mic drop
This is a refreshing idea, honestly. Instead of duct-taping something that is inherently broken, throw it out and replace it. Like Prohibition. (The 18th Amendment) The 2nd Amendment is wrong, in that it is unclear. Wheedling details about interpretation and whether you are an Originalist or whatever, is stupid. Just throw the fucker out and replace it with something better written. Which will require debate. And discussion. And evidence. Which will eliminate the NRA's pet legislation that prevents any study of guns, in any way, shape, or form. It'll also break the moronic belief that the Constitution is some immutable document. This could be the most important result of repealing the 2nd Amendment: Make people remember that the Constitution has ALWAYS been mutable. It has ALWAYS changed, according to societal needs. We seem to be locked into an illogical, non-historically accurate, belief that the Constitution is perfect, as is. It never was. And, more importantly, it was never intended to be! It was supposed to change with the times. The founders knew that, and built the capacity for Amendments. So let's stop arguing a poorly-worded phrase. Throw it out, and start over, creating something that actually reflects society's beliefs today, and is worded unambiguously. Good on ya, Stevens. Way to continue being thoughtful and for meaningfully participating in this conversation.
I would argue that the 2nd Amendment is crystal clear: - 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. Thirteen of its 27 words deal with the necessity of defense in the absence of a standing army. It's the cock-eyed interpretations of said amendment since Wayne LaPierre arrived on the scene that have fucked everything up. As to your immutable contitution, that's also since Wayne LaPierre. We couldn't pass the ERA. I'm not hopeful for a repeal of the 2nd Amendment. I'm hopeful for a repeal of Wayne LaPierre.
Well then next time there is an open seat on the Supreme Court, I'll vote for you to be put there, rather than the dickholes we have now who believe that phrase is open to interpretation. And repealing 2A would also allow us to craft something in its place that reflected today's realities.
The idea of gun registration raises hackles because people have been sold two decades of slippery-slope bullshit from Wayne LaPierre. Does failing to register your car mean they can come take it? No. Does OPERATING an unregistered vehicle carry a penalty? Yes. Every single pro-gun argument falls immediately on its face. And I am a pro-gun owner with a concealed weapons permit. Tell me to go down to the range and get tested and register my guns, and I'll say, "Sure. I'll be there next week." Even better, provide a BuyBack program at the same time, so I can easily get rid of the guns I don't want, and get a little money from them, without worrying whether I am selling them to a nutcase, then even better ... I'll sell you three of my four guns. I don't know a single gun owner who WOULDN'T do this. It's Wayne LaPierre and his foreign-funded fuckwits who have fucked the conversation and derail it every time the conversation gets reasonable and logical.
“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.” At least this post is honest. Many of the regulations supported by the march are already in place especially in states like CA and NY. The action that is desired is a repeal of the 2nd amendment. Unfortunately, many of the pro-2nd amendment voices are poorly educated and exercise bad rhetorical skill. They do not understand what they are arguing for and thus make dumb comments towards children and in front of cameras.Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century.
If history has shown us anything, the fears of extreme government overreach and oppression of peoples is not a relic of the past. This is what C.S. Lewis categorized as chronological snobbery.
While related, this is not the concern that Justice Stevens considers "a relic." It is the narrower "[c]oncern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states" that "led to the adoption of that amendment." Furthermore, I don't see how "fears of extreme government overreach and oppression," as you put it, necessitate the civilian possession of firearms. I might be a liberal, wishful-thinking rube, but that's my opinion considering the state of the military technology that the United States armed forces could bring to bear in the hypothetical scenario where our national standing army decides to neutralize the states. I think the Court in 2008 constitutionalized the common law right to self-defense. It then simultaneously augmented this newfound national right with a firearm. Scalia, who wrote the opinion in Heller, was a critic of the Court's historic strategy to incorporate the Bill of Rights through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Yet he adopted that strategy when he saw fit (though "reservedly," he was keen to qualify). I agree with Stevens. Repeal the 2A. It'll likely never happen. I've written before--Hubski comment and short article--on the near-impossibility that amending the constitution is. See how difficult simple legislation has been to pass, let alone the two supermajorities. It seems fantasy that an amendment would get through. That said, a proposal to amend the Constitution to ban flag-desecration came one vote short in the Senate in 2006.If history has shown us anything, the fears of extreme government overreach and oppression of peoples is not a relic of the past.
considering the state of the military technology that the United States armed forces could bring to bear in the hypothetical scenario where our national standing army decides to neutralize the states.
This is part of the point, if a portion of citizens did rise up, the US would be forced to respond either militarily or via some sort of negotiation. If it did neutralize any states or peoples, It would be essential for those remaining to protect themselves, their families, and their communities even if it can only do so at a fundamental level. That ability to provide protection is a natural right and why the constitution protects it.
Can you elaborate on what you mean here? Is this a scenario where, say, a significant portion of Michigan's Upper Peninsula decides to leave the United States, so non-combatants would need firearms to protect themselves from the lawlessness during the war? if a portion of citizens did rise up, the US would be forced to respond either militarily or via some sort of negotiation. If it did neutralize any states or peoples, It would be essential for those remaining to protect themselves, their families, and their communities even if it can only do so at a fundamental level. That ability to provide protection is a natural right and why the constitution protects it.
This is, of course, a philosophical assertion, yet upheld by many different philosophies. The value and preservation of human life are central to Western thought. The argument can be made from autonomy (Locke), Natural law (Hobbes), and even, virtue ethics focused on vocation and common good of neighbor. Freedom of speech, expression, and religion are always asserted and rarely argued. The constitution upholds a set of principles promised to every individual in this land that is not contingent on the Government nor the philosophy of those individuals. The sad thing is, those principles all essentially assert that all human life is valuable, yet our history shows that we have been more than willing to treat some people as sub-human.
Philosophy is a very different theater of debate than law. Legally, our system is heavily influenced by Locke, he of social contract fame. Within the framework of philosophy, we give up some individual rights when we join a collective in exchange for collective protection of those rights. Second Treatise on Government doesn't say "you get all the guns you want." It says "you give up the right to do some things for protection to do other things." What those things are is the subject of law.
Tha is a pretty far extrapolation of what I outlined here. There are some weapons, which no one person is permitted to operate even within a military context, missiles, tanks, drones, etc... require consensus and chain of authority. A means of personal defense as a regulated militia perhaps in its most basic sense applies to the ownership of weapons that a soldier is regulated to carry. Handguns, rifles, shotguns. Personal defense weapons.
The ability of a citizen movement to oppose them, however, are. Bundy Ranch ended with no bloodshed because the BLM didn't gear up for war; had the FBI wanted to Waco that shit Cliven's face would be on gun show t-shirts from coast to coast for the next 30 years. Everybody wants their guns, nobody wants a well-regulated militia.If history has shown us anything, the fears of extreme government overreach and oppression of peoples is not a relic of the past.
"BLM" in this instance is Bureau of Land Management... the people upon whose land the Bundy's decided to graze their cattle for free. The BLM is tasked with protecting the commonly-held lands in America (national parks, open spaces, unclaimed spaces, etc). So they ask for cattle ranchers to pay a fee to graze their cattle on public lands. The Bundys didn't pay, so the BLM went in to collect. Could have gone all Waco, and didn't, because everyone was standing around thinking, "Shit. This could go all Waco, and shit." And nobody pulled the first trigger. Black Lives Matter has no role in this, other than choosing a three-letter descriptor that had already been in use for decades. (See also the WWF and the WWF.)
Naw, dawg I'm stone-cold serious. The BLM was staring down an armed uprising and decided that they didn't wanna toe-to-toe it. It was an example of a well-armed citizenry withstanding and repelling government "repression" or "overreach". Under an uglier era, they would have gone in regardless.
A citizens movement, while drastic and in a real situation, fatal to those who would at first rise up, is a possibility any entity who rises to power must at least consider in the United States. If we change that, we must also consider what other changes might follow. The first amendment can be dangerous too; if our philosophy toward the constitution, allows for dramatic reform of the 2nd it will allow for dramatic reform of the 1st.Everybody wants their guns; nobody wants a well-regulated militia.
This is undoubtedly true, and why most conversation turns to hunting, self-defense, and sports shooting.
The First Amendment is highly curtailed compared to the second. You can't cry "fire" in a crowded theater. You can't print slander. Yet you can't require a license to buy a gun. You can require a license to shoot a deer, but you can't require a license to buy the thing to shoot the deer with. You can proscribe the places you can fire the gun, but you can't limit the access to them in any way to citizens in good standing. I had to pass a test to ride a motorcycle. If I wanted an AR-15, I'll bet I could pass that license, too.
You can't cry "fire" in a crowded theater. You can't print slander.
Well, you can, there are just consequences for those actions. Consequences which also regulate the use of firearms, you can't fire a gun in theater, and you can't shoot at someone you hate. but you can't limit the access to them in any way to citizens in good standing.
Further regulation and licensing wouldn't prohibit those in good standing from obtaining even if they had mal-intent. This is why the argument for repeal of 2nd A is stronger than further regulation. However, the philosophical implications of a repeal are huge and would fundamentally alter all aspects of law and life in America.
Spoken like a true authoritarian. Attempting to repeal the Second Amendment would rightly cause another civil war. I can't think of a more divisive 'solution' to this alleged problem of whatever it is we're calling it this time; Mass shootings, school safety, gun violence, etcetera.Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century.