Second Amendment – 18th Century Wisdom in the 21st Century

The time has come to repeal the Second Amendment.

It no longer serves a valid purpose, and the harms inflicted upon our society by the sloppiness of gun manufacturers, retailers, and owners are unacceptable.

The way I see it, there are three groups of people who think they benefit from the Second Amendment – hunters, self-defendants, and crazy people who think that they’re going to stave off tyranny with their deer rifles.

The first group, I’m sympatico with. I used to hunt when I was a kid, and I’d happily do it again. So, let’s set this thing up where guns can be made available to them under far more secure circumstances. No more shotguns and deer rifles in closets and under beds, or WalMarts stocked with weapons waiting for the first looter to get there. For people who want to use guns for their hobbies, like hunters and skeet shooters, let’s do what we can to keep them happy. Their hobby, however, doesn’t strike me as one rising to a level justifying Constitutional protection. They ought to be on the same Constitutional footing as philatelists and bird-watchers.

As for the self-defendants, I can understand where they’re coming from. On one occasion, when I was swept up in fear, I wished that I had a working pistol and the knowledge of how to use it. But, the fear passed, and the real root of my fear was my imagination.

That doesn’t mean that there aren’t times that having a pistol would do people some good. But it’s a cycle. Most of the reason people think they need guns is because they think others have guns (and sometimes, they’re right). But, speaking from personal experience, I’ve lost a lot more friends and relatives because other people had guns than because there were too few guns around. If you want to defend the Second Amendment on a cost-benefit analysis, you’re going to wind up losing.

Finally, the anti-tyranny crowed blew their chance when then allowed the government to “usurp” their authority to own machine guns and nuclear weapons. Theoretically, these people had a point a long time ago, but, now that technology has made muskets an ineffective choice for governmental overthrow, let’s not let them kid us. Private gun ownership is not going to prevent governmental tyranny, no matter how carefully you’ve studied Red Dawn.

17 Responses to “Second Amendment – 18th Century Wisdom in the 21st Century”

  1. Anonymous says:

    It is a fact that the United Nations are the ones pushing gun control and gun confication in every country in the world so that there can be a one world government. We now have a brain washed President that agrees to a one world government and the confication of all guns. WAKE UP ALL YOU BLIND AMERICANS BEFORE WE LOOSE OUR GREAT DEMOCRACY

  2. Anonymous says:

    I love it when paranoid nutcases comment here.

  3. ram says:

    I don't want to deviate from the main topic, but for the first time after Clinton, we have a common-sense driven real leader called Obama. Real leader is someone who takes the people along with him, not the one who says "my way or high way". In the last 6 months, he has almost erased all the screw ups Bush did 8 years before that. I am neither a democrat nor a republican. But, any rationale thinker can clearly see night and day difference between the two administrations. And so are the billions of people around the world who received Obama with cheers and Bush with protests/shoes.

    No one still answered my question why one needs a gun when it is guaranteed no one around you has one.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Guns in the hands of good people is a good thing. The infrastructures if many parts of the world has created living conditions that allow far too many people to play in an imaginary reality. I fear ignorance more than anything else.

  5. ram says:

    I do understand everybody who owns a gun legally (and didn't use for any illegal use so far) is a good person.

    But, no one still provided the "good reason" why they had to own one in first place.

  6. Dan says:

    Ram – If I may speak for those who disagree with me, I believe the reasons that people would argue with your hypothetical are several.

    First, most would reject the premise that guns could be removed from the petty criminals and street thugs. Frankly, I agree with them. Even if an absolute ban with automatic confiscation were passed, there are too many guns spread around in too many places to believe that your premise would actually become true.

    Second, even accepting your premise, they would argue that they are entitled to guns for sport, such as target shooting and hunting. That argument is pretty much nonsense, though, because there aren't Constitutional protections for philately, knitting or other hobbies.

    Third, and I think this gets to the reason the 2nd Amendment exists, they believe that private gun ownership is some kind of bulwark against tyranny. This argument is also pretty much nonsense, because there ain't ever going to be a private revolution in this country. Those "brave patriots" sit quietly and cheer when the government encroaches on personal liberties. Fact is, the people who cling to their precious guns and talk about protection are some of the biggest cowards in our country, afraid of big bad terrorists and dark-colored "illegals", so they buy into the whole "be afraid" message offered up by the true threats to our inalienable rights, such as the Bush administration.

  7. ram says:

    Yep, like I said before, removing each and every gun is easier said than done. I don't know how it should be done. But, I believe anything is possible if we have the will. The govt should cleanup illegal ones first as they are the ones legal owners are afraid of.

    Regarding the reason of sport: One could go to an organized entity, pay and play just like we do bowling or fishing today.

    Third reason is outright hilarious in this day and age. I am sure it was a valid one when the rights were written as things were primitive at that point. I presume things were uncivilized, there was no law and order, no world bodies like UN, no militaries, no diplomacies, no democracies. So, only way to protect ones territory at that point was for everyone to own weapons.

  8. Anonymous says:

    "I think we just need sane gun regulation." You mean just like in the UK?

    To see the effect Google "Landford pensioner Reginald Baker." And if you need a refresher "Tony Martin farmer." Now review http://www.guncite.com/journals/okslip.html. And finally http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html.

    Be careful what you wish for.

  9. Anonymous says:

    I live in the wild west where a protester carrying a loaded assault rifle recently showed up outside an appearance by President Obama. Yes, legal in Arizona as open carry has always been legal in my lifetime. But what's going on here when extremists are able to intimidate the citizenry with their display of firearms. We have always had reasonable gun laws in Arizona but in the past few years NRA dollars have been buying votes in the legislature. Recently passed legislation allows persons with concealed carry permits to carry their firearms into establishments that serve alcohol yet specify that they cannot drink. Does a bartender ask to frisk everyone to determine whether or not they can serve them? If you are so paranoid that you feel the need to carry your concealed weapon with you when you go out for a beer maybe you should stay home behind closed doors where you'll feel less threatened. This legislation was opposed by law enforcement and the hospitality industry yet driven by special interest money it easily passed.

    Need a firearm fast? Attend one of our huge gun shows take your pick from thousands and bypass the waiting period that is required for licensed dealers.

    It's time to reevaluate the 2nd amendment and rewrite it for the 21st century. In 1791 an assault weapon was single shot, about 5 feet long took and experienced rifleman 20 – 30 seconds to reload. How could the authors of the 2nd amendment have envisioned high capacity magazines and armor piercing ammo? What scares me most as I drive around the city streets? Not a carjacking or drive by; but some whack job who doesn't like the way I change lanes and decides to teach me a lesson with his Glock.

    By the way, I'm a former NRA member; a US Army veteran; a current gun owner and a dreaded liberal.

    Ken in Phoenix

  10. ram says:

    Yep, exactly same here. Everytime I walk on the streets or drive, I've this gnawing feeling that some whacko will not like my race and/or the way I drive and decides to teach me a lesson.

    I was thinking the other day, it is so funny that we ban prostitution (but allow lap dances and everything else except paid sex, mind you), ban drugs, but allow guns. What's the logic ? People have self control when it comes to guns but they have no self control when it comes to drugs and sex ? Or there is no such wealthy organization as NRA for hookers and smugglers ;-)

  11. rmodel65 says:

    Some people think that the Second Amendment is an outdated relic of an earlier time. Doubtless some also think that constitutional protections of other rights are outdated relics of earlier times. We The People own those rights regardless, unless and until We The People repeal them. For those who believe it to be outdated, the Second Amendment provides a good test of whether their allegiance is really to the Constitution of the United States, or only to their preferences in public policies and audiences. The Constitution is law, not vague aspirations, and we are obligated to protect, defend, and apply it. If the Second Amendment were truly an outdated relic, the Constitution provides a method for repeal. The Constitution does not furnish the federal courts with an eraser.

    —-9th Circuit Court Judge Andrew Kleinfeld, dissenting opinion from the court's refusal to rehear the case while citing deeply flawed anti-Second Amendment nonsense (Nordyke v. King; opinion filed April 5, 2004)

  12. DDT says:

    I find it incredulous that any one bothers to even debate with this marshmellow on this!

  13. Dan says:

    Funny stuff. "Incredulous"? "Marshmellow"? Are you just attempting to serve as a satirical portrait of a semi-literate insecure knucklehead, or are you one?

  14. FoC says:

    "How can anyone pretend therefore that regulations themselves violate the 2nd Amendment?"
    ==========================
    Uh…guy, EVERY 18 year old male in the USA is 'militia'…or did you not fill out your 'Selective Service' paperwork ?

  15. Phil Cardarella says:

    Let us assume that if most guns were more strictly controlled, only criminals (and cops) would have guns. GOOD! We would all be safer. Cops are (reasonably) trustworthy — and criminals rarely kill anyone but each other (except by accident). And doing away with semis and AKs would limit that potential.

    As for those guys who want to have an arsenal to shoot at the FBI/ATF/Revenuers/UN Black Helicopters? Bluntly, they are by definition too crazy to have firearms. It is touch and go as to whether they should have forks at the dinner table.

  16. Guy Asmart says:

    The framers gave us the second amendment because they knew that someday our judiciary would fail or refuse to prevent the executive agents from committing unauthorized deprivations of property liberty or life. The judges of our time no longer enforce the law/consent of the people as the limitation of power. The judges lawlessly condone unauthorized deprivations every day. Police who steal from people is now ok and consistent with the judges’ horrible misinterpretations of the constitution. The judges want to give our rulers the power to steal and sheep do not resist the theft of wool or of flesh. We have a third world form of government in which written law has no effect and the sheople are oblivious of the change of form of government. The second amendment exists so that a minority can maintain their basic rights where the laws and judges fail to do so. That time has come.

  17. gonemild says:

    Thank you for your classic comment, complete with lousy grammar and chicken logic. Guys like you love to thump their chests and whine about how bad things are and how the second amendment gives them the ability to do something about it. But . . . Dude, if you think others are “sheeple”, what kind of gutless punk are you to be sitting at home imagining that your guns are anything other than a substitute for something you are sadly lacking?

Leave a Reply