The Second Amendment Was A Failure From The Start, And Should Have Been Repealed 200 Years Ago

[miketx]

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.

Come get them.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

You caught yourself when you dropped out of junior high. I’m just laughing at your intellectual impotency.
Have you noticed that no one, not even your fellow useful idiots, are thanking your dumb posts?
Telling, that.

Actually, I had noticed, and yes, there is an element of disappointment in not drawing support from those of common mind. However, I don't come here for slaps on the back. Nor do I hold much pretense that I can open provincial minds.

I write because I find good exercise in it.

Do you have anything to say about the 2ndA?

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Of course it does. All the government has to do is review the registration records.

How stupid do yo have to be to believe otherwise?

So, the government reviews your registration, and poof, without cause, your guns are grabbed?

That would be wrong.

I don't ignore that power corrupts, that "someone" in government might attempt to violate your rights. That's why we have courts. That's why any rational regulation would have to be well defined to include spelling out its limits and means of redress.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Locked and loaded weapon is loaded round chambered and on safe. Prepared to fight. I smell bullshit anyone who has been in combat is aware of the dangers in the civilian population.

I'm sorry, I wasn't asking you to define lock and load. I was asking you to explain why the US Military manages firearms to a much greater degree than you would have us manage amateurs in crowed public places.

As for what you smell, I was a 67N20, a Single Turbine, Tandem Rotor, Utility Helicopter Repairmen. I worked on a Periodical Team (100-hour inspections). We pulled the ships apart, performed scheduled maintenance, put them back together, and flew test flights. After making team leader, I got to fly in the Peter Pilot's Seat. Some of the test pilots would let you have some stick time. That was the fun part except in the case of a 1:1 vertical hop that killed both the Pilot and a tech inspector.

Anything else you'd like to know about bullshit?

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

They were "qualifying" it, just before saying "shall not be infringed"?

You seem confused.

No, it was said together as one sentence in defining the need to bear arms. Where is that regulated militia?

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

The fact "risk" is not "clear, present, and immediate danger" aside...
By "free fire zones" you mean "anywhere that's not a gun-free zone" - and as such, your claim is nonsense

So, I ask again, in reference to the concept of "clear, present an immediate danger" as applied to the 1st amendment:
How does this relate to the right to keep and bear arms?
What, in that context, constitutes falsely placing someone in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger?

If what I bolded is true, why do you feel the need to shoulder an AR15 in a mall?

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

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.

This thread has been all over the place, and I take some responsibility for having engaged some of the nonsense.

I have brought forward the well written original post that makes so many sound points. I encourage everyone who passes by here, to read that post thoroughly and thoughtfully.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, it was said together as one sentence in defining the need to bear arms. Where is that regulated militia?

Where did it limit the need to a regulated militia?

 

[M14 Shooter]

If what I bolded is true...

You're avoiding the questions
Thus, I ask again, in reference to the concept of "clear, present an immediate danger" as applied to the 1st amendment:
How does this relate to the right to keep and bear arms?
What, in that context, constitutes falsely placing someone in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I have brought forward the well written original post that makes so many sound points. I encourage everyone who passes by here, to read that post thoroughly and thoughtfully.

I did. You have yet to meaningfully respond to the rebuttal.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I'm sorry, I wasn't asking you to define lock and load. I was asking you to explain why the US Military manages firearms to a much greater degree than you would have us manage amateurs in crowed public places.

As for what you smell, I was a 67N20, a Single Turbine, Tandem Rotor, Utility Helicopter Repairmen. I worked on a Periodical Team (100-hour inspections). We pulled the ships apart, performed scheduled maintenance, put them back together, and flew test flights. After making team leader, I got to fly in the Peter Pilot's Seat. Some of the test pilots would let you have some stick time. That was the fun part except in the case of a 1:1 vertical hop that killed both the Pilot and a tech inspector.

Anything else you'd like to know about bullshit?

You should know better and should always be prepared. Because the military has an armorer 24/7 weapons locked up. As for accountability it has a history of being lacking. Had this staff Sargent who was having trouble with his cheating wife had enough of her shit. One day before guard mount he drew out his assigned weapon for his shift form the armorer which was a m16 with a 203 attached grenade launcher and went looking for his wife. We had to track him down. Found him before he found his wife no shots fired but it could have been bad. And there are those time the military looses rifles that have been stolen.

The US military guns most often lost or stolen

The following US military guns were among the most commonly missing, lost, stolen -- or, in some cases, among the most remarkable.

www.tennessean.com

 

[bripat9643]

So, the government reviews your registration, and poof, without cause, your guns are grabbed?

That would be wrong.

I don't ignore that power corrupts, that "someone" in government might attempt to violate your rights. That's why we have courts.

If a government is going to confiscate firearmns, the first thing it has to know is who has them. No one claimed it happened by magic.

That's why any rational regulation would have to be well defined to include spelling out its limits and means of redress.

What do you suppose the chances are of a bunch of sleazy politician doing that are?

 

[M14 Shooter]

An argument needs to be posted before a rebuttal. Your opinion is absurd, read the 2nd closely, and see there is no mention of guns.

So... the right of the people keep and bear what 'arms" is protected by the 2nd?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The states should determine how to regulate firearms, not tyrants in black robes legislating from the bench ignoring the will of the people.

The states should determine how to regulate abortions,, not tyrants in black robes legislating from the bench ignoring the will of the people.

 

[2aguy]

So, the government reviews your registration, and poof, without cause, your guns are grabbed?

That would be wrong.

I don't ignore that power corrupts, that "someone" in government might attempt to violate your rights. That's why we have courts. That's why any rational regulation would have to be well defined to include spelling out its limits and means of redress.

Yeah....this.........

Red flag laws are ripe for abuse. You can tell because the left is slobbering to get them enacted. Do Dems arrest the myriad scumbags wandering the streets of Democrat cities? Do they prosecute them? No, and these animals commit an Uvalde every few days. If Dems cared about “gun crime,” they would arrest, charge, and lock-up gun criminals, but they don’t. They care about thought crimes – yours. These laws might be used to disarm a few nutballs, sure, but they will also be used against us when we dissent too much. We’ve seen how they use the power of government against political opponents like us – IRS targeting, FBI entrapment, selective prosecutions, to name a few – and why the hell would we give them a new weapon when they have abused the ones they already have in the service of the regime?

Oh, but see, there are police and judges who will ensure this is all done fairly and is never, ever, part of some political vendetta. Chet, my unicorn, is totally confident that the ruling caste will start respecting our rights as soon as we grant it this power to summarily take them away.

Why the hell would we ever put our civil rights in the hands of a dual track justice system where our train is always the one getting derailed?

No White Flag on Red Flag Laws

townhall.com

 

[bigrebnc1775]

An argument needs to be posted before a rebuttal. Your opinion is absurd, read the 2nd closely, and see there is no mention of guns. Arms are in the times in Armories, and trained to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Read the next clause in Art I, Sec 8, Clause 15.

In the military the weapon is called a rifle a gun is the dick no mention of dicks in the constitution.

 

[TNHarley]

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.

Good thing we have the federalist papers so we know you are a liar.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The states should determine how to regulate firearms, not tyrants in black robes legislating from the bench ignoring the will of the people.

Oh clueless one the second amendment is a federally protected right not subject to state jurisdiction because the 10th amendment says so. Do states regulate the first amendment? How about the 16th amendment?how about the 21 amendment

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Where did it limit the need to a regulated militia?

I'm not sure I'd define it quite that way. More precisely, the prefatory clause states the purpose of the amendment: the need of a well-regulated militia. I would not construe that to mean that you do not have an individual right to possess arms - but I don't believe that said right is immune from reasonable regulation.

My turn to ask a question. If the 2ndA was meant as you believe, why didn't the founding fathers simply write it that way? They could have simply written: The right to bear arms being a natural right, the right of each individual to bear arms shall not be abridged.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Yeah....this.........

Red flag laws are ripe for abuse. You can tell because the left is slobbering to get them enacted. Do Dems arrest the myriad scumbags wandering the streets of Democrat cities? Do they prosecute them? No, and these animals commit an Uvalde every few days. If Dems cared about “gun crime,” they would arrest, charge, and lock-up gun criminals, but they don’t. They care about thought crimes – yours. These laws might be used to disarm a few nutballs, sure, but they will also be used against us when we dissent too much. We’ve seen how they use the power of government against political opponents like us – IRS targeting, FBI entrapment, selective prosecutions, to name a few – and why the hell would we give them a new weapon when they have abused the ones they already have in the service of the regime?

Oh, but see, there are police and judges who will ensure this is all done fairly and is never, ever, part of some political vendetta. Chet, my unicorn, is totally confident that the ruling caste will start respecting our rights as soon as we grant it this power to summarily take them away.

Why the hell would we ever put our civil rights in the hands of a dual track justice system where our train is always the one getting derailed?

No White Flag on Red Flag Laws

townhall.com

By your logic, we should operate without any law because they cannot be enforced. That's ridiculous.

We incarcerate people at a greater rate then any other country in the world. Who is in all those cells? You seem to be suggesting that it's people like you. After all, the Dems are always in charge, and they aren't arresting real criminals? Ther

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2019-05-13/10-countries-with-the-highest-incarceration-rates