The Second Amendment Was A Failure From The Start, And Should Have Been Repealed 200 Years Ago

[2aguy]

Viewpoints/ Mike Royko Columnist aims, fires criticism at gun owners​

​

Once again, it’s time to bestow one of the least-coveted honors in America this column’s Gun Owner of the Year Award. For reasons I don’t understand, this award upsets some gun owners and the National Rifle Association, who always remind me that the majority of gun owners are prudent and careful and seldom shoot anybody. Sure they are. But all I try to do is acknowledge the efforts of that tiny minority of gun owners who account for 35,000 gunshot deaths and countless woundings that occur each year.

Don’t they deserve some recognition? OF COURSE THEY do. That’s why, in past years, we’ve honored such winners as the sleepy man who picked up his gun, instead of his ringing phone, and shot himself in the ear. And the angry man who shot his girlfriend in the thigh because she cooked him string beans once too often.

Selecting the winner out of this year’s finalists wasn’t easy. As usual, there were the many hunters who mistook their peers for wild turkeys, deer, squirrels and possums. It’s amazing what a striking resemblance there is between the average person and the average wild turkey. So the Outstanding Achievement by a Deer Slayer Award goes to a New Hampshire man who saw what he thought was a deer coming over a rise in a road. He fired, and scored a direct hit. The deer turned out to be a truck, and the driver took a bullet in the shoulder. FORTUNATELY, the hunter realized his error in time and did not skin the driver or have the truck mounted.

In Rock Island, 111., a man put his rifle on the ground after shooting a passing bird. As he bent to pick up the bird’s carcass, his dog stepped on the shotgun trigger, causing it to fire and wound the bird-slayer. This confirms the NRA’s slogan; “Guns don’t shoot people dogs shoot people.”

Daily Kent Stater 15 January 1985 — Daily Kent Stater Digital Archive

Daily Kent Stater Digital Archive

dks.library.kent.edu

One winner of Mike Royko's Gun Owner of the Year Award thought he saw a burglar at the foot of his bed. He slept with a revolver under his pillow, and shot at the burglar. There was no burglar. Instead he shot his penis off. That was fitting, because guns are a phallic symbol.

You didn’t answer my post……coward. Post # 795

 

[miketx]

People like you are too mentally unbalanced to be permitted to own guns.

Come get them faggot.

 

[Friends]

Do you realize that in the 1920s the Europeans banned and confiscated guns from their citizens...citing that this would make them safer, and that the government would protect them?

By 1933, the German socialists, having disarmed Jews and the political enemies of the socialists, began the process of murdering 15 million innocent men, women and children...not criminals, just normal people.............they murdered these people all across Europe, in the countries they conquered, and countries that, in the 1920s, had taken guns away from their people. In 1939-1945, this is when the majority of the murders occurred....6 years.....

Do you understand that if you add up all the people murdered by guns in the United States, the majority of whom are criminals.....murdered by other criminals.....in 246 years of our existence, we don't even come close 15 million murdered.....

Guns keep that from happening again......do you understand this? Likely not....

The possibility that Trump will set up a dictatorship is too remote for me to worry about. Too many people like me hate him. The possibility that I will be shot with a gun is incomparably greater.

 

[Friends]

Come get them faggot.

You just reinforced my earlier statement.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

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.

The Second Amendment was a failure from the start, and should have been repealed 200 years ago

There is no such thing as an unconstrained right. Speech has limits. Religion has limits. Assembly has limits. The idea that any of these things can be completely “free” of government oversight is a pipedream, and everyone from the founders to the...

www.dailykos.com

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.

This OP is actually quite interesting and makes some valid points, especially that the 2nd Amendment was written and structured in historically contingent terms, seen as encouraging and guaranteeing that the federal government would recognize state militia for defense, in the absence of a significant national standing army. It was not at all then seen as an absolute individual right, but as a political compromise to secure states their own citizen militias to provide for the people’s defense.

The discussion of what is “disgusting” or not … is just ridiculous.

On the other hand, it is more than relevant that for about two centuries the country prospered without the modern judicial interpretation that this is an individual right on the same level as, say, free speech.

Of course all these rights were not then seen as applying to states, who had their own Constitutions and great latitude then in regulating state militia, free speech, voting, even slavery.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I like the saying, "When guns are outlawed they will take my gun from my cold, dead hand." It sounds like a good idea.

Stack up and try it, sweetie.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Once again, it’s time to bestow one of the least-coveted honors in America this column’s Gun Owner of the Year Award​

Your opinion does not matter.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It was not at all then seen as an absolute individual right, but as a political compromise to secure states their own citizen militias to provide for the people’s defense.

The collective cannot have a right that each of its individual members do not, unto themselves, also hold.
Further, you cannot have a right to possess and use property owned by someone else.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

The collective cannot have a right that each of its individual members do not, unto themselves, also hold.
Further, you cannot have a right to possess and use property owned by someone else.

That is too silly. Corporations have rights and responsibilities that individuals do not have. The Federal government, state governments, municipal government, even cooperatives and condos all have responsibilities and rights their members do not have.

Ditto of course with the National Guard and its officers, which are formally under the Commander and Chief, who has “the ultimate right” to order it into action. You think every member of the National Guard or Army has the “right” to refuse an order?

 

[badbob85037]

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.

The Second Amendment was a failure from the start, and should have been repealed 200 years ago

There is no such thing as an unconstrained right. Speech has limits. Religion has limits. Assembly has limits. The idea that any of these things can be completely “free” of government oversight is a pipedream, and everyone from the founders to the...

www.dailykos.com

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.

Shut the fuck up and move to another country where they are all cowards and need the government to protect the your rat ass.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

Shut the fuck up and move to another country where they are all cowards and need the government to protect the your rat ass.

This is another stupid response to a serious historically grounded OP. If you disagree with skews13 ’s analysis of the 2nd Amendment and its judicial interpretation in the past, surely you can give a better response. You just discredit yourself by responding this way.

 

[badbob85037]

That is too silly. Corporations have rights and responsibilities that individuals do not have. The Federal government, state governments, municipal government, even cooperatives and condos all have responsibilities and rights their members do not have.

Ditto of course with the National Guard and its officers, which are formally under the Commander and Chief, who has “the ultimate right” to order it into action. You think every member of the National Guard or Army has the “right” to refuse an order?

Sure he does as he says Don't ask what you can do for the country but what you can do the country for. Not only did he not serve the military he has never volunteered for anything except government hand outs, methadone, and food stamps. I know what he is thinking. 'This guy must know me'. No and I don't want too. It's just you worthless shits are all a like.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

I don’t know either him or you. I’m also not interested in “mind reading” or guessing what he or you are really like. All I see is that he has made an historical argument and you are responding with vulgar personal attacks.

By the way, I have registered weapons, and a concealed carry license, and I used to belong to the NRA. I don’t agree with the OP completely. I also don’t appreciate your insults — but go ahead if you must. As I said, you are just further discrediting yourself.

 

[Cellblock2429]

I like the saying, "When guns are outlawed they will take my gun from my cold, dead hand." It sounds like a good idea.

/——-/ Adolf would be proud of you.

 

[Friends]

Shut the fuck up and move to another country where they are all cowards and need the government to protect the your rat ass.

I want the government to protect me from potential criminals like you. Sensible gun laws would deny you the right to own a gun. When you acquired one anyway, you would be severely punished.

 

[bripat9643]

The possibility that Trump will set up a dictatorship is too remote for me to worry about. Too many people like me hate him. The possibility that I will be shot with a gun is incomparably greater.

However, the the possibility that Biden or some other Dim will become a dictator is quite significant. Hence, the reason we need to own guns.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I want the government to protect me from potential criminals like you. Sensible gun laws would deny you the right to own a gun. When you acquired one anyway, you would be severely punished.

Your opinion does not matter.

 

[M14 Shooter]

That is too silly. Corporations have rights and responsibilities that individuals do not have.

We're not talking about corporations or governments.
We're talking about a group of individuals that, collectively, have the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.
This right cannot exist unless each of the individuals in the collective also have that right.

 

[Friends]

However, the the possibility that Biden or some other Dim will become a dictator is quite significant. Hence, the reason we need to own guns.

Biden does not want to be a dictator. Trump does.

 

[miketx]

Biden does not want to be a dictator. Trump does.

Sez the lying bitch.