• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Should the 2nd amendment be repealed?

Should the 2nd amendment be repealed?


  • Total voters
    118

a777pilot

Diamond Member
Apr 26, 2011
4,261
21
81
I vote NO, however, if anyone is really serious about repealing the Second Amendment, then repeal all 28 Amendments and then start over.
 

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
13,772
1,943
126
Well science says owning a gun makes one less safe. Period. So looking at it from that point of view it obviously should be.

But the debate is all about emotion, not facts. Since the "definitely not compensating for anything" types love playing with their toys, it will never happen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bradly1101

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
104,356
18,973
136
I vote NO, however, if anyone is really serious about repealing the Second Amendment, then repeal all 28 Amendments and then start over.
that doesn't make sense. We've repealed amendments before without the need to repeal all others in the process.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
28,453
8,455
136
Its completely unnecessary as we have a standing army now as well as a national guard. Both are capable of protecting each individual state.

Do I want it repealed? I couldn't care less, its a wedge issue meant to keep single issue voters on the Republican team. So whether it's about gun control or repealing the 2nd the result is the same.

But from a purely logical view, it's unneeded and unnecessary.
 

ewdotson

Golden Member
Oct 30, 2011
1,108
1,118
136
I wouldn't want it repealed, but I do think that in a more perfect world than the one we lived in, we would clarify it. That is, we'd have an open and honest discussion about what *we* as a nation want vis a vis individual rights, well-regulated militia, etc. and modernize the language of the amendment. Versus than treating it as Holy Scripture to be interpreted.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,017
571
126
I wouldn't want it repealed, but I do think that in a more perfect world than the one we lived in, we would clarify it. That is, we'd have an open and honest discussion about what *we* as a nation want vis a vis individual rights, well-regulated militia, etc. and modernize the language of the amendment. Versus than treating it as Holy Scripture to be interpreted.
How do you think it should be interpreted?
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
104,356
18,973
136
How do you think it should be interpreted?
I guess maybe the first 200+ years way it was interpreted instead of the more recent 7 years would make more sense.

Seems the so-called "literalists" aren't too interested in the militia part that is actually in the text, but believe in something they call an "individual right." that actually isn't in the text at all. "People" is in the text which, as you know, refers to a population-like a group of people...maybe a militia.

I think so-called "literalists" also might have a problem understanding the word "literal"
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,433
707
126
I wouldn't want it repealed, but I do think that in a more perfect world than the one we lived in, we would clarify it. That is, we'd have an open and honest discussion about what *we* as a nation want vis a vis individual rights, well-regulated militia, etc. and modernize the language of the amendment. Versus than treating it as Holy Scripture to be interpreted.
The thing is, we already have plenty of laws on the books that are sloppily and inconsistently enforced. More laws wont change that. There are countless gun tragedies that would have been prevented had existing gun laws been enforced. We need to work on enforcing what we have before we scrap gun ownership altogether.
 

Thebobo

Lifer
Jun 19, 2006
18,596
7,665
136
Well rather than a simple yes no, what could be done to amend the 2nd? I would say be more precise in the wording.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,017
571
126
I guess maybe the first 200+ years way it was interpreted instead of the more recent 7 years would make more sense.

Seems the so-called "literalists" aren't too interested in the militia part that is actually in the text, but believe in something they call an "individual right." that actually isn't in the text at all. "People" is in the text which, as you know, refers to a population-like a group of people...maybe a militia.

I think so-called "literalists" also might have a problem understanding the word "literal"
Eugene Volokh addressed this in a PragerU video. 4 minutes long.

https://www.prageru.com/videos/gun-ownership-right

The text of it:

Let’s look at the amendment one more 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.”

We first need to focus on the phrase “the right of the people.” Note that the people are the only ones whose right is secured here, not the militia or a state government. This phrase “the right of the people” comes up a few times in the Constitution. For example, the First Amendment refers to “The right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government.” And the Fourth Amendment secures “The right of the people to be secure…against unreasonable searches and seizures.”

Why, then, if the authors of the Constitution felt so strongly about “the right of the people” to own guns, did they include language about “a well-regulated militia”? These opening words of the amendment might be called a “justification clause.” Such clauses are used to help explain why a right is being secured. But it’s the operative clause that explains what right is being secured. In this case, the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

And what was the word ‘militia’ understood to mean at the time? Well, the Militia Act of 1792 defined “militia” to mean all white males 18 to 45. Today, of course, “militia” would include women and people of all races, but it was clearly not a reference to a small, National Guard-type group.

And what about the part of the amendment that says a militia is necessary “to the security of a free State”? What, the opponents of personal gun ownership ask, does a personal right of gun ownership have to do with that? Again, historical context is key. In the 1790s, the phrase “free State” wasn’t used to mean an individual state like New York or Rhode Island. Rather, it meant what we’d call today a “free country”—a nation free of despotism. A “free State” is what the Framers wanted America to be. They saw an armed citizenry as, in part, a hedge against tyranny. Citizens who own weapons can protect themselves, prevent tyrants from seizing power, and protect the nation from foreign enemies.

This does not mean, though, that this right is unlimited. Free speech, for example, has long been subject to some narrow and reasonable regulations. But severe restrictions on owning a gun, like severe restrictions on free speech, would violate the Second Amendment as the Founders understood it.
 

ewdotson

Golden Member
Oct 30, 2011
1,108
1,118
136
How do you think it should be interpreted?
I'm not sure you're understanding what I'm saying. I realize this is impractical, but I don't particularly think it should be interpreted at all. I think we should come to our own danged conclusions about what's right for us as a country. The founding fathers were brilliant but they weren't holy prophets.

The thing is, we already have plenty of laws on the books that are sloppily and inconsistently enforced. More laws wont change that. There are countless gun tragedies that would have been prevented had existing gun laws been enforced. We need to work on enforcing what we have before we scrap gun ownership altogether.
I'm not sure you're understanding what I'm saying either. I am NOT saying we need more laws. I'm saying I'd like us to decide what it is we actually want and clarify the laws to match it. You know, rather than relying on interpretations of what people thought made sense two centuries ago.

And to be clear, maybe Heller really is the right call for the country right now. Anyone reading this post and thinking I'm advocating taking away everyone's guns is reading it wrong. I'm just saying I think there *should* be more sensible ways to settle matters like this than leaving it up to the more-or-less random chance involved in the timing of Supreme Court vacancies.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,017
571
126
I'm not sure you're understanding what I'm saying. I realize this is impractical, but I don't particularly think it should be interpreted at all. I think we should come to our own danged conclusions about what's right for us as a country. The founding fathers were brilliant but they weren't holy prophets.
Of course, I agree with you there. I don't like elevating them to demi-gods either.

But unless you're calling for a constitutional convention, which I wouldn't wholly oppose incidentally, I'm not sure what you mean. We have to arrive at some interpretation of it. I mean no law ever written is exempt from interpretation, else there would be no need for lawyers and judges.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,433
707
126
I'm not sure you're understanding what I'm saying. I realize this is impractical, but I don't particularly think it should be interpreted at all. I think we should come to our own danged conclusions about what's right for us as a country. The founding fathers were brilliant but they weren't holy prophets.


I'm not sure you're understanding what I'm saying either. I am NOT saying we need more laws. I'm saying I'd like us to decide what it is we actually want and clarify the laws to match it. You know, rather than relying on interpretations of what people thought made sense two centuries ago.

And to be clear, maybe Heller really is the right call for the country right now. Anyone reading this post and thinking I'm advocating taking away everyone's guns is reading it wrong. I'm just saying I think there *should* be more sensible ways to settle matters like this than leaving it up to the more-or-less random chance involved in the timing of Supreme Court vacancies.
I get ya. But to clarify what I said, we need to take first a hard look at *laws already on the books* and go from there. When it comes to guns, both sides just get too emotional. The right cries (They want to take my guns away!) and the left cries (Trump overturned gun laws!) when in fact neither side is really true. We need to focus on what we've got, determine if it fits our needs, and come up with a plan to enforce them. So I guess Im in agreement with you.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,017
571
126
Having thought about it, I think a777 might have a point in practicality. I'd put better odds on holding an Article 5 convention with two-thirds of the states assenting than repealing the 2nd amendment with the same requirement.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,916
172
106
I guess maybe the first 200+ years way it was interpreted instead of the more recent 7 years would make more sense.

Seems the so-called "literalists" aren't too interested in the militia part that is actually in the text, but believe in something they call an "individual right." that actually isn't in the text at all. "People" is in the text which, as you know, refers to a population-like a group of people...maybe a militia.

I think so-called "literalists" also might have a problem understanding the word "literal"
Early SCOTUS cases can be easily (and I think rightly so) interpreted to allow for broader gun rights. In one case about the right to have a sawed-off shotgun the SCOTUS used a test (wrongly so IMO) that said your gun rights were restricted to guns/arms that were commonly used by the military and that sawed off shotguns were not used by the military. I.e., machine guns would have been OK (they were only outlawed later and I don't know, or can't remember, that anybody contested it).

(I saw they erred in that test because the military did, in fact, used shotguns with a short barrel.)


Edit: I think that recent SCOTUS cases have narrowed our gun rights, contrary to your assertion. IIRC, Heller went contrary to the early case and basically said we have no rights to military grade weapons.

Fern
 
Last edited:

[DHT]Osiris

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2015
8,112
3,987
146
I placed myself into Uncertain/Other. I have a near fanatical devotion to the concept of personal liberties, and as such I very, very much want to hit 'no', but I honestly don't know if it's still a reasonable amendment in our current society. We don't permit citizens to own explosives or radioactive material, as they're counter-intuitive to the stability of society, so why shouldn't casual firearm ownership fall under this category as well? At the same time, it's a damned tool, and I feel like abolishing a tool due to the actions of people is just silly, it's a technical solution for a people problem.

So yeah, I don't know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: soulcougher73

Commodus

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2004
8,015
5,030
136
I say "no," but nor do I worship the 2nd Amendment. It was not meant to enable the ownership of any gun; people in 1791 didn't anticipate guns being so lethal that one person could murder dozens in a matter of minutes. They certainly didn't expect the balance of power between the military and civilians to be so lopsided that the military is virtually guaranteed to win any major engagement.

We also need to get away from the culture that reveres guns. That doesn't involve dropping violent movies or games, as plenty of far safer countries still enjoy those; instead, it's about treating guns more as the dangerous tools they are rather than power symbols and playthings. Run gun amnesty programs. Don't take your kid to the firing range. And permanently ban the gun industry from all forms of lobbying; gun lobbying should represent owners, not manufacturers like it does today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rise and KMFJD

ASK THE COMMUNITY