobs that pay their women workers more than their male counterparts for the same job for several reasons. Vice-versa for other jobs. Their are several reasons for this inequality. If the women is willing to do the job for the pay she agreed to then there isn't any rights violated.

      You may consider a civil right a bizarre idea Mike, however most don't and willing to protect ALL civil rights including the 2nd. Society in this country was built on the civil rights protections and will never "out grow them. Slavery and subjugation was a violation of civil rights was dealt with and included those who had their rights violated into the fold of the rest in this country.

      Its STILL dishonest to compare slavery to gun ownership Mike. Its two entirely separate issues.

      Delete
    5. It is not dishonest. It's just something you don't like to hear.

      The day will come in our country when gun ownership is no longer seen as a right. You will still be able to own guns just like you can own anything else, but you won't any longer be able to use the bizarre "civil rights" argument to avoid sensible restrictions.

      Delete
    6. So, Gun ownership is like Slavery, but you want to allow us to keep owning guns.

      riiiight

      On the positive side, you've probably guaranteed that we won't respond to you on this thread anymore--it's not worth arguing with a liar who reframes the debate constantly.

      Delete
    7. No, you're the one who's doing that. To characterize what I said about rights changing as "gun ownership is like slavery, make you the liar.

      Delete
    8. I reject the notion that it is "our" country Mike, you left it. There are many, if not up to a million gun owners that are totally oblivious that they have the right to keep and bear, just that they own guns because they can. The right exists beyond the second civil right, you know, to engage in open free commerce that is also a protected right for example. Its a freedom to choose to do with what their gains afford them.

      And yes, those that can afford them also buy full auto military weapons, tanks, fighter aircraft, military helicopters and so on. Not because of the second civil right, but because of the freedom to engage in commerce. If that's your interest, go for it.

      But here in the US, no amount of money will let you "buy or own" a slave. That was abolished a LONG time ago. The only people that still harp on it is you and your kind Mike, the rest have moved on. Its history, its done with.

      What is "bizarre" is your clinging to the term "sensible restrictions" and using it in a way to disarm. Sensible restrictions were built into the constitution at the time it was written. What we need instead is true, meaningful punishment instead of the turnstile prison system for the worst offenders. Using your own example of the woman that fired a "warning" shot got 20 years, but the man that killed his mother only got seven years only to get released and kill again. Who was the greater offender Mike. The man MURDERD his mother! Why was he still breathing anyway? Answer me that one Mike.

      If anything, that example, that one miniscule example out of thousands, is a very reason that the right to keep and bear will never go away Mike. Never. The day will never come where the second civil right will never be seen as a right. The ONLY way to get your wish is to amend the constitution. Yes its been done before and because rights were ultimately violated. Do actually believe the second civil right would amended away? Really Mike? Because if you do, I have some grand land deals for you.

      Delete