Reworking the 2nd Amendment (1 Viewer)

[Ditkaless Wonders]

It seems clear that thee is a misunderstanding of the 2nd Amendment in this country and an urge by many to disregard it or interpret it away. The arguments on interpretation have raged for generations and we have gotten no closer to national consensus.  I would like to see if we can forge consensus on a new second amendment.  Something to replace what we have.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons and effects is a fundamental right, not established by government, but inherent to all humanity.  The protection of this right is not dependent upon government  intervention.  Each individual has the right to protect themselves, their property, and their families.  Likewise the people have the right to not be preyed upon , killed, or otherwise victimized or trespassed upon by their fellow citizens wielding unreasonably deadly weapons due to automatic rates of fire.  Given this, the right of the people to keep and bear non-automatic fire firearms lacking incendiary or explosive projectile capability for defensive purposes shall not be infringed.  Infringement shall not include restrictions designed or intended to prevent possession or use of the firearm by the under-aged or mentally or emotionally infirm, nor shall it include provisions designed to compensate or insure fellow citizens against the misuse of the firearm.

Please, take a shot yourselves.  lets see what we get.  

 

[msommer]

What is a militia?

How is a militia regulated?

 

[The Indestructible]

Originalism: the 2nd amendment only protects the right to bear the type of "arms" that were in existence at the time the amendment was drafted.  Any "arms" that were invented after the amendment was drafted could not have been contemplated (and thus intended) by the drafters, so such "arms" are not covered by the 2nd amendment.    

 

[Apple Jack]

What is a militia?

How is a militia regulated?

SR-13 or whatever tf lol boogeyman it was that Gillespie was running on?

 

[Joe Summer]

Originalism: the 2nd amendment only protects the right to bear the type of "arms" that were in existence at the time the amendment was drafted. Any "arms" that were invented after the amendment was drafted could not have been contemplated (and thus intended) by the drafters, so such "arms" are not covered by the 2nd amendment.

I've always thought that it was weird that 2nd Amendment buffs will defend the right to own automatic weapons but they won't defend the right to own lasers, missiles, or nuclear weapons. Arms are arms, amiright??

 

[The Indestructible]

I've always thought that it was weird that 2nd Amendment buffs will defend the right to own automatic weapons but they won't defend the right to own lasers, missiles, or nuclear weapons. Arms are arms, amiright??

Bob Cunningham  ❄‏ @BCunningham215

Who cares if Kim Jong-un gets a nuke? Nukes don’t kill people, PEOPLE kill people. ... see how ******* stupid that sounds? #GunControl

 

[dickey moe]

Great first post and then straight downhill from there.

 

[Jayrod]

I've always thought that it was weird that 2nd Amendment buffs will defend the right to own automatic weapons but they won't defend the right to own lasers, missiles, or nuclear weapons. Arms are arms, amiright??

Wait, why can't I own lasers?

My cat will be very disappointed.

 

[culdeus]

When lightsabers are invented I want one, ok?

 

[OrtonToOlsen]

Great first post and then straight downhill from there.

The Dead.  SLO Taco Bell. 1968

https://i.redd.it/rp1i9rk5oqwz.jpg

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I don't think you'll find any originalist who believe that constitutional rights are limited to the technological context they were authored in.  No originalists argue that you have no First Amendment rights over what you write on the internet.  

My own reading of the original text of the Second Amendment is something like this:

"Because our federal system requires states and the federal government to be dual sovereigns, states must be able to raise militias.  Because states raise their militias from the people, the federal government must not be allowed to infringe on the rights of the people to keep weapons within their homes."

I do think there is a constitutional right to self-defense within the home, but I think that is likely among the unenumerated rights referred to in the 9th Amendment.  The common-law right to self-defense in the home (the so-called "castle doctrine") was well established under the English Common law at that time.

So my re-formulation of a "modern" Second Amendment, would read something like this:

"The People retain the right to keep such arms as are reasonable to secure their self-defense.  Nothing in this Amendment shall be construed to constrain the Congress from establishing reasonable restrictions on the right to carry and use arms necessary to secure the health and welfare of the populace, particularly such regulations as relate to the right to use and carry firearms in public places."

 

[IvanKaramazov]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons and effects is a fundamental right, not established by government, but inherent to all humanity.  The protection of this right is not dependent upon government  intervention.  Each individual has the right to protect themselves, their property, and their families.  Likewise the people have the right to not be preyed upon , killed, or otherwise victimized or trespassed upon by their fellow citizens wielding unreasonably deadly weapons due to automatic rates of fire.  Given this, the right of the people to keep and bear non-automatic fire firearms lacking incendiary or explosive projectile capability for defensive purposes shall not be infringed.  Infringement shall not include restrictions designed or intended to prevent possession or use of the firearm by the under-aged or mentally or emotionally infirm, nor shall it include provisions designed to compensate or insure fellow citizens against the misuse of the firearm.

Would this allow me to purchase a phase plasma rifle in a 40 watt range?

 

[dickey moe]

I don't think you'll find any originalist who believe that constitutional rights are limited to the technological context they were authored in.  No originalists argue that you have no First Amendment rights over what you write on the internet.  

My own reading of the original text of the Second Amendment is something like this:

"Because our federal system requires states and the federal government to be dual sovereigns, states must be able to raise militias.  Because states raise their militias from the people, the federal government must not be allowed to infringe on the rights of the people to keep weapons within their homes."

I do think there is a constitutional right to self-defense within the home, 

But not outside of the home? I'm interested in the legal arguments/opinions that would make such a distinction.

 

[msommer]

But not outside of the home? I'm interested in the legal arguments/opinions that would make such a distinction.

As part of their regulated militia duties, perhaps

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

But not outside of the home? I'm interested in the legal arguments/opinions that would make such a distinction.

My argument relies upon three premises.

1) The language about militias had to mean something.  We try to read a provision to avoid rendering a part of that provision surplusage.  So the need for the state to have a well-regulated militia was advanced as a justification for the right to keep and bear arms.  I don't believe that meant that the right was a "collective right" assigned to militias as opposed to a personal right assigned to the people. I believe it was a personal right that served a collective purpose, i.e. ensuring that the federal government could not interfere in the states' rights to muster their militias by eliminating the states' residents' rights to own guns.  

2)  A lot of the Constitution seems to view the rights of the people in their homes to be of special concern.  The Second Amendment precedes the Third Amendment which prohibits the federal government from quartering troops in people's homes.  And the Third Amendment precedes the Fourth Amendment, which protects the papers and possessions located on a citizen's person (body) and in his or her homes.  Even the First Amendment recognizes a difference between what you might be able to view in the privacy of your home, and what you may be regulated from displaying publicly.  So you can watch stuff on your computer that you probably can't project on a screen outside the elementary school.

3)  Self-defense is never mentioned in the 2nd Amendment.  But it was an established right in the home under the common law.  And the Ninth Amendment, if it means anything, means that the enumeration of other rights in the Bill of Rights isn't meant to exclude rights that had already been established under the common law.  Which means that I don't think the Founders mentioned self-defense in the 2nd Amendment because it wasn't what they were drafting the 2nd Amendment to address and they believed the right already existed anyway.  There were good reasons to view the right to self-defense as most absolute in the home.  In public, your rights more commonly conflict with other's rights.  While you may have the right to ensure your own well-being, others have the right to be free of apprehension or intimidation.  Government's power to regulate is always more acceptable when it is regulating public conduct because the government is charged with balancing competing individual rights.  Property rights, by their very nature, define whose interests take priority.  So when we assign property rights, we sanction the idea that within the bounds of that property the owner's rights are superior to all others.  So the right to self-defense should be no different.  

I should briefly mention one other thing.  When the Bill of Rights was ratified, nobody anticipated that it would be applied to Maryland or Baltimore.  It was solely concerned with limiting the power exerted by the Federal government.  It wasn't until the 14th Amendment was ratified that anyone even could begin to consider what the 2nd Amendment would prevent your state or local government from doing.  

With all that in mind, I just think it's really hard to argue that the Second Amendment was meant to protect the right to concealed carry.  Or even the right to go about in public with any class of firearm you wish.  As a practical matter, I also think that this framework addresses the very real competing interests in vindicating individual rights while ensuring the abilitly to sufficiently regulate in the public interest.  

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I've always thought that it was weird that 2nd Amendment buffs will defend the right to own automatic weapons but they won't defend the right to own lasers, missiles, or nuclear weapons. Arms are arms, amiright??

At the time it was written there were ship of war in private hands.  Marques of reprisal are written into our Constitution.  It probably did mean a far more expansive right of armament than we think of today.  that said, allowing me an aircraft career or a nuclear sub is not something I want to argue for.  Thus the idea of writing a new 2nd amendment.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

My argument relies upon three premises.

1) The language about militias had to mean something.  We try to read a provision to avoid rendering a part of that provision surplusage.  So the need for the state to have a well-regulated militia was advanced as a justification for the right to keep and bear arms.  I don't believe that meant that the right was a "collective right" assigned to militias as opposed to a personal right assigned to the people. I believe it was a personal right that served a collective purpose, i.e. ensuring that the federal government could not interfere in the states' rights to muster their militias by eliminating the states' residents' rights to own guns.  

2)  A lot of the Constitution seems to view the rights of the people in their homes to be of special concern.  The Second Amendment precedes the Third Amendment which prohibits the federal government from quartering troops in people's homes.  And the Third Amendment precedes the Fourth Amendment, which protects the papers and possessions located on a citizen's person (body) and in his or her homes.  Even the First Amendment recognizes a difference between what you might be able to view in the privacy of your home, and what you may be regulated from displaying publicly.  So you can watch stuff on your computer that you probably can't project on a screen outside the elementary school.

3)  Self-defense is never mentioned in the 2nd Amendment.  But it was an established right in the home under the common law.  And the Ninth Amendment, if it means anything, means that the enumeration of other rights in the Bill of Rights isn't meant to exclude rights that had already been established under the common law.  Which means that I don't think the Founders mentioned self-defense in the 2nd Amendment because it wasn't what they were drafting the 2nd Amendment to address and they believed the right already existed anyway.  There were good reasons to view the right to self-defense as most absolute in the home.  In public, your rights more commonly conflict with other's rights.  While you may have the right to ensure your own well-being, others have the right to be free of apprehension or intimidation.  Government's power to regulate is always more acceptable when it is regulating public conduct because the government is charged with balancing competing individual rights.  Property rights, by their very nature, define whose interests take priority.  So when we assign property rights, we sanction the idea that within the bounds of that property the owner's rights are superior to all others.  So the right to self-defense should be no different.  

I should briefly mention one other thing.  When the Bill of Rights was ratified, nobody anticipated that it would be applied to Maryland or Baltimore.  It was solely concerned with limiting the power exerted by the Federal government.  It wasn't until the 14th Amendment was ratified that anyone even could begin to consider what the 2nd Amendment would prevent your state or local government from doing.  

With all that in mind, I just think it's really hard to argue that the Second Amendment was meant to protect the right to concealed carry.  Or even the right to go about in public with any class of firearm you wish.  As a practical matter, I also think that this framework addresses the very real competing interests in vindicating individual rights while ensuring the abilitly to sufficiently regulate in the public interest.  

Thank you for your contribution.  Well reasoned and stated, in my estimation.

 

[dickey moe]

My argument relies upon three premises.

1) The language about militias had to mean something.  We try to read a provision to avoid rendering a part of that provision surplusage.  So the need for the state to have a well-regulated militia was advanced as a justification for the right to keep and bear arms.  I don't believe that meant that the right was a "collective right" assigned to militias as opposed to a personal right assigned to the people. I believe it was a personal right that served a collective purpose, i.e. ensuring that the federal government could not interfere in the states' rights to muster their militias by eliminating the states' residents' rights to own guns.  

2)  A lot of the Constitution seems to view the rights of the people in their homes to be of special concern.  The Second Amendment precedes the Third Amendment which prohibits the federal government from quartering troops in people's homes.  And the Third Amendment precedes the Fourth Amendment, which protects the papers and possessions located on a citizen's person (body) and in his or her homes.  Even the First Amendment recognizes a difference between what you might be able to view in the privacy of your home, and what you may be regulated from displaying publicly.  So you can watch stuff on your computer that you probably can't project on a screen outside the elementary school.

3)  Self-defense is never mentioned in the 2nd Amendment.  But it was an established right in the home under the common law.  And the Ninth Amendment, if it means anything, means that the enumeration of other rights in the Bill of Rights isn't meant to exclude rights that had already been established under the common law.  Which means that I don't think the Founders mentioned self-defense in the 2nd Amendment because it wasn't what they were drafting the 2nd Amendment to address and they believed the right already existed anyway.  There were good reasons to view the right to self-defense as most absolute in the home.  In public, your rights more commonly conflict with other's rights.  While you may have the right to ensure your own well-being, others have the right to be free of apprehension or intimidation.  Government's power to regulate is always more acceptable when it is regulating public conduct because the government is charged with balancing competing individual rights.  Property rights, by their very nature, define whose interests take priority.  So when we assign property rights, we sanction the idea that within the bounds of that property the owner's rights are superior to all others.  So the right to self-defense should be no different.  

I should briefly mention one other thing.  When the Bill of Rights was ratified, nobody anticipated that it would be applied to Maryland or Baltimore.  It was solely concerned with limiting the power exerted by the Federal government.  It wasn't until the 14th Amendment was ratified that anyone even could begin to consider what the 2nd Amendment would prevent your state or local government from doing.  

With all that in mind, I just think it's really hard to argue that the Second Amendment was meant to protect the right to concealed carry.  Or even the right to go about in public with any class of firearm you wish.  As a practical matter, I also think that this framework addresses the very real competing interests in vindicating individual rights while ensuring the abilitly to sufficiently regulate in the public interest.  

Great posting - thanks.

 

[OrtonToOlsen]

2)  A lot of the Constitution seems to view the rights of the people in their homes to be of special concern.  The Second Amendment precedes the Third Amendment which prohibits the federal government from quartering troops in people's homes.  And the Third Amendment precedes the Fourth Amendment, which protects the papers and possessions located on a citizen's person (body) and in his or her homes. 

My students learn that Amendments 2,3, and 4 are direct responses to crap the British pulled on the colonists.

"Remember when the British could force us to provide room and board to soldiers?  And remember when they would search our homes and belongings without a warrant? And remember when they marched to Concord to confiscate out weapons?  Yeah?  Let's put it writing that the government can't do that to us."

 

[IC FBGCav]

What firearm kills the most people domestically?

Type not model.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

My students learn that Amendments 2,3, and 4 are direct responses to crap the British pulled on the colonists.

"Remember when the British could force us to provide room and board to soldiers?  And remember when they would search our homes and belongings without a warrant? And remember when they marched to Concord to confiscate out weapons?  Yeah?  Let's put it writing that the government can't do that to us."

My law school, like most law schools, had a parody show where you'd write and present purportedly comic skits.  My contribution, Thanks For the Third, imagined a modern couple forced to house a regiment of particularly annoying 18th century soldiers. I wrote it just so that I could wear a silly costume and say lines like, "Verily, I implore you to avoid your indoor outhouse for at least a fortnight."

 

[lod001]

A lot of the constitution, including amendment 2, would be rewritten if the founding fathers saw what USA circa 2017 was like.

 

[Ilov80s]

What is a militia?

How is a militia regulated?

Not sure how we define it exactly but Michigan has a long history of them. That's where the Ok City bombing came from.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

My law school, like most law schools, had a parody show where you'd write and present purportedly comic skits.  My contribution, Thanks For the Third, imagined a modern couple forced to house a regiment of particularly annoying 18th century soldiers. I wrote it just so that I could wear a silly costume and say lines like, "Verily, I implore you to avoid your indoor outhouse for at least a fortnight."

This is why Trump won.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

What is a militia?

How is a militia regulated?

 

[Sheriff Bart]

What is a militia?

How is a militia regulated?

Immodium

 

[Politician Spock]

Here is how I would change it:

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 by the Federal government.

That keeps the entire intent of this amendment by the founders completely intact. Yet it allows the states to regulate militias, again like the founding fathers intended.

The states should be making the gun rules. 

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Here is how I would change it:

That keeps the entire intent of this amendment by the founders completely intact. Yet it allows the states to regulate militias, again like the founding fathers intended.

The states should be making the gun rules. 

Thanks for your participation in both threads.  I gained something of value from what you were just giving away, your perspective.  Much appreciated.

 

[IC FBGCav]

I am not as educated as you guys but I have lived 20 plus years in PA and NC.  I think this gives me a somewhat unique prespective.   When I hear let the states decide, i think well okay, they can be bought for much less.  I don't know but I find it hard to believe on any level that politicians respond to anything other than being re-elected or funding.  

 

[timschochet]

What fascinates me is: why is the language about the militia in there? In the entire Bill of Rights, there is no other justification for a right mentioned. For example, the 1st Amendment doesn't say,

Religious freedom being crucial to a free society, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, etc.

The bolded part isn't there because it's superfluous- they assumed we knew that. Yet in the case of the 2nd Amendment and ONLY in the case of the 2nd Amendment, there is explaining language regarding a militia. Yet we're supposed to assume that it doesn't mean anything? I can't accept that.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I think the part about the militia helps inform us about what individual rights, specifically, the subsequent language meant to protect. For example, children and mentally ill people (and felons?) can reasonably be excluded from a militia, so perhaps the right to have guns doesn't extend to them. Militias aren't typically very helpful on school grounds or in courthouses, so perhaps the right to carry guns doesn't extend to those places. Militias commonly used rifles, but not nukes, so maybe the right to bear nukes is not protected. The lines get really fuzzy on all of these types of issues at the margins, so there will always be hard cases when it comes to drawing precise lines, but that's the law for you.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Please, take a shot yourselves.  lets see what we get.  

I propose rewriting the Second Amendment to read as follows:

“The electoral college is abolished; the President shall be elected by direct popular vote. All United States citizens 18 and over shall have the right to vote in any public election in their jurisdiction of residence. The cultivation and sale of marijuana for personal use by adults 21 and over shall not be prohibited. Banning guns is fine.”

 

[msommer]

I propose rewriting the Second Amendment to read as follows:

“The electoral college is abolished; the President shall be elected by direct popular vote. All United States citizens 18 and over shall have the right to vote in any public election in their jurisdiction of residence. The cultivation and sale of marijuana for personal use by adults 21 and over shall not be prohibited. Banning guns is fine.”

 

even if slightly off topic  

 

[Politician Spock]

What fascinates me is: why is the language about the militia in there? In the entire Bill of Rights, there is no other justification for a right mentioned. For example, the 1st Amendment doesn't say,

Religious freedom being crucial to a free society, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, etc.

The bolded part isn't there because it's superfluous- they assumed we knew that. Yet in the case of the 2nd Amendment and ONLY in the case of the 2nd Amendment, there is explaining language regarding a militia. Yet we're supposed to assume that it doesn't mean anything? I can't accept that.

To me it is saying this:

"Because anti-gun proponents have many valid points that people should not bear arms, we are only allowing people the right to bear arms because wars against other states can't be fought by farmers with pitchforks."

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I propose rewriting the Second Amendment to read as follows:

“The electoral college is abolished; the President shall be elected by direct popular vote. All United States citizens 18 and over shall have the right to vote in any public election in their jurisdiction of residence. The cultivation and sale of marijuana for personal use by adults 21 and over shall not be prohibited. Banning guns is fine.”

Mentally I am going to put you down as supporting a Constitutional Convention.

 

[Zow]

My argument relies upon three premises.

1) The language about militias had to mean something.  We try to read a provision to avoid rendering a part of that provision surplusage.  So the need for the state to have a well-regulated militia was advanced as a justification for the right to keep and bear arms.  I don't believe that meant that the right was a "collective right" assigned to militias as opposed to a personal right assigned to the people. I believe it was a personal right that served a collective purpose, i.e. ensuring that the federal government could not interfere in the states' rights to muster their militias by eliminating the states' residents' rights to own guns.  

2)  A lot of the Constitution seems to view the rights of the people in their homes to be of special concern.  The Second Amendment precedes the Third Amendment which prohibits the federal government from quartering troops in people's homes.  And the Third Amendment precedes the Fourth Amendment, which protects the papers and possessions located on a citizen's person (body) and in his or her homes.  Even the First Amendment recognizes a difference between what you might be able to view in the privacy of your home, and what you may be regulated from displaying publicly.  So you can watch stuff on your computer that you probably can't project on a screen outside the elementary school.

3)  Self-defense is never mentioned in the 2nd Amendment.  But it was an established right in the home under the common law.  And the Ninth Amendment, if it means anything, means that the enumeration of other rights in the Bill of Rights isn't meant to exclude rights that had already been established under the common law.  Which means that I don't think the Founders mentioned self-defense in the 2nd Amendment because it wasn't what they were drafting the 2nd Amendment to address and they believed the right already existed anyway.  There were good reasons to view the right to self-defense as most absolute in the home.  In public, your rights more commonly conflict with other's rights.  While you may have the right to ensure your own well-being, others have the right to be free of apprehension or intimidation.  Government's power to regulate is always more acceptable when it is regulating public conduct because the government is charged with balancing competing individual rights.  Property rights, by their very nature, define whose interests take priority.  So when we assign property rights, we sanction the idea that within the bounds of that property the owner's rights are superior to all others.  So the right to self-defense should be no different.  

I should briefly mention one other thing.  When the Bill of Rights was ratified, nobody anticipated that it would be applied to Maryland or Baltimore.  It was solely concerned with limiting the power exerted by the Federal government.  It wasn't until the 14th Amendment was ratified that anyone even could begin to consider what the 2nd Amendment would prevent your state or local government from doing.  

With all that in mind, I just think it's really hard to argue that the Second Amendment was meant to protect the right to concealed carry.  Or even the right to go about in public with any class of firearm you wish.  As a practical matter, I also think that this framework addresses the very real competing interests in vindicating individual rights while ensuring the abilitly to sufficiently regulate in the public interest.  

That was... that was perfect. 

/James carville on Old School

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

A lot of the constitution, including amendment 2, would be rewritten if the founding fathers saw what USA circa 2017 was like.

I don't think so. We've done pretty damned well.

 

[Black Box]

Good thread. I have nothing to add other than it has been a good read and thought provoking.

 

[culdeus]

What firearm kills the most people domestically?

Type not model.

This is difficult to quantify because the NRA takes measures to make sure we can't fully understand the statistics, but the slide fired pistol AFAIK is the leading killer.  Pistols as a generic item account for 72% of murders.  

If I had to guess I'd imagine the semi-auto 9mm pistol accounts for half of all homicides in this country.  (Think, glock). 

The NRA takes steps to obfuscate the data like ensuring we don't know the magazine size of the firearm, length of barrel, or action mechanism.  

In this way FBI reports out "Rifle" and this means anything that is like a rifle.  

And murders that happen where they know it is a gunshot, but don't find the weapon they put it as "other" even with ballistics information available.  

Neat country.  And remember, Trump signed additional measures to make sure we don't do further research on this topic.  

 

[culdeus]

If I had to rewrite the 2nd I would make some language that addresses that congress will make restrictions as to what is a reasonable level of arms.  This would give leeway to alter things over time as we get technology like lightsabers, blasters, torque bows, and personal car mounted rail guns.  

The way that the 2nd is written now is too restrictive from the perspective of being able to change just about anything.  

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I think I'd start with the commas.

 

[abbottjamesr]

I'm not a huge history buff or anything, but it is important to remember that the US was a very different country in 1791 when the Bill of Rights was enacted.  There were only 13 states at the start of 1791 and 14 at the end of the year.  The population of the country was estimated at 2.5 million and the US army was around 2,500 soldiers and did not hit 5000 till 1793.  The army was essentially the state militias at that time.  We had just come out of a war for our independence and were very uneasy about giving the central government to much power as well as the US government was not very powerful anyway. 

Our assumptions today about what the relationship between the Federal Gov. and the States Gov. should be is very different and if the BoR were re-written in 2017 it would look nothing like what it currently does.  I agree that the assumption was that folks at the right to protect there own property and life with the weapons at the time, but if rewriting the 2nd amend. today I don't think we would assume that.  A majority of the population today and certainly most of our law makers live in urban or suburban areas and don't see any practical use for firearms, and for them they are probably right.  However, it should not be assumed that all 330 million Americans want to live that life and that some prefer to live "off the grid" and away from the urban life.  These people have the right to protect them selves and their property, and to me this is a basic right of all people.  

Personally I think the Feds should not restrict the right to own weapons of any type.  Regulation of the allowable weapons should be at the state level.  

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I'm not a huge history buff or anything, but it is important to remember that the US was a very different country in 1791 when the Bill of Rights was enacted.  There were only 13 states at the start of 1791 and 14 at the end of the year.  The population of the country was estimated at 2.5 million and the US army was around 2,500 soldiers and did not hit 5000 till 1793.  The army was essentially the state militias at that time.  We had just come out of a war for our independence and were very uneasy about giving the central government to much power as well as the US government was not very powerful anyway. 

Our assumptions today about what the relationship between the Federal Gov. and the States Gov. should be is very different and if the BoR were re-written in 2017 it would look nothing like what it currently does.  I agree that the assumption was that folks at the right to protect there own property and life with the weapons at the time, but if rewriting the 2nd amend. today I don't think we would assume that.  A majority of the population today and certainly most of our law makers live in urban or suburban areas and don't see any practical use for firearms, and for them they are probably right.  However, it should not be assumed that all 330 million Americans want to live that life and that some prefer to live "off the grid" and away from the urban life.  These people have the right to protect them selves and their property, and to me this is a basic right of all people.  

Personally I think the Feds should not restrict the right to own weapons of any type.  Regulation of the allowable weapons should be at the state level.  

This is all true.  Technically, if we really want to do an originalist analysis of the contemporary right to bear arms, we need to look to what the understanding of the 2nd Amendment was when the 14th Amendment (which incorporated the 2nd Amendment against the states) was ratified.  .  Most state constitutions that I've read have their own provision on the right to bear arms.  Many of them explicitly cite a right to self-defense.  Many of those provisions appear to have been modified in 1868, which was when the 14th Amendment was ratified.  

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

In Act of Heresy, N.R.A.’s Former No. 2 Calls for Gun Control

A new book from a controversial former executive accuses the National Rifle Association of “appealing to the paranoia and darkest side of our members.”

The National Rifle Association’s former second-in-command is breaking with the group’s orthodoxy and calling for universal background checks and so-called red flag laws in a new book assailing the organization as more focused on money and internal intrigue than the Second Amendment, while thwarting constructive dialogue on gun violence.

The former executive, Joshua L. Powell, who was fired by the N.R.A. in January, reinforces the kind of criticism made of the organization by gun control groups and state regulators, but it is the first critical look at its recent history by such a high-ranking insider.

He describes the N.R.A.’s longtime chief executive, Wayne LaPierre, as a woefully inept manager, but also a skilled lobbyist with a deft touch at directing President Trump to support the group’s objectives, and who repeatedly reeled in the president’s flirtations with even modest gun control measures.

The book, “Inside the N.R.A.: A Tell-All Account of Corruption, Greed, and Paranoia Within the Most Powerful Political Group in America,” is to be published next week, the latest public calamity for an organization that has faced years of headlines detailing allegations of corruption, infighting and even its infiltration by a Russian agent.

...

During his more than three-year tenure, Mr. Powell served at various periods as Mr. LaPierre’s top deputy, and chief of staff, and likens himself to Ned Stark, a well-meaning and ultimately ill-fated counselor to a king in the television show “Game of Thrones.”

A hunter since childhood and former Chicago options and derivatives trader, Mr. Powell says that the N.R.A. has fundamentally lost its way, abandoning “its roots as an organization focused on gun safety and education.” That has led it to limit its own long-term membership growth, he argues, by turning its back on the majority of gun owners who support background checks.

After the 2012 Sandy Hook massacre at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., the N.R.A. rebuffed new gun control measures and instead promoted a “School Shield” program in which it would help review and recommend school safety countermeasures like arming security guards. Mr. Powell writes that he worked to boost the program after discovering it was little more than empty rhetoric — in the four years after Sandy Hook, the N.R.A. assessed the safety of only three schools.

“Wayne was out there selling the program to our members, raising money off it, claiming we were protecting kids’ schools,” he writes. “It was another example of the wizard behind the curtain — lots of inflamed rhetoric and fireworks and noise, but very little effective action on countering gun violence.”

...

He estimates that a third of member dues are now being consumed by legal fees, and describes a culture where big spending was routine. Early in his three-year tenure, Mr. Powell writes, he was admonished for checking into a Sheraton hotel. “We all stay at the Ritz,” other executives told him. “Move your room.”

And he likened being hired as a senior N.R.A. executive to “Ray Liotta walking into the Copacabana in the movie Goodfellas.”

It is Mr. Powell’s comments on gun control — speaking as a former senior official at a group dedicated to opposing such change — that are the most striking. He is unconvinced that universal background checks would be effective, but he says “the N.R.A. is not in step with the majority of gun owners” on the issue and should take it off the table.

He also expresses support for red flag laws allowing law enforcement authorities to confiscate a gun owner’s weapons after warnings from relatives or friends — “as long as there is a process” that “involves both medical doctors and psychiatrists, and some sort of bipartisan oversight.”

Instead of considering such measures, the group, he writes, has been transformed into “an organization of ‘No,’ in response to any effort to quell gun violence,” and that also repeatedly blocked federal studies of gun violence, fearing their findings.

“The N.R.A. fueled a toxic debate,” Mr. Powell writes, “by appealing to the paranoia and darkest side of our members, in a way that has torn at the very fabric of America.”

- I think it's interesting that Powell frames the current gun debate and legislative anc ourt struggle as one of corruption driven largely by the largess enjoyed by the NRA's executives, not by issues of principle or reason.

 

[ren hoek]

I think people should be able to use anything a modern govt might wield against them to protect themselves.  Humans have the inherent right to self defense.  Which really ought to include the right to privacy from state surveillance too.  

But there obviously must be limits somehow.  People can't buy tactical nukes and use them however they feel like.  I've believed for a long time that an anarchist system with market economies, voluntary interaction, and decentralized power is possible.  But I don't know of any good answer for how you control nuclear weapons for example.  To this day I think the only thing that has spared us is the concept of mutually assured destruction.  I don't think any being on earth was ever meant to be capable of that kind of destruction.  What's scary about that is not that it's possible, but that any given species could ever dominate the earth like that, to reign supreme over all life as we know it.  It makes me sad to think about what we've done to the world, and how powerless natural/animal life are to stop it.  But I'm probably getting off track here.  

Darrell Castle was the Constitution Party's nominee in 2016, and I've always liked his quote on the 2nd amendment:

"There are reasons why attacks usually occur in gun free zones and not at NRA conventions. People in gun free enclaves are not only unarmed they have a 'cower in fear and hope he spares me' mindset. No one rushes the shooter while he is changing magazines they just wait to die. The surveillance state and a disarmed people are the government's answer but that is not the correct answer. In this world there are wolves and there are sheep but there are also sheep dogs. If you pull the sheep dog's teeth the wolves will run riot.

Disarmed people are defeated people just as a defeated army stacks its arms in front of the victors. Armed people are free people because they have the means of resistance in their hands. The American colonists were threatened with disarmament by the British and they rose to rebellion. Defense of one's self and family is everyone's responsibility. The government cannot and will not do it for you."