• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

How would you amend the second amendment?

geni said:
Limit to weapons that people can show are effectively used by actual militias. So they can have all the AK-47s, sucide belts, ZU-23s and RPG-7s they like. Pistols not so much.
Click to expand...
Why would the militia have suicide belts? The US Army doesn't.

At any rate, what the militias may have is quite different from what "the people" may have.
 
geni said:
The worrying side effect of that argument is that:

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

also also contains a comma.
Click to expand...
I fail to see why I should be worried. That comma is actually superfluous, perhaps it was proper back then.
 
TimCallahan said:
The fact that the amendment mentions a "well regulated militia" means, for me, that the second amendment already excludes those stockpiling arms for their own agenda. I don't think it requires any change in language.
Click to expand...

You have an ally in the late former Chief Justice Warren Burger. I don't have a url, but I heard him say it on National TV. The 2nd Amendment and the "well regulated Militia" "really just refers to the National Guard!" Think of it. Our Founding Fathers, in their infinite wisdom, allowed Militia troops to go into battle with guns otherwise they'd have to do battle unarmed. This qualifies as one of the dumbest utterances ever uttered by a black robed oath taker. But remember this legal genius didn't even properly draft his own will. Thank God at least five of the current court has a little more sense. Now Americans can lawfully defend themselves against criminals, whether public or private.
 
Last edited:
Newtons Bit said:
The founders planned for the USA to be defended by militias, not standing armies. These militias would be far easier to raise if they possessed their own arms. Just because we are not currently using this military model does not mean the right is nullified, or even that the concept isn't realized (see Afghanistan, 1979-1989).
Click to expand...
Newtons Bit makes an important point. The 2nd Amendment should be seen in the context of their substantial distaste for a standing army. They'd be horrified and appalled at our HUGE, permanent military. In that context, the 2nd amendment was vital. As the country has evolved, especially since WWII, not so much.
 
Newtons Bit said:
You're making an odd appeal to tradition.

The founders planned for the USA to be defended by militias, not standing armies. These militias would be far easier to raise if they possessed their own arms. Just because we are not currently using this military model does not mean the right is nullified, or even that the concept isn't realized (see Afghanistan, 1979-1989).

In any event, the stated reason is *a* reason. It certainly isn't the only one. The 2nd amendment is also odd in that this language was included, while none of the other amendments included language as to why the framers thought it was necessary.
Click to expand...
What about Afghanistan 1979-89? What has that to do with the US Constitution?

The FFs may have intended the US to be defended by militias but it isn't. As you've observed, no other amendment contains a reason for it, so wouldn't that make the amendment contingent on that reason? Perhaps the FFs thought it necessary to illustrate the need for the amendment within the wording?

I know it can be argued that there are other reasons for owing a firearm, certainly hunting for food with a firearm would have been common enough during the time the amendment was drafted, but times change, as do laws and constitutions (as I believe the constitution has been amended more than twice). :p

A gun seems a strange thing to invest an idea of "country" or "freedom" in but I admit I'm not best placed to understand that. Britain has wars and old biddies with big old houses and corgis, so what do I know?
 
Skepticemea said:
A gun seems a strange thing to invest an idea of "country" or "freedom" in but I admit I'm not best placed to understand that. Britain has wars and old biddies with big old houses and corgis, so what do I know?
Click to expand...

You also have a bunch of concepts that bother me. How almost all of Europe interprets "social contract" being one of them.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
You also have a bunch of concepts that bother me. How almost all of Europe interprets "social contract" being one of them.
Click to expand...
Eh? Fairly sweeping statement (which may or may not be perjorative).

I'm not having a swipe, I'm explaining that it's difficult to understand the arguments for when the object being argued about is entirely alien to me. If it were about whether legs were good, I'd be fine.
 
Skepticemea said:
Eh? Fairly sweeping statement (which may or may not be perjorative).

I'm not having a swipe, I'm explaining that it's difficult to understand the arguments for when the object being argued about is entirely alien to me. If it were about whether legs were good, I'd be fine.
Click to expand...

I am highlighting a cultural reason why someone pro 2A in America (like me) may not necessarily differ from you in just one respect. There is a whole tapestry that makes it difficult for people across the Atlantic to understand. I would say, generally, that the strong pro-2A supporters support systems of negative rights over positive rights, and reject most of the social contract of Europe.
 
Skepticemea said:
What about Afghanistan 1979-89? What has that to do with the US Constitution?
Click to expand...

An armed population (militias) defended the country.

The FFs may have intended the US to be defended by militias but it isn't. As you've observed, no other amendment contains a reason for it, so wouldn't that make the amendment contingent on that reason? Perhaps the FFs thought it necessary to illustrate the need for the amendment within the wording?
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court says no to both your questions.

I know it can be argued that there are other reasons for owing a firearm, certainly hunting for food with a firearm would have been common enough during the time the amendment was drafted, but times change, as do laws and constitutions (as I believe the constitution has been amended more than twice). :p

A gun seems a strange thing to invest an idea of "country" or "freedom" in but I admit I'm not best placed to understand that. Britain has wars and old biddies with big old houses and corgis, so what do I know?
Click to expand...

You're welcome to advocate changing the amendment, but that requires a super majority. It will never happen.

Remember, we won our freedom from Britain through individual arms. The British tried to take away our arms during the Revolutionary War. We didn't like that, and didn't want our own government doing it to us.
 
Last edited:
Newtons Bit said:
An armed population (militias) defended the country.
Click to expand...
That turned out well! :eye-poppi I also know that there was a large contingent of Saudi and Pakistani militants that made up those militias, as well as heavily funded mujaheddin that morphed in the power vacuum left into the Taliban. Uncool example, dude.

I'll have to take your word on the Supreme's decision. I've no reason to doubt it, for a start. :)

I'd agree that "the gun" is symbolic to most Americans, but I wouldn't agree that's so for the same reason.
 
Skepticemea said:
That turned out well! :eye-poppi I also know that there was a large contingent of Saudi and Pakistani militants that made up those militias, as well as heavily funded mujaheddin that morphed in the power vacuum left into the Taliban. Uncool example, dude.
Click to expand...

Ehhn, it worked for them. The fight was just as brutal as the aftermath, but they kicked the Soviets out.
 
Undesired Walrus said:
For those who would want to, of course.

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.

Or will anyone make the interesting argument that it actually compatible with gun control laws?
Click to expand...

The right of the people to own small arms capable of expending a maximum of 3000 Joules per second for a maximum of ten seconds, and firing solid metallic rounds with a full metal jacket, shall not be infringed.
 
Skepticemea said:
I also know that there was a large contingent of Saudi and Pakistani militants that made up those militias, as well as heavily funded mujaheddin that morphed in the power vacuum left into the Taliban. Uncool example, dude.
Click to expand...
It's apt. Similarly, after the Revolution, armed militiamen were able to foment the Shays Rebellion, Whiskey Insurrection, and the Fries's Rebellion. And yet, despite these contemporary examples of armed militiamen rising up against the federal government, the right of the people to bear arms was still felt to be important enough to enshrine in the Bill of Rights.

Firearms can be used to oppose tyranny as well as to foment insurrection. The line between the two is thin. Your ally against tyranny today could be trying to foment insurrection against you tomorrow.

To wit: Daniel Shays fought at the battles of Bunker Hill, Lexington and Saratoga in the American Revolution, and was highly decorated. In 1783, he then led a rebellion against the Commonwealth of Massachusetts due to the treatment of veterans driven into debt due to their service. His rebellion was routed by... you guessed it... militia.

In 1794, the Whiskey Rebellion, led in part by James McFarlane, a Revolutionary War veteran in opposition to federal whiskey taxes. He was opposed and defeated by... again... militia, including one John Fries, another Revolutionary War veteran, who four years later led his own rebellion against a federal real estate tax and, ironically, the Alien and Sedition Acts.

Notwithstanding these semi-regular armed insurrections by militiamen using their own arms, the Second Amendment was enacted and nobody ever thought that these rebellions were sufficient cause to revoke them.

At the time, it should be noted, the United States had created a standing army... the Legion of the United States, which, during the War of 1812, morphed into the United States Army. So, in theory, the federal government was no longer relying on militia to defend itself. In fact, the Legion was created specifically because it became clear that local militia were incapable of protecting the frontier, and a professional army was necessary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom