The Second Amendment Was A Failure From The Start, And Should Have Been Repealed 200 Years Ago

[2aguy]

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.

We have all the regulations we need to stop, arrest and lock up criminals…the problem? Democrat prosecutors and judges let them out…

 

[badbob85037]

You need to read up on the Militia Clause because it refers to the people as clearly pointed out in this link:


The Heritage Foundation

Militia Clause​

Excerpt:

ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 15

The Congress shall have Power To ...provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions....

For the Founders, the militia arose from the posse comitatus, constituting the people as a whole and embodying the Anglo-American idea that the citizenry is the best enforcer of the law. “A militia when properly formed,” wrote Richard Henry Lee in his Letters From the Federal Farmer (1787–1788), “are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms.”

LINK

Since this clown will never use the link you gave maybe he should be told what he will be facing if he fails to respond to that law. Bozo will be tried in a military court for desertion and during a time of war he and other clowns will make wall ornaments. Not only are you required to show up but with a modern military weapon with the rounds to power it. California with their lawless laws would make the state a far cry of America. We all see the big nothing their laws have done. Case in point: A few years ago their terminator governor hit the airways on a new gun law that was latter the Supreme Court found unconstitutional saying what they always say about a new gun law ' it will stop crime'. As he spoke thousands of felons were being released from California prisons due to over crowding. It's called madness.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

We have all the regulations we need to stop, arrest and lock up criminals…the problem? Democrat prosecutors and judges let them out…

Cute, but where is the militia, and what are its regulations?

We have the highest incarceration rate in the world. So, I doubt your claim that the problem is a failure to keep criminals in jail. And if it's more jails that we need, how much are you willing to raise taxes to pay for them?

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

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?

No needless offense but are these trick questions because I'm having a difficult time understanding where you are going. Perhaps you need to re-form what it is that you want.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

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

Good grief, what rebuttal?

 

[woodwork201]

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.

Name a law that changed freedom of speech - I doubt you can but if you can I'll defend your right to say stupid shit as loudly as I defend the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[Orangecat]

Do you have anything to say about the 2ndA?

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Well regulated militias (well supplied, in running order) are cool,
so the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Doesn't limit the people's right to the militia. Or when militias are needed.
Or if militias are needed. The right doesn't go away if the militias do.

I'm pretty sure the militia is suppose to be well-regulated (organized) at all times - even when not in immediate need. If it's not prepared to quickly assemble and act, it's a nothing-burger. Where are the regulations that organize it?

 

[badbob85037]

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.

skews13 if that is your real name here's a suggestion. You should take the warped idea of the Constitution you hold, fold it in a square with sharp corners and shove it up your ass. You should move to London whose murder rate were the same as New York last year, hide under a bed, and pray you are not stabbed. America don't need freaks like you and never has. As far as America goes you have never served in the armed forces and only take from the nation. America would be better off if you just moved some where where cowards are celebrated and live out your worthless life in fear.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Ah, so a well-regulated militia is an unofficial army?

Do you guys have an unofficial Navy or Airforce? Wait, I guess you don't need them because you probably don't have any ships or planes. Btw, who's in charge of logistics or do plan to pack a sack lunch and take a taxi to the front lines?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

bigrebnc1775

 

[badbob85037]

.

... And that would be a crime and there is a Federal Statute that addresses that.
It's already forbidden by law.

.​

I wish I had as much patents as you to answer these total moron idiots who some how can spell.

 

[badbob85037]

Ah, so a well-regulated militia is an unofficial army?

Do you guys have an unofficial Navy or Airforce? Wait, I guess you don't need them because you probably don't have any ships or planes. Btw, who's in charge of logistics or do plan to pack a sack lunch and take a taxi to the front lines?

You are just another cowardly idiot and yes I do have a plane. Before you post next time try reading a little about what you know nothing about.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Ah, so a well-regulated militia is an unofficial army?

Do you guys have an unofficial Navy or Airforce? Wait, I guess you don't need them because you probably don't have any ships or planes. Btw, who's in charge of logistics or do plan to pack a sack lunch and take a taxi to the front lines?

You have no concept

 

[BlackSand]

I'm pretty sure the militia is suppose to be well-regulated (organized) at all times - even when not in immediate need. If it's not prepared to quickly assemble and act, it's a nothing-burger. Where are the regulations that organize it?

.

The Constitution in no way forbids any State or Local authority from passing legislation that forms, arms and regulates a militia.
Any absence of such a law in no way grants the Federal Government the power to infringe upon the Rights of the People.

.​

 

[Orangecat]

Ah, so a well-regulated militia is an unofficial army?

No one said that. Why go the straw man route unless you're intellect is faltering?

Do you guys have an unofficial Navy or Airforce? Wait, I guess you don't need them because you probably don't have any ships or planes. Btw, who's in charge of logistics or do plan to pack a sack lunch and take a taxi to the front lines?

You're just babbling now because you can't effectively counter a meme. You've been jousting this windmill for days now. Give it a rest, bozo.

 

[flan327]

You'll always be Robin to me.

You’ll always be ONE HUNDRED PERCENT WRONG

I feel sorry for you

 

[flan327]

We have all the regulations we need to stop, arrest and lock up criminals…the problem? Democrat prosecutors and judges let them out…

JAILS ARE FULL

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

You are just another cowardly idiot and yes I do have a plane. Before you post next time try reading a little about what you know nothing about.

With what armament systems is your plane equipped, and how many such planes do you have? What about naval ships, tanks, Howitzers, etc.-etc.? The contention that an army of amateur potbellies (equipped principally with nothing but small arms) could match a well, equipped, well trained and managed military force is moronic. But good, luck. Muster your row boats and invade China.

Why don't you call me another name? Perhaps that will win the day. What a mother-fucking joke!

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

You have no concept

Concept of what? Why do you even bother with empty comments like the above?