A Philosophical argument for the repeal of Second Amendment

Q

Quick Karl

Moderator
OBJECTION:

There is no way the authors of The Bill of Rights could ever have imagined semi-automatic firearms with 30-round magazines, they were talking about single-shot muzzle loaders for hunting only, therefore The People should NOT be allowed to have semi-automatic high-capacity firearms...

REPLY TO OBJECTION:

There is no way the authors of The Bill of Rights could ever have imagined the Internet, Internet **** easily viewed by children, Rap music replete with its glorification of murder and its degradation of women as whores, Hollywood movies that glorify killing, or video games that may subliminally program people to kill (subliminal messages in TV advertisements was outlawed in the early 60's)... They were talking about only what you could say or print and distribute in the small communities and churches you were a part of.

Therefore, we should repeal BOTH the First AND Second Amendments, because the Founders were fools with no foresight whatsoever.

Furthermore, we should repeal Miranda Rights, and the Right to an Attorney appointed and paid for by the State if you cannot afford one, because it is paranoid and foolish to think that a Law Enforcement Officer, Prosecutor, or Judge (the State) would EVER violate your rights...

It's amazing how few people today comprehend these simple truths!
 
I have an old school friend who is married to someone who recently just made this very same argument over social media sites in anger(some days after the tragedy after he had time to think). Everyone who tried to explain his mistakles about certain weapons was "distorting" the truth for their own agenda. He does whole-heartedly believe that the musket is what was honored and the second amendment is antique and at best needs to be totally revampled. he also made the statement, which is very common, that there was absolutely no need for people in some nice, quaint areas to have any firearms. Some people just don't realize that someone can invade the home and severly injure or kill their family.
 
Some other replies:

1. The Second Amendment, when conceived, was, in effect, guaranteeing the right of the people to own the most potent military weapons of the time--certainly weapons on par with those in the armories of the best-armed nations of the time. In fact, it was not uncommon for (wealthy) private citizens to own cannons or even warships.

2. The Second Amendment is carefully worded in such a way as to make it clear that its purpose is to insure that the armed citizens could help insure the "security of a free state". Clearly, the authors intended to protect the right of the citizens to arm themselves to the point of being an effective military fighting force.

3. Multi-shot (multi-barrel) firearms were not unheard of during the timeframe that the constitution was penned. There were also breechloaders (such as the Ferguson Rifle) which could enable the user to fire at a rate of perhaps 2 to 3 times greater than the single-shot muzzle-loading muskets. Yet the constitution makes no attempt to exclude such weapons from private hands.
 
While I am glad that the 18th amendment was repealed, the existence of the 21st and the standard that amendments can be repealed is a little disheartening. Yes, societies make mistakes, and yes, we should be able to fix them. However, it makes me uneasy that there is a precedent to draw upon for a new amendment to repeal the 2nd.
I hope i dont live to see the day
 
How about this for a political opinion?
The President cannot repeal the 2nd Amendment (unless he dismisses Congress as in a National Emergency). Congress, however, can repeal the 2nd Amendment. It is a lot easier to influence a Congressman than a President. So write to your Congressman.
 
Quick Karl said:
OBJECTION:

There is no way the authors of The Bill of Rights could ever have imagined semi-automatic firearms with 30-round magazines, they were talking about single-shot muzzle loaders for hunting only, therefore The People should NOT be allowed to have semi-automatic high-capacity firearms...
Click to expand...
But they very definitely were NOT talking about just single shot muzzle loaders, and they were not talking about hunting:

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American.... [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." (Tench Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.)
 
Congress CAN NOT repeal a Constitutional Amendment, that must be done by the States-think of the failed Equal Rights Amendment. The real threat is from the Courts, specifically the Liberals with their "Living Constitution-Blank Slate" attitude.
 
Actually as a historical fact there were a very few muti-shot muskets that to the best I can figure must have operated on a roman candle type effect... Probably a side barrel with powder to burn from one to the next but its just my guess..

All that aside you can simply look up what the founding fathers said about arms and the government... Really quickly they realized the government could easily be a threat to the people and that the people would need arms appropriate to combating a over reaching government....

So basically anything appropriate for military action short of weapons of mass destruction is IMHO a allowed arm under the 2A. (Im not advocating breaking laws). Further (and no one ever, ever learns apparently) as a historical note time and time again when governments are the only ones with arms at some point or another it goes really badly for the people..
 
The Government of China thinks its a good idea if we repeal our 2nd Amendment. Considering their human rights record, if their call for repeal was the only fact I knew about the debate, it would be enough reason for me to be against it.
 
The intent of the framers of the Constitution was very clear. The fact that the right to keep and bear arms is included in the Bill of Rights denotes the importance of such a right in relationship to the maintainence of freedom. There were three primary reasons for its inclusion; the ability of the bearer to protect his or her life and property, the ability of the bearer to aid in the protection of the United States in case of an invasion, and the protection of freedom from a tyrannical, overbearing government if thrust upon them. The framers feared the thought of a standing army, and an armed populace stood as a bulwark against its unlawful misuse. The militia included every male over the age of 17. It would be, considering the intended purpose of the right, ludicrous to assume anything other than the weapons intended for the people be on par with current military standards. It would be extremely difficult, and rightly so, to repeal or add any amendment, not to mention the time it would take for every state house pass it. It amazes me that after 200+ years the government still doesn't understand the simple phrase "shall not be infringed."
 
Last edited:
ronl
The part 'shall not be infringed' is not the big issue.
The big issue, which was addressed in Heller and McDonald in 2008 and 2010 was; is the right to have a militia; to be in the militia; or, to have guns for your own personal protection.
It is clear that reasonable regulation does not 'infringe' the right.
I don't even know if there have ever been any cases that defined 'infringe', as regards guns, or gun rights. All the cases are on copyrights.
dc
 
David, the line about infringe was intended as a little levity, not to be taken too serously. In all seriousness though, the laws so far enacted have, to some degree, limited the ability of the armed populace to defend itself in certain of the scenarios envisioned by the framers. To infringe means to violate, encroach upon. I think for certain some of the rights of law-abiding citizens have been encroached upon and limited. NFA items are the primary ones so far. Do those laws limit my ability to respond with some sense of equality to certain situations that could arise? Hypothetically, yes. Would an AWB limit my ability to respond? In no uncertain terms, yes. An AWB would not only limit my ability to respond, but would infringe upon the ability of generations yet to come to fulfill their duty as citizens. I certainly wouldn't think too much of facing a gang of AK wielding BG's with a bolt action rifle, but I would if I have to.
 
John: . The Second Amendment, when conceived, was, in effect, guaranteeing the right of the people to own the most potent military weapons of the time--certainly weapons on par with those in the armories of the best-armed nations of the time. In fact, it was not uncommon for (wealthy) private citizens to own cannons or even warships.

2. The Second Amendment is carefully worded in such a way as to make it clear that its purpose is to insure that the armed citizens could help insure the "security of a free state". Clearly, the authors intended to protect the right of the citizens to arm themselves to the point of being an effective military fighting force.

Were alittle outgunned these days arent we?
 
Actually another good reply to that common myth would forego the whole "apply it to the other amendments" idea. And simply refute the actual statement itself.

The founders were not idiots. Weapons and their lethality has been steadily advancing and improving throughout history ever since weapons were invented. From sharpened rocks, to spears, swords, bows and the flintlock muskets that they were so familiar with.
It would be ludicrous for anyone to think that we would have just stopped at muzzle-loading flintlocks and called it good enough.
While the founders may not have envisioned M16s and AK-47s specifically they were well aware of the fact that weapons would become faster firing, more accurate, and longer ranged.
 
The actual argument is that our weapons are much more deadly than theirs were. This is a complete and utter falsehood.
What they are not taking in to account is that Medicine has evolved as well. A bullet wound today is not nearly as likely to kill as it was back then. Period.

Swords, knives, pikes etc. were far more deadly back then than any semi auto rifle is today. The death it led to was for more gruesome and painful. A metally deranged person in the 1780's armed with a brace of pistols, a musket, and a sword could easily have killed MORE than this Mentally deranged person.
These men (the Founders) almost without exception participated in the fighting at some point. They were quite aware of what weapons were capable of doing, they saw the consequences close up and personal. They got to watch their friends die slowly and horribly from wounds that we could deal with in minutes now.
DO NOT LET PEOPLE GET AWAY WITH TELLING THIS COMPLETE AND UTTER LIE!
 
The 'militia' was, and is, The People.

Until recently, it was easily understood, but something in the water has affected people's intelligence, so lots of people that believe they are, in fact, educated, don’t have a clue what it meant, or means, and the nut cases that plan the bombings of court buildings and call themselves a militia, has given the word militia, a bad name, in spite of the fact that the left tries to use militia to men GOVERNMENT FORCES ONLY.

The fact is, we are arguing the case with facts that are insignificant to the opposition, and we keep using unarmed Boy Scout philosophies to win a knife fight with murderers.

So, stop being stupid.
 
Karl I agree that that rabid anti-gunners do not understand the constitution, nor will they accept well reasoned arguments based on truth. None of my reply is about them.
My reply is for the average person that right now is very upset and looking for answers. If we don't have answers that make sense and refute the seemingly reasonable arguments, then we deserve the loss of the rights we didn't fight hard enough for.
I make my living in sales. I'm surrounded every day by people who can make anything sound like the truth. Think about that for a second. These people have that same ability. What will save us from them persuading our friends and neighbors that they are right? Us, armed with facts, patiently, reasonably, making them look like the liars and extremists that they are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top