The Second Amendment

Dare I?

I think Americans should repeal it.

An article in the New York Times by Bret Stevens is a very compelling argument for doing away with it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/opinion/guns-second-amendment-nra.html

From a law-and-order standpoint, more guns means more murder. “States with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides,” noted one exhaustive 2013 study in the American Journal of Public Health.

From a personal-safety standpoint, more guns means less safety. The F.B.I. counted a total of 268 “justifiable homicides” by private citizens involving firearms in 2015; that is, felons killed in the course of committing a felony. Yet that same year, there were 489 “unintentional firearms deaths” in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Between 77 and 141 of those killed were children.

From a national-security standpoint, the Amendment’s suggestion that a “well-regulated militia” is “necessary to the security of a free State,” is quaint. The Minutemen that will deter Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un are based in missile silos in Minot, N.D., not farmhouses in Lexington, Mass.

From a personal liberty standpoint, the idea that an armed citizenry is the ultimate check on the ambitions and encroachments of government power is curious. The Whiskey Rebellion of the 1790s, the New York draft riots of 1863, the coal miners’ rebellion of 1921, the Brink’s robbery of 1981 — does any serious conservative think of these as great moments in Second Amendment activism?

Click to expand...

I think that sums it up pretty well with facts and no spin I can detect.

The last point is a good one. Do we need to arm ourselves against the government anymore? Could even a heavily armed large group of public citizens ever really win a war against military forces?
What is the point of The Second Amendment in this day and age?

Someone please let me know if I'm missing something here.

Ian

Amendment II. 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.

I thought it would help to post  It.

Thanks Paul.

scott2000 said:

Doesn't the Second allow for regulation?

I think there is a lot of support for more reasonable laws to limit access, etc......

Click to expand...

I hear ya, but there is already regulation and limited access but it doesn't seem to be helping to curb the gun violence in America.
Why can't we take a hint from other developed countries? Same as the healthcare issue.

Awww forget it, lets just accept we are and empire in decline. We deserve what we get. Death is inevitable, life is hard, so lets just change the way we think about death and the problem will become a solution.

I think I'm spending a little too much time on the brewery lately... I have parts on order, and work is a little slow, so there you have it.

Ian

I can think the case for gun control can be argued on the merits.

Let's say "a well regulated militia" means a military of the people by the people. Even if you are an originalist you could understand that. There was no standing military at the time the bill of rights was written.

If you accept that definition of militia then it's questionable if "the people" have a right to keep and bear arms outside the confines of the military.

The people in the well regulated militia  are securing the free state. The point of the  amendment is to secure the free state.

So there.

The thing that cracks me up about the pro gun (anti gun control) arguments is they want the 2nd amendment to give some middle ground of gun rights. Handguns and assault rifles -  but not machine guns, RPGs, landmines, bombs, etc... 

It seems pretty clear that if the 2nd amendment gives the people the right to bear arms in a military sense, as part of a militia, and as a check on government power, then it gives the right to military grade weapons. Even the most conservative Republicans don't go that far.  Supreme Court justice Scalia went to great contortions in the landmark decision that overturned DC's ban on handguns to create this 2nd amendment gives the right to law enforcement grade weapons - not military weapons. Judicial activism at it's finest.

So I think the whole debate from the Republican side is disingenuous. Mostly it is used by Republican strategists to secure votes from gun loving folk.

bluebird said:

I think that sums it up pretty well with facts and no spin I can detect.

Click to expand...

The problem is it's not actually facts,  and the spin is rather obvious.

Notice they start with the statement that more guns equals more murder.  But then cite data for firearm related homicides. Not the same thing.

Certainly a discussion needs to be had on what can be done to improve public safety. But in the case of the actual facts both sides tend to get it wrong.  There actually isn't a strong correlation in either direction when it comes to homicide and gun ownership.

john12ax7 said:

There actually isn't a strong correlation in either direction when it comes to homicide and gun ownership.

Click to expand...

Interesting! Thats the kind of opinion I was interested in. Can you expand on that a bit?

For the US if you look at state by state data and plot total homicides vs gun ownership rates the line is essentially flat.  Meaning more or less guns doesn't really change things. I can see if I can find the graph.

There is a giant practical problem of having the country awash with guns. There is also a long tradition of legal gun ownership. That isn't easily reversed.

My personal opinion is that both handguns and military weapons should be banned. Handguns are too dangerous in urban and suburban settings. Too high population  density and too many chances for mistakes and illegitimate use.

Rifles and shotguns are a different story. Protecting property from vermin both human and animal, hunting and sport shooting I have no problem with.

Me too.

So I think we solved the problem here gentlemen.
We need to get a petition started and get some legislation drafted.

In states or counties that have a certain population density, assault riffles (semi automatic/automatic) and handguns are illegal to own, posses, or sell. I would even add shotguns to that list leaving only small caliber sporting rifles.

If living in a rural  area you can apply for ownership of any type of gun legally available to the public as of now (still no military weaponry). It will be bought through the state government. Ownership will be decided on by a local elected committee that is aware of the needs of its community.

The 2nd is badly worded, perhaps for good reasons.

Context has been lost.

It would be real good to look at the history of England just before we revolted. England had a long history of lesser lords raising armies against the King. With the rise of firearms, this just got too easy. I think it was in this period that the King managed to ban firearms not under his direct control. He may have tried to extend that into The Colonies despite obvious conflicts (French, Native Americans, and bears). Natch, after their successful armed revolt,  when the colonies wrote their own rules, they kept their guns. And good idea. Remember the English DID come back in the 1800s. Burned the Pink House (now White), also occupied the northern coast of Massachusetts (now Maine). While Mass did not mobilize to re-capture their north coast, the Brits  stayed very close to the fort at Castine for fear of armed locals.

EDIT-- the real story is more complex. There was a right to bear arms and many acts to disarm certain classes. Jacobite rebellions of 1715 and 1745 were notable, and surely remembered after our revolt. England also had a Bill Of Rights pre-echoing the US's BoR.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_policy_in_the_United_Kingdom#Gun_control_legislation_in_the_United_Kingdom
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_Act#United_Kingdom
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms#United_Kingdom

Note that the Swiss are *required* to keep a full automatic weapon (and ammo) at home in case of call-up. (Since 2010 they may keep it in an arsenal.)

I think gun ownership is stupid in this day and age but it seems to me to be a little unfair to single it out. To put this into perspective, how many people are killed in road accidents every year? I bet it is a lot more than are killed by firearms yet nobody would dream of banning automobiles. I have a strong feeling , more people are killed by drunk drivers in the USA than by guns. Maybe it's time to bring back prohibition?

Cheers

Ian

PRR said:

Note that the Swiss are *required* to keep a full automatic weapon (and ammo) at home in case of call-up. (Since 2010 they may keep it in an arsenal.)

Click to expand...

Did not know that...

ruffrecords said:

Maybe it's time to bring back prohibition?

Click to expand...

Good point...Drunk on booze, drunk on guns. Just reading the word "prohibition" emotionally stunned me for a moment.

Prohibition, big topic,  increase in organized crime, decrease in tax revenue which was on of the main reasons for repeal,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States


Gun violence in US, big topic,  lot's of young blacks in gangs doing the shooting, crack epidemic caused a lot of damage, mass shootings account for 1% of the homicides, old people do not kill with guns, (too blind to hit the target) 

want to prevent gun violence? don't sell to people 24 or younger, keep your guns locked up.

go to AA and wear a bullet proof vest, seems to be the solution, or put everybody in jail, (working on that)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

want a steady portfolio? invest in baseball bats,
notice that assault rifles do not come close to handguns as far as damage >

Tax booze and tobacco and use the revenue to fund free healthcare. Works for the UK.

Cheers

Ian

CJ said:

..................

want a steady portfolio? invest in baseball bats,
.................

Click to expand...

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

You totally cracked me up sir.

PRR said:

Note that the Swiss are *required* to keep a full automatic weapon (and ammo) at home in case of call-up. (Since 2010 they may keep it in an arsenal.)

Click to expand...

I'm Swiss, and nope, we're not.

That's US gun nut propaganda.

ruffrecords said:

I think gun ownership is stupid in this day and age but it seems to me to be a little unfair to single it out. To put this into perspective, how many people are killed in road accidents every year? I bet it is a lot more than are killed by firearms yet nobody would dream of banning automobiles. I have a strong feeling , more people are killed by drunk drivers in the USA than by guns. Maybe it's time to bring back prohibition?

Cheers

Ian

Click to expand...

Well first of all driving while under the influence is already illegal, and secondly cars aren't created with the intent of being used as a weapon. They're means of transportation. Just like a rock is made by mother nature with zero intent but also could be used to kill someone.

For those reasons I've never been fond of the car analogy when discussing gun violence.