The Second Amendment Was A Failure From The Start, And Should Have Been Repealed 200 Years Ago

[BLUE COLLAR]

It was a passive/aggressive way of calling me an arrogant asshole. Don't act as if it wasn't.
Give it a rest, kid. No one cares about our bickering or your views on gun control.

You addressed me first, you set the tone between us.

I was particularly disturbed by the comment comparing abortions to taking out a mother and child with a single shot. I believe you equated it with "late term abortion." Be reminded that you don't know my stand on abortion but appear to rely upon ignorant generalizing.

Perhaps had you been in Pinkville that day, you wouldn't find it a source of humor. On the other hand, there were more than a few trigger men. Such animals do exist.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

The right to keep and bear arms as protected by the 2nd belongs to the people.
Says so right in the text.
Not the militia.
Not the people in the militia,
The people.
Thus, any reference to "well regulated militia" is irrelevant when discussing who holds the right to keep and bear arms as protected by the 2nd.

The 2nd Amendment does not grant any rights.

Let's boil this down to what should be more important to both of us.

You want to keep your guns, and most people who want reasonable gun laws (myself included) do not object. We simply want a rational conversation about how we might make some dent in gun violence. May I suggest that it would be in your interest to cooperate. On the order of two-thirds of all voters support the exploration of reasonable gun regulation. Where will your gun rights go if you continue to buck those odds?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Let's boil this down to what should be more important to both of us.

I accept your concession of the point.

 

[M14 Shooter]

May I suggest that it would be in your interest to cooperate

Or.... what?
Why should we agree to unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms?

. On the order of two-thirds of all voters support the exploration of reasonable gun regulation. Where will your gun rights go if you continue to buck those odds?

"Shall not be infringed"

 

[bripat9643]

Let's boil this down to what should be more important to both of us.

You want to keep your guns, and most people who want reasonable gun laws (myself included) do not object. We simply want a rational conversation about how we might make some dent in gun violence. May I suggest that it would be in your interest to cooperate. On the order of two-thirds of all voters support the exploration of reasonable gun regulation. Where will your gun rights go if you continue to buck those odds?

Whenever we propose something, douchebags like you object. Like when we proposed allowing teachers with permits to carry in the classroom.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Whenever we propose something, douchebags like you object. Like when we proposed allowing teachers with permits to carry in the classroom.

Because they are only interested in "solutions" which serve to make it hard as possible for the law abiding to exercie their right to keep and bear arms.

 

[Orangecat]

I was particularly disturbed by the comment comparing abortions to taking out a mother and child with a single shot.

Tissue?

 

[Orangecat]

We simply want a rational conversation about how we might make some dent in gun violence.

Is someone stopping you from having your conversation? Go the fuck ahead.
The problem arises when your "conversation" results in an unconstitutional infringement upon our rights.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Believe it or not, that applied for the formation of the Continental Congress and was used again to abolish it to form the United States of America. They found that the CC was equal to dishwater and didn't work and had to be thrown out and reintroduced as a stronger federal government. They were right. What came out is the US Constitution based on the Bill of Rights which was lifted from the British Bill of Rights dated 1689 for about the same reason that the US Bill of Rights was being adopted. Unfortunately, the British rarely applied it to colonial states where the Monarch was unopposed.

The 2nd amendment legacy goes all the way back to 1215, the Magna Carta. The Magna Carta was the first time that it was written into law that a soldier, when leaving service, could keep his sword. It also allowed civilians to own cannons. War was expensive and any help the civilians could give to the king in supplying an army was greatly appreciated when a neighboring kingdom invaded. Here is the reality. Most Soldiers were Farmers who would take their swords home and reforge them into something more useful like a plow or farm tool. As for the Cannons, it took a very rich person to have a fully functional cannon back then. Usually, it was a Duke, Baron or the like. The Cannon had to be kept up and fired on a regular basis. On hard times, the Duke or Baron would have it reforged into something else. You see, iron of that quality was scarce and expensive.

Civilian Weapons from 1215 to 1700 usually comprised of daggers, not firearms. A Dagger had other uses other than killing. Or a hunting knife. But to be truthful, I would rather face a Dagger than a pissed off farmer with a Pike to dig a hole with. When Firearms surfaced, they were single shot and it took time to reload them. I would rather face a musket than an Indian with a quiver full of Arrows who can get off many more shots per minute just as accurate with equal or better range. The 2nd Amendment didn't say anything about firearms because firearms were NOT the strongest weapons quite yet. But it was the easiest for the founding fathers to use without developing any skills like shooting a bow and arrow. So the 2nd amendment was no foul now harm at the time.

What it didn't predict was the 1851 Walker Colt. The first multiple shot production weapon. What followed was a huge increase in other weapons coming out. Let's call it "The Weapons Revolution". In 10 short years, the Gatlin Gun, the hotchiss Canon and the Breech Loader. In fact, many old surplus single shot rifles into the flintlocks were redone for the breech loader system for the Civil War. But the Breech Loader for the Rifle was short lived. It was replaced by the new Winchester and Henry Rifles which could fire faster, help at least 5 rounds (in the 45.100) and were lighter to carry. These started to make their way onto the battle fields and into the west during those 10 years.

The Walker Colt was such a huge problem, at the end of the war, soldiers could keep theirs if they had possession of them. They went west. Here is an exerpt
https://gun-control.procon.org/history-of-gun-control/
Despite images of the “Wild West” from movies, cities in the frontier often required visitors to check their guns with the sheriff before entering the town. [108] In Oct. 1876, Deadwood, Dakota Territory passed a law stating that no one could fire a gun without the mayor’s consent. [109] A sign in Dodge City, Kansas in 1879 read, “The Carrying of Fire Arms Strictly Prohibited.” [108] The first law passed in Dodge City was a gun control law that read “any person or persons found carrying concealed weapons in the city of Dodge or violating the laws of the State shall be dealt with according to law.” [108]

They got tired of the drunken cowboys shooting up their towns and stray shots killing innocent men, women and children. BTW, the OK Corral wasn't about Outlaws at all. It was about the Clantons and Mcloweries refusing to disarm to enter into Tombstone. In Dallas, if you were wearing a gun, you got one chance. If you didn't turn it over, the Marshal just shot and killed you. Things did finally settle down once the cowboys decided it was to their best interest to cooperate.

By today's standard, that would be going too far. But they let the problem get way out of hand and did what they felt they needed to do. I don't push taking away sane American's firearms. But I do say that there is a time and a place for those firearms. Firearms in your home or place of business will always be the exception. (Heller V DC), But I do hold that it should NOT be up to the Federal Government on how a state rules it's firearms unless a State becomes a huge problem in how they distribute their firearms.

You might notice that the restrictions were on VISITORS, not residents.

 

[AMart]

At least the op is honest about their intentions, they do want to take your guns.

 

[Ms. Turquoise]

Laws about freedom of speech don’t just shift when it comes to content and context, they’re also constantly updated to address something else: technology. Radio. Movies. Television. The internet. Even comic books. All have sparked changes in what is permitted and how speech is regulated. But somehow, we pretend that guns are different; that words written when the most deadly weapon required a ramrod and black powder mean that we can’t make adjustments for a semi-automatic rifle and a 30-round clip.

The truth is that guns are different. Because the right to bear arms is a lesser right. A right that was never intended to exist at all.

What makes individual gun ownership a lesser right? It’s a right that only exists in the minds of a handful of hard-right Supreme Court justices who happen to be on the court at this moment. Until 2008, no federal court had ever ruled that the Second Amendment included a right to individual gun ownership. It was always understood as it was written: Guns were allowed in individual hands as a means to supply the armed forces.

Here’s the Milwaukee Independent looking at how Chief Justice Warren Burger discussed the Second Amendment.

That the Second Amendment exists at all is more an accident of timing than an attempt to put guns in the hands of every American.
The amendment grew out of a fear that having a standing army would leave the nation open to depredations by an authoritarian leader, or that the nascent democracy would be overthrown by a military junta. To that end, they explicitly inserted the Second Amendment as an alternative means of providing national defense.

There were multiple drafts of the Second Amendment. Every one of them includes text explaining that this amendment exists only because it’s needed to provide for the nation’s defense.
Just a year after the Constitution was ratified, George Washington nudged Congress to create an official U.S. military, but the still-fearful Congress limited that force to just few hundred soldiers and officers. It would be another six years before it was allowed to grow significantly. When war came in 1812 two things were immediately obvious: The number of soldiers then in the official U.S. military were far from enough to defend the nation, and the poorly organized civilian militias for which the Second Amendment was created were an absolute failure when it came to national defense.

In the next year, the professional military of the United States grew by over 300%. “Second Amendment solutions” were on their way out.
The Second Amendment is failure. It never worked for its intended purposes. It was born from the understandable fears of a new nation engaged in a radical new scheme. But it was a mistake. It may be the most costly mistake this nation has ever made other than failing to end slavery at the outset.

The right thing to do would be to recognize that mistake and pass a new amendment that simply ends the Second Amendment, just as the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933. (Take a drink.)

Instead, we get statements like this piece of profound ignorance. One that is wrong. Wrong. Wrong again. And then … still wrong.



Recognizing that an actual repeal of the Second Amendment—while absolutely just—isn’t likely, the next best thing is to simply recognize that the right to individual gun ownership is a lesser right, one whose appearance in that useless amendment subjects it to practical constraint.

The Second Amendment was a failure from the start, and should have been repealed 200 years ago

There is no such thing as an unconstrained right. Speech has limits. Religion has limits. Assembly has limits. The idea that any of these things can be completely “free” of government oversight is a pipedream, and everyone from the founders to the...

www.dailykos.com

Individual gun ownership rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Heller v DC

Just like abortion rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Roe v Wade

The current court is ready to take away Roe v Wade.

A future court can do the same with Heller v DC.

Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wanted to repeal the 2nd Amendment. He was a very wise man. He was not beholden to the NRA or the gun culture folks.

 

[FA_Q2]

We simply want a rational conversation about how we might make some dent in gun violence.

I hear that a lot.

The problem is that no one is making any such proposals. I have yet to see a proposal that actually makes any real attempt at curbing crime, just feel good measures that make it a pain for those that are law abiding.

 

[bripat9643]

Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wanted to repeal the 2nd Amendment. He was a very wise man. He was not beholden to the NRA or the gun culture folks.

Go ahead. Repeal the 2nd Amendment. We'll see how far you get with that.

 

[Orangecat]

Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wanted to repeal the 2nd Amendment. He was a very wise man. He was not beholden to the NRA or the gun culture folks.

He was also a failure in that endeavor.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Always is a long time which means you'd have an impossible task of proving out.

Show me which rights were given to us by the Constitution.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

it is bad history in its claim that the Second Amendment protected “only individuals’ liberty to keep and carry arms.”

Who else needed that right to be protected?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wanted to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

How'd that work out for him?

 

[Mac-7]

A future court can do the same with Heller v DC.

I dont disagree with that

Today the Constitution is under attack by libs who prefer to make up the rules as they go along

Except that the Constitution, which was written by the wisest collection of men in our history, recognized the right of American citizens to self defense

Abortion on the other hand was created as s legal right by 6 blowhards on the Supreme Court

If it’s taken away by another SC that only proves what God tells us in the Bible - those who live by the sword die by the sword

 

[beautress]

Laws about freedom of speech don’t just shift when it comes to content and context, they’re also constantly updated to address something else: technology. Radio. Movies. Television. The internet. Even comic books. All have sparked changes in what is permitted and how speech is regulated. But somehow, we pretend that guns are different; that words written when the most deadly weapon required a ramrod and black powder mean that we can’t make adjustments for a semi-automatic rifle and a 30-round clip.

The truth is that guns are different. Because the right to bear arms is a lesser right. A right that was never intended to exist at all.

What makes individual gun ownership a lesser right? It’s a right that only exists in the minds of a handful of hard-right Supreme Court justices who happen to be on the court at this moment. Until 2008, no federal court had ever ruled that the Second Amendment included a right to individual gun ownership. It was always understood as it was written: Guns were allowed in individual hands as a means to supply the armed forces.

Here’s the Milwaukee Independent looking at how Chief Justice Warren Burger discussed the Second Amendment.

That the Second Amendment exists at all is more an accident of timing than an attempt to put guns in the hands of every American.
The amendment grew out of a fear that having a standing army would leave the nation open to depredations by an authoritarian leader, or that the nascent democracy would be overthrown by a military junta. To that end, they explicitly inserted the Second Amendment as an alternative means of providing national defense.

There were multiple drafts of the Second Amendment. Every one of them includes text explaining that this amendment exists only because it’s needed to provide for the nation’s defense.
Just a year after the Constitution was ratified, George Washington nudged Congress to create an official U.S. military, but the still-fearful Congress limited that force to just few hundred soldiers and officers. It would be another six years before it was allowed to grow significantly. When war came in 1812 two things were immediately obvious: The number of soldiers then in the official U.S. military were far from enough to defend the nation, and the poorly organized civilian militias for which the Second Amendment was created were an absolute failure when it came to national defense.

In the next year, the professional military of the United States grew by over 300%. “Second Amendment solutions” were on their way out.
The Second Amendment is failure. It never worked for its intended purposes. It was born from the understandable fears of a new nation engaged in a radical new scheme. But it was a mistake. It may be the most costly mistake this nation has ever made other than failing to end slavery at the outset.

The right thing to do would be to recognize that mistake and pass a new amendment that simply ends the Second Amendment, just as the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933. (Take a drink.)

Instead, we get statements like this piece of profound ignorance. One that is wrong. Wrong. Wrong again. And then … still wrong.



Recognizing that an actual repeal of the Second Amendment—while absolutely just—isn’t likely, the next best thing is to simply recognize that the right to individual gun ownership is a lesser right, one whose appearance in that useless amendment subjects it to practical constraint.

The Second Amendment was a failure from the start, and should have been repealed 200 years ago

There is no such thing as an unconstrained right. Speech has limits. Religion has limits. Assembly has limits. The idea that any of these things can be completely “free” of government oversight is a pipedream, and everyone from the founders to the...

www.dailykos.com

Individual gun ownership rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Heller v DC

Just like abortion rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Roe v Wade

The current court is ready to take away Roe v Wade.

A future court can do the same with Heller v DC.

Without Constitutional guarantees of the right gun ownership to protect oneself, go hunting for meat, and be a free American, we'd likely have a Putin bossing people around to go kill the neighbor country's people and steal their resources for ourselves like Russia is doing this very minute. It'd be bad for common people to go into a country that puts up an equal fight, losing thousands of lives per day and usurping the country's assets to pay for killing equipment to take out hapless neighbors.

I choose the American Constitution and the Bill of Rights. That way, people learn a sense of responsibility to our neighbors, not just what we can take by force to leave them dead and heartbroken if they survive, and their obligational slavery to the conquering communists.

And I choose America that God has blessed due to the prayers of George Washington and other founders and defenders of this nation and land where my fathers died and mothers baked birthday cakes when we were small.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

It was a passive/aggressive way of calling me an arrogant asshole. Don't act as if it wasn't.
Give it a rest, kid. No one cares about our bickering or your views on gun control.

No, it was a comment on the kind of person who makes a joke out of shooting women and children.

Did you do that? Yes, I believe that you did. Be a good little Republican and stand accountable rather than trying to make passive-aggressive the culprit in your poor taste.