The Second Amendment Was A Failure From The Start, And Should Have Been Repealed 200 Years Ago

Laws about freedom of speech don’t just shift when it comes to content and context, they’re also constantly updated to address something else: technology. Radio. Movies. Television. The internet. Even comic books. All have sparked changes in what is permitted and how speech is regulated. But somehow, we pretend that guns are different; that words written when the most deadly weapon required a ramrod and black powder mean that we can’t make adjustments for a semi-automatic rifle and a 30-round clip.

The truth is that guns are different. Because the right to bear arms is a lesser right. A right that was never intended to exist at all.

What makes individual gun ownership a lesser right? It’s a right that only exists in the minds of a handful of hard-right Supreme Court justices who happen to be on the court at this moment. Until 2008, no federal court had ever ruled that the Second Amendment included a right to individual gun ownership. It was always understood as it was written: Guns were allowed in individual hands as a means to supply the armed forces.

Here’s the Milwaukee Independent looking at how Chief Justice Warren Burger discussed the Second Amendment.

That the Second Amendment exists at all is more an accident of timing than an attempt to put guns in the hands of every American.
The amendment grew out of a fear that having a standing army would leave the nation open to depredations by an authoritarian leader, or that the nascent democracy would be overthrown by a military junta. To that end, they explicitly inserted the Second Amendment as an alternative means of providing national defense.

There were multiple drafts of the Second Amendment. Every one of them includes text explaining that this amendment exists only because it’s needed to provide for the nation’s defense.
Just a year after the Constitution was ratified, George Washington nudged Congress to create an official U.S. military, but the still-fearful Congress limited that force to just few hundred soldiers and officers. It would be another six years before it was allowed to grow significantly. When war came in 1812 two things were immediately obvious: The number of soldiers then in the official U.S. military were far from enough to defend the nation, and the poorly organized civilian militias for which the Second Amendment was created were an absolute failure when it came to national defense.

In the next year, the professional military of the United States grew by over 300%. “Second Amendment solutions” were on their way out.
The Second Amendment is failure. It never worked for its intended purposes. It was born from the understandable fears of a new nation engaged in a radical new scheme. But it was a mistake. It may be the most costly mistake this nation has ever made other than failing to end slavery at the outset.

The right thing to do would be to recognize that mistake and pass a new amendment that simply ends the Second Amendment, just as the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933. (Take a drink.)

Instead, we get statements like this piece of profound ignorance. One that is wrong. Wrong. Wrong again. And then … still wrong.



Recognizing that an actual repeal of the Second Amendment—while absolutely just—isn’t likely, the next best thing is to simply recognize that the right to individual gun ownership is a lesser right, one whose appearance in that useless amendment subjects it to practical constraint.


Individual gun ownership rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Heller v DC

Just like abortion rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Roe v Wade

The current court is ready to take away Roe v Wade.

A future court can do the same with Heller v DC.

Prior to 2010 the Second Amendment applied only to the Federal government, not the states and local jurisdictions, who were at liberty to regulate firearms as they saw fit.

The mistake was to incorporate the Second Amendment to the states, contrary to the original intent of the Framers.
 
Prior to 2010 the Second Amendment applied only to the Federal government, not the states and local jurisdictions, who were at liberty to regulate firearms as they saw fit.

The mistake was to incorporate the Second Amendment to the states, contrary to the original intent of the Framers.
Wrong... The states have no purview over weapons. The term "shall not be infringed" means exactly that. Hands off.. as it is a right that no one can touch, not even the states.
 
The right doesn't shoot children. The left kills them before they're born and supports an administration that sends American infants' formula to illegals at southern border and to Ukraine putting American infant citizens at risk. It's all a matter of how it's done obviously.
 
Prior to 2010 the Second Amendment applied only to the Federal government, not the states and local jurisdictions, who were at liberty to regulate firearms as they saw fit.

The mistake was to incorporate the Second Amendment to the states, contrary to the original intent of the Framers.

Actually, the Amendment applies to everybody.
 
Prior to 2010 the Second Amendment applied only to the Federal government, not the states and local jurisdictions, who were at liberty to regulate firearms as they saw fit.

The mistake was to incorporate the Second Amendment to the states, contrary to the original intent of the Framers.

Surely you can prove this assertion?
 
For starters, there is no such thing as a "lesser right." That was invented by the Daily Kos writer to try and diminish the legitimacy of Heller. I mean, c'mon.

But, the rest of the OP is largely correct. The Second Amendment was written by men in the 18th century, to whom the term "bear arms" meant to serve in a State militia. Madison and the First Congress debated the points based on the likes of when King James II tried to dismantle the local militias so his tax-collecting royal soldiers could muscle the people out of tax money; there was no mention in any of the supplemental notes or in the arguments themselves about private ownership. None. It was like this for almost our entire history.

It was Heller in 2008 that applied it to private ownership. As it is a Supreme Court ruling, it can be overturned, either by legislation or by a later Supreme Court ruling, just as people are now thinking will happen to Roe v. Wade. It is the ruling we live under now, but in the future it absolutely can be re-litigated and re-interpreted as applying only to, for example, the National Guard.
 
Prior to 2010 the Second Amendment applied only to the Federal government, not the states and local jurisdictions, who were at liberty to regulate firearms as they saw fit.

The mistake was to incorporate the Second Amendment to the states, contrary to the original intent of the Framers.
That's a really good point about the incorporation. It was meant to guarantee the right to the States, so it doesn't really make sense to apply it to them.
 
Prior to 2010 the Second Amendment applied only to the Federal government, not the states and local jurisdictions, who were at liberty to regulate firearms as they saw fit.

The mistake was to incorporate the Second Amendment to the states, contrary to the original intent of the Framers.
Actually, the SC began applying the Constitution to the states after the 14th Amendment was ratified, and that includes the 2nd. That happened in 1868, a little earlier than your date of 2010.
 
Laws about freedom of speech don’t just shift when it comes to content and context, they’re also constantly updated to address something else: technology. Radio. Movies. Television. The internet. Even comic books. All have sparked changes in what is permitted and how speech is regulated. But somehow, we pretend that guns are different; that words written when the most deadly weapon required a ramrod and black powder mean that we can’t make adjustments for a semi-automatic rifle and a 30-round clip.

The truth is that guns are different. Because the right to bear arms is a lesser right. A right that was never intended to exist at all.

What makes individual gun ownership a lesser right? It’s a right that only exists in the minds of a handful of hard-right Supreme Court justices who happen to be on the court at this moment. Until 2008, no federal court had ever ruled that the Second Amendment included a right to individual gun ownership. It was always understood as it was written: Guns were allowed in individual hands as a means to supply the armed forces.

Here’s the Milwaukee Independent looking at how Chief Justice Warren Burger discussed the Second Amendment.

That the Second Amendment exists at all is more an accident of timing than an attempt to put guns in the hands of every American.
The amendment grew out of a fear that having a standing army would leave the nation open to depredations by an authoritarian leader, or that the nascent democracy would be overthrown by a military junta. To that end, they explicitly inserted the Second Amendment as an alternative means of providing national defense.

There were multiple drafts of the Second Amendment. Every one of them includes text explaining that this amendment exists only because it’s needed to provide for the nation’s defense.
Just a year after the Constitution was ratified, George Washington nudged Congress to create an official U.S. military, but the still-fearful Congress limited that force to just few hundred soldiers and officers. It would be another six years before it was allowed to grow significantly. When war came in 1812 two things were immediately obvious: The number of soldiers then in the official U.S. military were far from enough to defend the nation, and the poorly organized civilian militias for which the Second Amendment was created were an absolute failure when it came to national defense.

In the next year, the professional military of the United States grew by over 300%. “Second Amendment solutions” were on their way out.
The Second Amendment is failure. It never worked for its intended purposes. It was born from the understandable fears of a new nation engaged in a radical new scheme. But it was a mistake. It may be the most costly mistake this nation has ever made other than failing to end slavery at the outset.

The right thing to do would be to recognize that mistake and pass a new amendment that simply ends the Second Amendment, just as the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933. (Take a drink.)

Instead, we get statements like this piece of profound ignorance. One that is wrong. Wrong. Wrong again. And then … still wrong.



Recognizing that an actual repeal of the Second Amendment—while absolutely just—isn’t likely, the next best thing is to simply recognize that the right to individual gun ownership is a lesser right, one whose appearance in that useless amendment subjects it to practical constraint.


Individual gun ownership rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Heller v DC

Just like abortion rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Roe v Wade

The current court is ready to take away Roe v Wade.

A future court can do the same with Heller v DC.

You should have been alive 200 years ago. Someone would have shot you.
 
Laws about freedom of speech don’t just shift when it comes to content and context, they’re also constantly updated to address something else: technology. Radio. Movies. Television. The internet. Even comic books. All have sparked changes in what is permitted and how speech is regulated. But somehow, we pretend that guns are different; that words written when the most deadly weapon required a ramrod and black powder mean that we can’t make adjustments for a semi-automatic rifle and a 30-round clip.

The truth is that guns are different. Because the right to bear arms is a lesser right. A right that was never intended to exist at all.

What makes individual gun ownership a lesser right? It’s a right that only exists in the minds of a handful of hard-right Supreme Court justices who happen to be on the court at this moment. Until 2008, no federal court had ever ruled that the Second Amendment included a right to individual gun ownership. It was always understood as it was written: Guns were allowed in individual hands as a means to supply the armed forces.

Here’s the Milwaukee Independent looking at how Chief Justice Warren Burger discussed the Second Amendment.

That the Second Amendment exists at all is more an accident of timing than an attempt to put guns in the hands of every American.
The amendment grew out of a fear that having a standing army would leave the nation open to depredations by an authoritarian leader, or that the nascent democracy would be overthrown by a military junta. To that end, they explicitly inserted the Second Amendment as an alternative means of providing national defense.

There were multiple drafts of the Second Amendment. Every one of them includes text explaining that this amendment exists only because it’s needed to provide for the nation’s defense.
Just a year after the Constitution was ratified, George Washington nudged Congress to create an official U.S. military, but the still-fearful Congress limited that force to just few hundred soldiers and officers. It would be another six years before it was allowed to grow significantly. When war came in 1812 two things were immediately obvious: The number of soldiers then in the official U.S. military were far from enough to defend the nation, and the poorly organized civilian militias for which the Second Amendment was created were an absolute failure when it came to national defense.

In the next year, the professional military of the United States grew by over 300%. “Second Amendment solutions” were on their way out.
The Second Amendment is failure. It never worked for its intended purposes. It was born from the understandable fears of a new nation engaged in a radical new scheme. But it was a mistake. It may be the most costly mistake this nation has ever made other than failing to end slavery at the outset.

The right thing to do would be to recognize that mistake and pass a new amendment that simply ends the Second Amendment, just as the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933. (Take a drink.)

Instead, we get statements like this piece of profound ignorance. One that is wrong. Wrong. Wrong again. And then … still wrong.



Recognizing that an actual repeal of the Second Amendment—while absolutely just—isn’t likely, the next best thing is to simply recognize that the right to individual gun ownership is a lesser right, one whose appearance in that useless amendment subjects it to practical constraint.


Individual gun ownership rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Heller v DC

Just like abortion rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Roe v Wade

The current court is ready to take away Roe v Wade.

A future court can do the same with Heller v DC.

Wrong...

Couldnt be more wrong than a football bat.
The second ammendment was about fear of ANY regime...including the one that they were creating...becoming totalitarian and oppressive. So that the people could rise up against any regime that the people found oppressive and not behaving as a representative government.
 
Notice you posted no argument against it.

You should eat more spinach first.
An argument needs to be posted before a rebuttal. Your opinion is absurd, read the 2nd closely, and see there is no mention of guns. Arms are in the times in Armories, and trained to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Read the next clause in Art I, Sec 8, Clause 15.
 
Wrong...

Couldnt be more wrong than a football bat.
The second ammendment was about fear of ANY regime...including the one that they were creating...becoming totalitarian and oppressive. So that the people could rise up against any regime that the people found oppressive and not behaving as a representative government.
So you are supporting and were supporting a Politician who lost an election, and bloviated to biddable fools to take Arms and overthrow an election, with no probative evidence, when three score and more courts rejected the election was stolen.

 
An argument needs to be posted before a rebuttal. Your opinion is absurd, read the 2nd closely, and see there is no mention of guns. Arms are in the times in Armories, and trained to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Read the next clause in Art I, Sec 8, Clause 15.

First you need to address what I said:

"A future court can do the same with Heller v DC."

Not with the Second Amendment in place.

Try looking at the problem objectively then you will understand that Guns does NOT kill anyone, but deranged and hard criminals do it easily.

===

When are you going to address it?

Second amendment you irrationally say doesn't cover "guns":

Second Amendment​


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.

===

Merriam-Webster:

"to furnish or equip with weapons"

You really think the second amendment was needed to protect and keep human arms?

:cuckoo:
 
Laws about freedom of speech don’t just shift when it comes to content and context, they’re also constantly updated to address something else: technology. Radio. Movies. Television. The internet. Even comic books. All have sparked changes in what is permitted and how speech is regulated. But somehow, we pretend that guns are different; that words written when the most deadly weapon required a ramrod and black powder mean that we can’t make adjustments for a semi-automatic rifle and a 30-round clip.

The truth is that guns are different. Because the right to bear arms is a lesser right. A right that was never intended to exist at all.

What makes individual gun ownership a lesser right? It’s a right that only exists in the minds of a handful of hard-right Supreme Court justices who happen to be on the court at this moment. Until 2008, no federal court had ever ruled that the Second Amendment included a right to individual gun ownership. It was always understood as it was written: Guns were allowed in individual hands as a means to supply the armed forces.

Here’s the Milwaukee Independent looking at how Chief Justice Warren Burger discussed the Second Amendment.

That the Second Amendment exists at all is more an accident of timing than an attempt to put guns in the hands of every American.
The amendment grew out of a fear that having a standing army would leave the nation open to depredations by an authoritarian leader, or that the nascent democracy would be overthrown by a military junta. To that end, they explicitly inserted the Second Amendment as an alternative means of providing national defense.

There were multiple drafts of the Second Amendment. Every one of them includes text explaining that this amendment exists only because it’s needed to provide for the nation’s defense.
Just a year after the Constitution was ratified, George Washington nudged Congress to create an official U.S. military, but the still-fearful Congress limited that force to just few hundred soldiers and officers. It would be another six years before it was allowed to grow significantly. When war came in 1812 two things were immediately obvious: The number of soldiers then in the official U.S. military were far from enough to defend the nation, and the poorly organized civilian militias for which the Second Amendment was created were an absolute failure when it came to national defense.

In the next year, the professional military of the United States grew by over 300%. “Second Amendment solutions” were on their way out.
The Second Amendment is failure. It never worked for its intended purposes. It was born from the understandable fears of a new nation engaged in a radical new scheme. But it was a mistake. It may be the most costly mistake this nation has ever made other than failing to end slavery at the outset.

The right thing to do would be to recognize that mistake and pass a new amendment that simply ends the Second Amendment, just as the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933. (Take a drink.)

Instead, we get statements like this piece of profound ignorance. One that is wrong. Wrong. Wrong again. And then … still wrong.



Recognizing that an actual repeal of the Second Amendment—while absolutely just—isn’t likely, the next best thing is to simply recognize that the right to individual gun ownership is a lesser right, one whose appearance in that useless amendment subjects it to practical constraint.


Individual gun ownership rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Heller v DC

Just like abortion rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Roe v Wade

The current court is ready to take away Roe v Wade.

A future court can do the same with Heller v DC.


Except….no. Scalia went through the long history of the Right to own and carry guns in Heller….please try reading it….or have someone with a brain read it to you
 
An argument needs to be posted before a rebuttal. Your opinion is absurd, read the 2nd closely, and see there is no mention of guns. Arms are in the times in Armories, and trained to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Read the next clause in Art I, Sec 8, Clause 15.
I know you are an idiot…..you can stop trying to prove it to us…..


Arms do not mean guns?

Wow….just stop before you hurt yourself.
 

Forum List

Back
Top