Should we repeal the 2nd Amendment?

[Hercules56]

"the Founders" were not a hive mind - they had radically (in both the literal and figurative meaning) different ideas, everything they created was a compromise amongst people with different opinions and beliefs, often with lots of horse trading involved.

The idea that you can go back to what "the Founders" wanted as if there was a coherent, and agreed single position is ludicrous.

Plus, my opinion is that if you want to use any of the "the Founders" you first of all need to establish why they are an authority, especially one that is relevant to the world today. Otherwise, they need to be treated with no more consideration than any other "my mate Bob from the pub said...." anecdote.


ETA: To the question in the opening post - the USA needs to reduce the murders and mutilations caused by guns, start with that goal and then decide what needs to be done to implement that.

This discussion is about the 2nd Amendment, which was written by our Founders almost 250 years ago. Obviously their views and intent at the time is extremely relevant. If we feel that some Constitutional law is no longer relevant or applicable, we can change or scrap it. But until we do it IS the law of the land. Might not work that way in your country but that's how it works here. Our original laws were written by literal geniuses and we dont believe in just ignoring it just cuz it feels right at the moment.

 

[Lplus]

As an anecdotal exercise, I'm doing the math in my head of people I know shot or killed, versus people I know who defended themselves against intruders/muggers/carjackers/whatever with a gun. Score's a bit lopsided.

So, of those shot or killed, how many had guns to defend themselves with?

 

[Hercules56]

As an anecdotal exercise, I'm doing the math in my head of people I know shot or killed, versus people I know who defended themselves against intruders/muggers/carjackers/whatever with a gun. Score's a bit lopsided.

You know people who have been shot or killed????

Yikes.

 

[crescent]

Many Americans are AGAINST this right, and feel we should not be able to defend ourselves with deadly weapons like guns.

There are Americans who feel that way, and some of them are politicans.

But I take issue with the concept that there are "many" of them.

Most gun control proponents, myself included, recognize and support some level of gun ownership. The whole "gun-grabber" thing is mostly just a myth made up gun advocates and businesses and political operatives and isn't reflective of reality.

That myth gets traction with gullible people and people who tend to black and white, all or nothing type worldviews. It also inspires those who see the Constitution as divinely inspired, they honestly believe that God himself more or less ghost wrote the 2A. There are not so many of those people but they currently hold immense power in the American political system.

 

[Thermal]

So, of those shot or killed, how many had guns to defend themselves with?

As I recall, all owned and had access to guns, but I live in a no-carry state. Score is 4-0, fwiw, but I'm trying to remember details of others. And im.not counting several times police pulled guns on me for no reasons whatsoever.

Eta: score is two suicides by gun (one was weird, guy paid another guy to shoot him), and two escalated fights. Another guy owned a plumbing supply store and shot an unarmed guy who demanded money, but I'm not sure where to put him.

 

[Hercules56]

As I recall, all owned and had access to guns, but I live in a no-carry state. Score is 4-0, fwiw, but I'm trying to remember details of others. And im.not counting several times police pulled guns on me for no reasons whatsoever.

Eta: score is two suicides by gun (one was weird, guy paid another guy to shoot him), and two escalated fights. Another guy owned a plumbing supply store and shot an unarmed guy who demanded money, but I'm not sure where to put him.

No Carry state? There is no such thing.

 

[crescent]

You know people who have been shot or killed????

Yikes.

So do I - two of them.

One was an accident while visiting a friend's house. The victim knew safe handling, but his friend didn't. It was the friend's father's gun, kept to keep the house and family safe. We saw how that worked out.

The other was shot in the back (murdered) by a man who had fallen into severe mental illness after a lifetime of no known mental illness. The man also killed my friend's associate, then sat down in a nice shady spot in the grass and killed himself too.

(I knew a few vets who had been shot in wartime, but that's obviously a different thing).

 

[bruto]

I think the amendment should be amended, but I also think that the militia clause is a red herring. It's ambiguous of course, but I think it qualifies as a "because" not a qualification. A rule stands whether or not the reason for it is present. But that also makes an argument for revisiting it if the reason no longer makes sense.

 

[Darat]

This discussion is about the 2nd Amendment, which was written by our Founders almost 250 years ago. Obviously their views and intent at the time is extremely relevant. If we feel that some Constitutional law is no longer relevant or applicable, we can change or scrap it. But until we do it IS the law of the land. Might not work that way in your country but that's how it works here. Our original laws were written by literal geniuses and we dont believe in just ignoring it just cuz it feels right at the moment.

Why are you even considering anything needs to be changed then?

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Another guy owned a plumbing supply store and shot an unarmed guy who demanded money, but I'm not sure where to put him.

Either self-defense or assault with a deadly weapon, depending on which of them was white.

For my own anecdotes, I've got two "self-defenses," one of which the victim was lost and the other was checking the meter. "Good guy with a gun" count remains at 0.

 

[Thermal]

No Carry state? There is no such thing.

My state, NJ, has begged to differ for generations. It has technically been a "may issue" for concealed carry, but as Wikipedia and any other source will tell you, permits have been universally denied except in wild outlier circumstances. Open carry of handguns has been statewide prohibited except for cops and select professional security guards, and open carry of unloaded long guns is only very technically legal under the hunting provision.

Eta: with the New York ruling, that is in flux here, but the shootings I'm recounting were all prior to that

 

[Hercules56]

Why are you even considering anything needs to be changed then?

To make it clear and written in stone what kind of regulations ARE acceptible.

 

[Hercules56]

My state, NJ, has begged to differ for generations. It has technically been a "may issue" for concealed carry, but as Wikipedia and any other source will tell you, permits have been universally denied except in wild outlier circumstances. Open carry of handguns has been statewide prohibited except for cops and select professional security guards, and open carry of unloaded long guns is only very technically legal under the hunting provision.

After Bruen, no state can be a "no carry" state. Regardless if they were before Bruen.

 

[Thermal]

Either self-defense or assault with a deadly weapon, depending on which of them was white.

White shop owner, Puerto Rican intruder. Found not guilty, because the owner warned him and told him to leave and put the shotgun on the counter in plain sight first, not a "sudden shooting". He was formally tried, found not guilty.

For my own anecdotes, I've got two "self-defenses," one of which the victim was lost and the other was checking the meter. "Good guy with a gun" count remains at 0.

I'm very interested in others' "scores", too. Kind of like to hear about all the defensive stuff going on versus killing, and net it out.

 

[Hercules56]

White shop owner, Puerto Rican intruder. Found not guilty, because the owner warned him and told him to leave and put the shotgun on the counter in plain sight first, not a "sudden shooting". He was formally tried, found not guilty.



I'm very interested in others' "scores", too. Kind of like to hear about all the defensive stuff going on versus killing, and net it out.

Did the potential robber threaten force?

 

[Thermal]

Did the potential robber threaten force?

This was back in the late '90s or early 2000s, and I wasn't there, but I've known the shop owner since I was a teen. From what I recall, the guy was rambunctious and loud, trying to jump the counter and get in the cash register. I didn't hear anything about threats, but again, I wasn't there.

 

[Thermal]

After Bruen, no state can be a "no carry" state. Regardless if they were before Bruen.

Again, my State has gotten creative. They require permits, then change the permit conditions, invalidating the CCW without notifying the permit holders. They've been ricocheting around with this, and basically you don't know if your permit is valid, and you are charged with a felony if caught.

 

[Darat]

To make it clear and written in stone what kind of regulations ARE acceptable.

You mean your apparently hive-minded geniuses didn't think of that?

 

[dirtywick]

I don't believe the hilited is true. I would agree that many are against the right for any random whack job to easily access high powered killing tools, but that's a very different thing. Entirely different. Like night and day.

Eta: as gets pointed out often, T Jefferson thought that the Constitution would be trashed within 20 years and something else take its place, as times change. At the time, Redcoats were still a bit of an ongoing problem. The founders really, really weren't looking centuries into the future to figure out how their ambiguously worded Constitution would be applied to a different world.

To clarify: no, active British occupation was not the threat, but armed political warring was fresh on everyone's mind while they were tending their wounds

i agree, it's an intentionally poor mischaracterization of any real position anyone holds not really worth answering.

i've heard it summarized as the country needs a standing militia in case of british aggression, but needed an armed populace in case the militia decided to overstep. of course, there's been some pretty serious ripple effects from this, and really more due to it's status as an unquestionable sacred document than a legal one. further, it didn't have any relevance in either of the insurrections anyone has attempted since either imo

 

[Hercules56]

You mean your apparently hive-minded geniuses didn't think of that?

No, unfortunately they did not.