Is the 2nd Amendment Redundant?

Delta4Embassy

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2013
Messages
25,745
Reaction score
3,032
Points
280
Location
Earth
We all have a right to self-defense, including using lethal force. So wouldn't we still have the right to own the means to defend us and our's whether we had the 2nd Amendment or not?
 
OP
D

Delta4Embassy

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2013
Messages
25,745
Reaction score
3,032
Points
280
Location
Earth
We have a right to privacy but no amendment saying as much except for specific instances. There's no right to medical privacy for example in the Constitution, yet we have the right nonetheless.

So wouldn't we still have a right to purchase firearms even without a 2nd Amendment?
 
OP
D

Delta4Embassy

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2013
Messages
25,745
Reaction score
3,032
Points
280
Location
Earth
We all have a right to self-defense, including using lethal force. So wouldn't we still have the right to own the means to defend us and our's whether we had the 2nd Amendment or not?
Arms are not for self-defense ONLY.
As far as the 2nd Amendment is concerned they are. Hunting 'implements' aren't mentioned. But that's not the point I'm making.
 

Sonny Clark

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2014
Messages
51,089
Reaction score
5,910
Points
1,870
Location
Gadsden Alabama
We all have a right to self-defense, including using lethal force. So wouldn't we still have the right to own the means to defend us and our's whether we had the 2nd Amendment or not?
Arms are not for self-defense ONLY.
As far as the 2nd Amendment is concerned they are. Hunting 'implements' aren't mentioned. But that's not the point I'm making.
Self defense and being armed are akin, and if not mentioned together in the same sentence, certainly are implied. In my opinion, the intent of the 2nd is very clear. Also, the reason for its existence is very clear.
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
55,903
Reaction score
13,636
Points
2,180
Location
In a Republic, actually
We all have a right to self-defense, including using lethal force. So wouldn't we still have the right to own the means to defend us and our's whether we had the 2nd Amendment or not?
As is the case with the Constitution, the Second Amendment exists solely in the context of its case law.

Consequently, Second Amendment jurisprudence provides government important guidance when it seeks to enact regulatory policies with regard to firearms that can pass Constitutional muster.
 
OP
D

Delta4Embassy

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2013
Messages
25,745
Reaction score
3,032
Points
280
Location
Earth
We all have a right to self-defense, including using lethal force. So wouldn't we still have the right to own the means to defend us and our's whether we had the 2nd Amendment or not?
As is the case with the Constitution, the Second Amendment exists solely in the context of its case law.

Consequently, Second Amendment jurisprudence provides government important guidance when it seeks to enact regulatory policies with regard to firearms that can pass Constitutional muster.
Maybe. We have medical privacy absent any mention of it though. Have numerous rights absent anything in the Constitution guaranteeing such rights.
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
55,903
Reaction score
13,636
Points
2,180
Location
In a Republic, actually
We have a right to privacy but no amendment saying as much except for specific instances. There's no right to medical privacy for example in the Constitution, yet we have the right nonetheless.

So wouldn't we still have a right to purchase firearms even without a 2nd Amendment?
Incorrect.

The right to privacy can be found in the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. (Griswold v. Connecticut)

Again, the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law. “But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed 'argument.'

Indeed, nowhere in the Second Amendment will one find the words 'individual' or 'self-defense,' but the right to possess a handgun pursuant to the right to self-defense exists nonetheless.
 

Abatis

VIP Member
Joined
May 24, 2011
Messages
371
Reaction score
69
Points
80
Location
Upper Bucks County, PA
We all have a right to self-defense, including using lethal force. So wouldn't we still have the right to own the means to defend us and our's whether we had the 2nd Amendment or not?
Yes it is redundant.

The 2nd Amendment does not create, grant, give or establish the right being recognized and secured. The 2nd Amendment only "does" one thing; to redundantly forbid the federal government to exercise powers it was never granted (specifically, powers to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms).

The nature of rights versus powers is very evident in the arguments for and against adding a bill of rights to the Constitution. The Federalists thought it absurd and dangerous to forbid things to be done for which no power was ever granted to act. They argued that no matter how the provisions would be worded, those disposed to usurp power would misconstruct them into either authorizing or actually creating a power to regulate, constrain or outright extinguish the right.

It seems that the Federalists have been proven correct; a recently deceased thread here was premised on exactly that anti-constitutional theory, what impact the term "well regulated" has on the existence, exercise and protection of the right to arms.

I would say that it is clear that the people who argued that "well regulated" authorizes Congress to "regulate" the personal arms of the private citizen, are precisely the people "disposed to usurp" that the Federalists warned about . . .



"I . . . affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that [a fundamental right] shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given, and that the provision against restraining [a fundamental right] afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it, was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights."


The only true answer to your question is, YES! . . .

The 2nd Amendment is totally redundant.

As SCOTUS has been saying, in boringly consistent fashion for going on 140 years:

"the Second Amendment , like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in . . . 1876 . . . , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence....."​

Certainly if the right is not in any manner dependent upon the 2nd Amendment, the 2nd Amendment can be safely considered redundant as far as the right to arms is concerned.


.
 

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
67,349
Reaction score
20,470
Points
2,250
Location
Nevada
We all have a right to self-defense, including using lethal force. So wouldn't we still have the right to own the means to defend us and our's whether we had the 2nd Amendment or not?
Arms are not for self-defense ONLY.
As far as the 2nd Amendment is concerned they are. Hunting 'implements' aren't mentioned. But that's not the point I'm making.




If you are referring to the self defense part of the equation where the firearms are for revolution in the case of an illegitimate government taking over, then you have answered your own question.
 

Liminal

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2015
Messages
7,889
Reaction score
709
Points
255
Location
In Your Face
We all have a right to self-defense, including using lethal force. So wouldn't we still have the right to own the means to defend us and our's whether we had the 2nd Amendment or not?
The question answers itself, the right to self defense is guaranteed by Supreme Court interpretation of the Second Amendment.
 

Mr.Right

Guest
Joined
Mar 19, 2015
Messages
1,659
Reaction score
230
Points
65
We all have a right to self-defense, including using lethal force. So wouldn't we still have the right to own the means to defend us and our's whether we had the 2nd Amendment or not?
As is the case with the Constitution, the Second Amendment exists solely in the context of its case law.

Consequently, Second Amendment jurisprudence provides government important guidance when it seeks to enact regulatory policies with regard to firearms that can pass Constitutional muster.
You're completely wrong about this. The second amendment was intended to give citizens the ability to keep our government from becoming too powerful. Our founding fathers wanted us to be as well armed as the government. Or at least well armed enough to give them pause. Our founding fathers only goal in crafting the second amendment was to protect us from our own government. Thus, the motives of anyone who supports gun control should be suspect.
 

Abatis

VIP Member
Joined
May 24, 2011
Messages
371
Reaction score
69
Points
80
Location
Upper Bucks County, PA
As far as the 2nd Amendment is concerned they are. Hunting 'implements' aren't mentioned. But that's not the point I'm making.
I would not consider reasonable an argument that says, romance novels or books on the sciences are not protected by the 1st Amendment. The principle is not that, "the right" extends to just what a particular provision says (or what can be, ahem, "reasonably" implied); the principle is that "the right" extends to all not granted to government.

Don't examine a provision of the Bill of Rights to try to discern what your rights are; examine the body of the Constitution for an express grant of power that allows the government to have any power over that interest.

.
 

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
47,876
Reaction score
9,908
Points
2,040
Location
North Carolina
We have a right to privacy but no amendment saying as much except for specific instances. There's no right to medical privacy for example in the Constitution, yet we have the right nonetheless.

So wouldn't we still have a right to purchase firearms even without a 2nd Amendment?
Incorrect.

The right to privacy can be found in the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. (Griswold v. Connecticut)

Again, the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law. “But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed 'argument.'

Indeed, nowhere in the Second Amendment will one find the words 'individual' or 'self-defense,' but the right to possess a handgun pursuant to the right to self-defense exists nonetheless.
Wrong as usual. In every other case of nationalizing an amendment to the Constitution of an individual right it was the RIGHT of the PEOPLE that made it an individual right yet you would argue that some how the right of the people in the second is not the same.
 

M14 Shooter

The Light of Truth
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
25,772
Reaction score
2,474
Points
275
Location
Where I can see you, but you can't see me
We all have a right to self-defense, including using lethal force. So wouldn't we still have the right to own the means to defend us and our's whether we had the 2nd Amendment or not?
Without a specific protected afforded by the constitution, anyone who wants to limit the right will simple argue "...the constitution does not protect this supposed right..." and be done with it.
 
OP
D

Delta4Embassy

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2013
Messages
25,745
Reaction score
3,032
Points
280
Location
Earth
We all have a right to self-defense, including using lethal force. So wouldn't we still have the right to own the means to defend us and our's whether we had the 2nd Amendment or not?
Without a specific protected afforded by the constitution, anyone who wants to limit the right will simple argue "...the constitution does not protect this supposed right..." and be done with it.
Wouldn't work though. Still have the right to personal self-defense. Could argue, "Well how am I supposed to defend myself from a badguy with a gun if I don't have a gun too?"
 

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
47,876
Reaction score
9,908
Points
2,040
Location
North Carolina
We all have a right to self-defense, including using lethal force. So wouldn't we still have the right to own the means to defend us and our's whether we had the 2nd Amendment or not?
Without a specific protected afforded by the constitution, anyone who wants to limit the right will simple argue "...the constitution does not protect this supposed right..." and be done with it.
Wouldn't work though. Still have the right to personal self-defense. Could argue, "Well how am I supposed to defend myself from a badguy with a gun if I don't have a gun too?"
Ya? Then explain why currently even with the second some States have laws that clearly violate the 2nd? Or the laws that were recently over turned in Chicago Washington DC and New York?
 

M14 Shooter

The Light of Truth
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
25,772
Reaction score
2,474
Points
275
Location
Where I can see you, but you can't see me
We all have a right to self-defense, including using lethal force. So wouldn't we still have the right to own the means to defend us and our's whether we had the 2nd Amendment or not?
Without a specific protected afforded by the constitution, anyone who wants to limit the right will simple argue "...the constitution does not protect this supposed right..." and be done with it.
Wouldn't work though. Still have the right to personal self-defense. Could argue, "Well how am I supposed to defend myself from a badguy with a gun if I don't have a gun too?"
The difference here is the current protection from "infringement" -- the 2nd will not allow it.
Absent the 2nd, the state could place all kinds of precondition on the exercise of the right - licensing, registration, insurance, training, etc -- and not run afoul of the Constitution, so long as the right. if any, can ultimately be exercised.
 
Last edited:
OP
D

Delta4Embassy

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2013
Messages
25,745
Reaction score
3,032
Points
280
Location
Earth
We all have a right to self-defense, including using lethal force. So wouldn't we still have the right to own the means to defend us and our's whether we had the 2nd Amendment or not?
Without a specific protected afforded by the constitution, anyone who wants to limit the right will simple argue "...the constitution does not protect this supposed right..." and be done with it.
Wouldn't work though. Still have the right to personal self-defense. Could argue, "Well how am I supposed to defend myself from a badguy with a gun if I don't have a gun too?"
Ya? Then explain why currently even with the second some States have laws that clearly violate the 2nd? Or the laws that were recently over turned in Chicago Washington DC and New York?
Until 2008 the 2nd Amendment wasn't about personal self-defense. The USSC's 2008 decision made it officially about personal self-defense, and not about a militia.

States wouldn't have all the rules and laws defining and limiting the 2nd Amendment if there was no 2nd Amendment.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top