The Second Amendment Was A Failure From The Start, And Should Have Been Repealed 200 Years Ago

[BLUE COLLAR]

No

Go away
I grew up never seeing a gun
I don’t know if I could take another human life

"I was present at a Massacre of three hundred Indians mostly women and children… It was a horrable scene and I would not let my Company fire." Captain Silas Soul wrote these words in a letter to his mother describing his conduct at the Sand Creek Massacre (Nov 29, 1964).

Most animals resist killing other animals within their species. I don't think the dynamic is as true amongst humans as the "thinking species" is more likely to be swayed away from their nature. After all, military training usually includes a dehumanization of the enemy. Still, it's a good guess that a pertinent number of soldiers in combat can't pull the trigger to save their life.

 

[Weatherman2020]

No

Go away
I grew up never seeing a gun
I don’t know if I could take another human life

Good for you. Now go put your hair in a bun, grab your man purse, and go to your hangout at Starbucks with your laptop

 

[Captain Caveman]

I thought you were American - as in the United States of America. I must have been mistaken. Apparently, you must live in a democratic republic somewhere else where, even if indirectly through their elected representatives (why do you call them leadership?), the majority rules where, on the vote of the majority, there can be slavery, churches banned, government agents in every press office, and the right to keep and bear arms is infringed freely.

I, on the other hand, live in a constitutional republic. The commonality is that you and I have elected representatives (not leaders) but in my America, the United States of America, the Constitution is designed, specifically and explicitly, to ensure the protection of rights for the minority even if the majority votes to enslave them, or to ban churches, or to require government agents in every press office, or to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

Unfortunately, the founding fathers were very naive with their Right to Bear Arms intentions. They didn't bank on the the lack of brain power of future generations. What a cluster fuck the 2'nd Amendment has turned out to be. It's like the Right Wing want banned abortions to have more kids in schools to gun down.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Unfortunately, the founding fathers were very naive with their Right to Bear Arms intentions. They didn't bank on the the lack of brain power of future generations. What a cluster fuck the 2'nd Amendment has turned out to be. It's like the Right Wing want banned abortions to have more kids in schools to gun down.

Yeah. Who woulda thunk citizens hadn’t already capped Democrats for releasing over a hundred thousand violent felons from prison early the last 2 years?

 

[Captain Caveman]

Yeah. Who woulda thunk citizens hadn’t already capped Democrats for releasing over a hundred thousand violent felons from prison early the last 2 years?

Does the releasing of felons early stop under a Republican President? Is there a link giving this data, seems interesting.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Does the releasing of felons early stop under a Republican President? Is there a link giving this data, seems interesting.

Not my job to educate every Leftard. Follow me if you wish to learn more about current and historical world events.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Not my job to educate every Leftard. Follow me if you wish to learn more about current and historical world events.

I just like to see both sides of the coin before coming to a conclusion.

 

[Weatherman2020]

I just like to see both sides of the coin before coming to a conclusion.

Over a hundred thousand violent felons were released early in the past 2 years or they weren’t. Google is your friend.

 

[Vrenn]

"I was present at a Massacre of three hundred Indians mostly women and children… It was a horrable scene and I would not let my Company fire." Captain Silas Soul wrote these words in a letter to his mother describing his conduct at the Sand Creek Massacre (Nov 29, 1964).

Date Correction: 1864

Most animals resist killing other animals within their species. I don't think the dynamic is as true amongst humans as the "thinking species" is more likely to be swayed away from their nature. After all, military training usually includes a dehumanization of the enemy. Still, it's a good guess that a pertinent number of soldiers in combat can't pull the trigger to save their life.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Date Correction: 1864

Very rare for an armed person to be a victim of murder. Very common to have mass murderers stopped by a good guy with a gun.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Over a hundred thousand violent felons were released early in the past 2 years or they weren’t. Google is your friend.

And what about the 2 years preceding those

 

[Weatherman2020]

And what about the 2 years preceding those

Common.
And 86% of those on parole will be arrested within the next 5 years. And that’s just the ones caught.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Common.
And 86% of those on parole will be arrested within the next 5 years. And that’s just the ones caught.

Thankfully, I was born and brought up in the UK. We were brought up to use guns for leisure and sport, not for self defence and wander around shops with loaded guns. Same with crime. If your upbringing was around crime, then crime doesn't bother you.

It's trying to break the circle of deprivation, that's where governments step in with their policies. They need to sort out the poor neighborhoods, education, and opportunities for people

 

[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 us commie

 

[miketx]

Thankfully, I was born and brought up in the UK. We were brought up to use guns for leisure and sport, not for self defence and wander around shops with loaded guns. Same with crime. If your upbringing was around crime, then crime doesn't bother you.

It's trying to break the circle of deprivation, that's where governments step in with their policies. They need to sort out the poor neighborhoods, education, and opportunities for people

Lol, total bs.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Thankfully, I was born and brought up in the UK. We were brought up to use guns for leisure and sport, not for self defence and wander around shops with loaded guns. Same with crime. If your upbringing was around crime, then crime doesn't bother you.

It's trying to break the circle of deprivation, that's where governments step in with their policies. They need to sort out the poor neighborhoods, education, and opportunities for people

And as a result the London murder rate is higher than Leftist anti gun New York.

 

[Captain Caveman]

And as a result the London murder rate is higher than Leftist anti gun New York.

Yes, I believe the uninformed think that.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

The OP is correct in pointing out that contemporary interpretations of the 2nd Amendment as guaranteeing an almost absolute individual right to buy and bear modern firearms are in fact really extremely modern and problematic interpretations.

It is true that the 2nd Amendment was the special product of a special time in early American society. It was specifically premised on the assumption that “well regulated militia” — something now mostly replaced by police forces and the military and no longer existing independently — were absolutely necessary.

The historical development of our country was rather unique in this respect. Alternative interpretations of the 2nd are possible, and “originalist” interpretations of the 2nd Amendment’s meaning are certainly possible. Furthermore, the “right of the people” is not the same as “the right of every individual.” The history and scope of “incorporation” of the 2nd amendment is another area that may be open to challenge in the states, as traditionally wide discretion in regulating rights to carry were historically allowed.

The the right “to bear arms” does not now apply to bazookas and Stinger missiles. They are extremely regulated and “afringed” by law. My point is that different Supreme Court rulings (especially if society itself were less divided on this issue) might accept very different interpretations of the 2nd Amendment. Another interpretation might even limit civilians bearing arms to slow single shot or bolt action weapons.

I am not pushing any specific alternative interpretation; I could live with any if I thought our nation was more mature and less likely to tear itself apart over this and similar political “wedge” issues. I think the 2nd could be usefully amended so that at least registration and “regulation” were specifically encouraged. But for many reasons this will obviously not happen in the foreseeable future.

Meanwhile, we are stuck with a 2nd Amendment wording which was admirable in its original idealism, moving and under certain conditions potentially useful, is also clearly confusing … because it is the product of a very different time:

“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.”

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Very rare for an armed person to be a victim of murder. Very common to have mass murderers stopped by a good guy with a gun.

I have not researched either of your claims, and do not have an opinion on the first sentence. My general sense is that the second sentence is inaccurate though I know it to be a popular boast.

However, I can give an example of three armed men who did intervene to slow a massacre. I'm referring to the infamous My Lai IV Incident in which hundreds of Vietnamese Civilians were slaughtered by American Forces. Warrant Officer Hugh Thompson landed his helicopter between some of the soldiers and civilians ordering his flight crew to fire on the soldiers if they advanced on the civilians.

For thirty years Thompson was treated as a traitor before finally being decorated as the hero that he was.

What a fucked-up world in which we live.

 

[Weatherman2020]

I have not researched either of your claims, and do not have an opinion on the first sentence. My general sense is that the second sentence is inaccurate though I know it to be a popular boast.

However, I can give an example of three armed men who did intervene to slow a massacre. I'm referring to the infamous My Lai IV Incident in which hundreds of Vietnamese Civilians were slaughtered by American Forces. Warrant Officer Hugh Thompson landed his helicopter between some of the soldiers and civilians ordering his flight crew to fire on the soldiers if they advanced on the civilians.

For thirty years Thompson was treated as a traitor before finally being decorated as the hero that he was.

What a fucked-up world in which we live.

There’s maybe 3 cases in 50 years of a mass murderer NOT being stopped because he was confronted by a good guy with a gun.