Dare I say it? Repealing the Second Amendment. Is this an idea worth exploring?

Thank you for your response, and for pointing out the history of the 2nd Amendment and the Incorporation Doctrine. It is accurate that prior to the Incorporation Doctrine, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States. However, it's important to note that the original intent of the Second Amendment was to protect the right of the militia, not the individual right to bear arms. The interpretation of the Second Amendment as an individual right has only been more recent, dating back to the late 20th century.

There are several court precedents, scholarly treatises, and historical documentation that support the view that the Second Amendment was originally considered a collective right rather than an individual right.

1. United States v. Miller (1939) - The Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment did not protect a sawed-off shotgun that was not a type of weapon that would be used by a militia. This decision supports the view that the Second Amendment was primarily intended to protect the rights of the militia.
   
   
2. Malcolm, Joyce Lee. To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right. (1994) - A prominent historian, Joyce Lee Malcolm, wrote a treatise on the history of the Second Amendment, in which she argues that the right to bear arms in England was a right of the militia, not of the individual.
   
   
3. Scholarly articles by legal historian Akhil Reed Amar, such as "The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment" (199 - In this article, Amar argues that the original intent of the Second Amendment was to protect the right of the militia to bear arms, not the individual right to bear arms.
   
   
4. The Reports of the debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 - These reports document the debates among the framers of the Constitution, including the Second Amendment. In these debates, the focus was on the right of the militia to bear arms, not on the individual right to bear arms.
   
   
5. Historical treaties and laws, such as the Militia Acts of 1792, which required all able-bodied men to be enrolled in the militia and to provide their own firearms for military service. These laws support the view that the Second Amendment was primarily intended to protect the rights of the militia.
   

These court precedents, scholarly treatises, and historical documentation support the view that the Second Amendment was originally considered a collective right rather than an individual right, and that the individual right to bear arms was only established with the Supreme Court's decision in Heller v. Washington D.C.

You raise a valid point about the potential consequences of not having the Bill of Rights incorporated, but this is not what the OP was about. The OP was about the need for reconsideration of the Second Amendment in light of the increasing gun violence in the country. The argument was not about removing all individual rights to bear arms, but rather, the need for regulations and restrictions on access to firearms to protect public safety.

It's also important to address the core issues, such as poverty, poor education, and mental health, as you mentioned. However, these issues are not mutually exclusive with the need for gun control measures. Both can and should be addressed simultaneously to create a safer and better society for everyone.

 

This statement is partially correct. In the 1875 case of United States v. Cruikshank, the SCOTUS did hold that the federal government could not violate people's right to bear arms, but it also held that the Second Amendment did not apply to state or local governments or to individuals. The Court held that the right to bear arms was a right of the people in their collective capacity, as part of a well-regulated militia, and that the Second Amendment was aimed at limiting the power of the federal government to interfere with the states' ability to maintain their own militias.

 

which is not particularly useful given the fact that every other second amendment holding after that clearly recognized an individual right and McDonald incorporated the second, through the fourteenth upon the states

 

This quote is often attributed to Thomas Jefferson, but there is no evidence that he actually said or wrote it. It is a variation of a quote from Jefferson's contemporary, English political philosopher William Lloyd Garrison, who wrote "Liberty is the anti-dote to all tyrannies, whether domestic or foreign." So while the sentiment behind the quote is similar to Jefferson's ideas, the specific wording is not.

 

It doesn't matter it's true. Let's take something for instance I'm a gay man and I'm in a relationship with another man if I lived in Iran I would be worried about my government killing me over that I'm not worried about it here because I'm not afraid of the government.

 

That's a rather sweeping statement. My sense of your statement is that it's not quite right. But, why don't you list the court cases, and we'll debate, precisely, what was ruled upon?

 

perotista, that fact is a given, acknowledged in the OP, and not the point of the OP.

 

Miller=a contrived case that was a conspiracy between a FDR Fan boy who wanted to create support for the 1934 NFA (read the law review article "the Peculiar case of Miller vs the USA by Frye). Yet, even with the defendant not represented in the Supreme court, the court did not reject his position due to standing. If the collective right bullshit was present, standing would have disposed of the case. It didn't. Heller, and McDonald and Bruen are all individual rights based and even the dissent in Heller accepted the individual rights position-which of course is the standard in legal scholarship these days

https://uknowledge.uky.edu/law_facpub/265/

 

I have a gas mask and know how to use it.

What now?

 

I do not wish to live in a world where the government keeps me "safe".

Especially a part of that safety is being stripped of your rights.

 

You may be right, but people who support gun control tend to believe it will impact crime. They do not actually seek to restrict guns just to oppress people, for the most part. It’s like pro choice people saying pro life people just want to oppress women. Not usually the motive. Sure, judgmental beliefs may be there in both cases, but punishment isn’t the point. Lives are.

 

I disagree with your assessment of their position. They just think a hobby is less important than lives. They key really is to show that gun control does or does not have an impact.

 

Associated, maybe, but that’s not cause and effect. What about a change in policy leading to a change in outcomes? Hard analysis though even if the data exists as it is multifactorial

 

this belief is completely unfounded.

Patient point Chicago has very strict gun control compared to other cities. And it has a very high crime rate.

People try to excuse this by saying people are bringing guns in from outside and why couldn't you do that if you widened the area for which there was gun control. It will be the same thing just a bigger space.

This is a manipulation tactic telling people hey this will help reduce crime when there is no reason to ever believe that it would

They do not actually seek to restrict guns just to oppress people, for the most part. It’s like pro choice people saying pro life people just want to oppress women. Not usually the motive. Sure, judgmental beliefs may be there in both cases, but punishment isn’t the point. Lives are.[/QUOTE]
The point is it's not going to have this outcome. We can see it happening in real time there's experiments that have been done on this for decades.

 

Was 'anachronism' the word you were looking for? I tend to agree.

 

Your reply critiques my argument by suggesting that it only addresses the issue of gun violence, but ignores other forms of crime. It also implies that the argument is aimed towards banning guns, rather than finding a solution to reduce gun violence. However, the OP specifically states that it is about regulating the ownership and use of firearms, not about banning guns altogether. Though you have alluded to solutions, your reply fails to provide any alternative solutions for addressing all forms of crime. Overall, the reply does not effectively counter the original argument and seems to mischaracterize its intent.

 

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the intent to repeal the second amendment. The primary motive for repealing 2A is not to ban guns, altogether, though it is acknowledged that some regions might do just that, but it would be a regional policy, it is to remove gun ownership as a right, for I take the view, as stated in the OP, that the conditions that existed for it's inclusion in the constitution no longer exist, beyond the issues of self defense and hunting (which are still relevant, of course), and thus America doesn't need to make it a right, in order to allow citizens to own guns, just as milk, cars, housing, and all other items Americans possess are not rights enshrined in the constitution.

Your question implies that a repeal of the Second Amendment would automatically result in the government collecting all firearms from citizens. However, this is not necessarily the case. in fact, I'll go further and assert that this is not the case because the electorate won't allow it, (assuming that, in time, society evolved on the issue enough to repeal the amendment, though not likely now). A repeal of the Second Amendment would simply give the government the authority to regulate the ownership and use of firearms, which could involve a variety of measures, including background checks, licensing requirements, and limits on the types of firearms that can be owned. The exact nature of the regulations would depend on the legislation that is enacted. The question also fails to consider the potential benefits of regulation, such as reducing gun violence and making communities safer. See, as a 'right', each time the government attempts to regulate guns, second amendment advocates holler 'infringement'. What was once appropriate for the late 18th century, defense against tyrannical governments, doable given that no one had more than muskets and a few cannons, is not a realistic concept, today. I believe that the second amendment, makes regulation difficult and statistics show that sensible regulation saves lives, and thus the second amendment no longer serves the best interests of the country. Of course, gun advocates will not resist making a strawman out of the repeal, but, I expect that.

Most democrats, of which I am a member as a moderate, believe that it is affordable access to health care which should be a right, and not gun ownership. Some democrats, but not all, and that is likely a minority at this juncture, believe the second amendment should be repealed. My purpose here, is just to have a conversation about it.

 

What America would look like if citizens were disarmed.

https://m.youtube.com/shorts/s2aqu-xQ-2U

Imagine that, the cops were the only ones with guns yet they still considered an unarmed Asian a threat. That cops face though, he didn't know what to do, lol.

 

Nowhere in the OP is it asserted to ban gun ownership is the objective. Repealing the second amendment will not stop the manufacture and sale of guns just as the fact that milk, cars, and swimming pools, and a thousand other consumer goods and services are not banned in the market place, which are not enshrined as a right in the constitution.

.

 

Americans are not 'disarmed' and thus the police didn't know, with absolute certainty, the individual did not have a concealed weapon and he was moving rather briskly towards the officers, which could be interpreted as aggressive, though he had his hands up, noting that only takes a split second to reach for a concealed weapon. The fact that the individual was Asian is irrelevant.

Therefore, your premise, or what you are implying, is not correct.

 

Your premise of your question is a strawman. I suggest a review of the Carl Sagan Baloney Detection Kit, and scroll down to the section on the 'Slippery Slope Logical Fallacy".

Sorry, I didn't mean to be patronizing, but you left me no alternative, to your comment.

 

It's the truth because it's exactly what your advocating for.

Now tell me it's not true.

 

I wouldn't doubt that media hype is fuel to the fire, but that doesn't negate the premise that gun regulation saves lives.

In fact, your concern, though valid, is really a topic for another thread. Why not start an OP on that very subject? How do we deal with the media, and not violate the first amendment, regarding sensationalistic journalism? That is a very interesting subject, and a valid concern, indeed. Here's my commentary on it, a cursory look:

The concern raised about media sensationalism and its potential impact on mass shootings is a valid one, but it does not negate the argument for the repeal of the Second Amendment. While media coverage of mass shootings may contribute to copycat crimes, the root cause of the problem is still the ease of access to firearms.

However, media regulation and freedom of speech are separate issues from firearm regulation, and both are important and complex topics that need to be addressed. Regulating media to prevent sensationalistic coverage of mass shootings would likely raise First Amendment concerns, and finding a balance between the protection of free speech and the responsibility to minimize harm is a difficult task.

As for a rebuttal, it can be argued that instead of focusing solely on media regulation, we should focus on addressing the underlying issue of easy access to firearms. By regulating firearms, we can take steps to reduce the number of mass shootings and other gun-related crimes, making our communities safer for everyone. Additionally, it is important to address the root causes of violence, such as mental illness and social factors, and to provide resources and support to those who are struggling. By taking a comprehensive approach to addressing gun violence, we can make real progress towards reducing the number of mass shootings and making our communities safer.

 

You did not provide any credible sources to support you claim that countries with stricter gun control laws have higher rates of gun violence. However, there is a substantial amount of research and data available that supports the opposite conclusion.

For example, a study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which tracks firearms deaths, and a project at the Boston University School of Public Health, which tracks dozens of different provisions of gun laws in the 50 states found that gun control works:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/27/sta...ms-deaths-heres-how-your-state-stacks-up.html

Other research has also found a clear connection between stricter state gun laws and a lower rate of firearms-related deaths

In 2013, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health found that states with more gun laws had fewer gun-related deaths. The impact was seen for overall deaths, as well as for specific categories such as homicides and suicides.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/1661390

Another study published in January by a leading non-profit organization that focuses on gun violence prevention found that there is a direct correlation in states with weaker gun laws and higher rates of gun deaths, including homicides, suicides and accidental killings.

https://everytownresearch.org/rankings/

Additionally, a comprehensive review of 130 studies from 10 countries published in the Annual Review of Public Health concluded that firearms restrictions were associated with lower firearm deaths.

https://www.vox.com/2016/2/29/11120184/2016-gun-control-study-epidemiologic-reviews-deaths

It's important to consider multiple sources and data when evaluating complex issues like gun violence. It's not enough to make sweeping claims without providing credible evidence to support them.

 

The United States v. Miller case has been the subject of debate and criticism, with some suggesting that it was a contrived case arranged by a district judge sympathetic to New Deal gun control measures. However, this criticism overlooks several important aspects of the case.

Firstly, it is important to note that the Supreme Court did not reject the defendant's position due to lack of standing. In fact, the Court considered the case on the merits and issued a decision based on the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act. This demonstrates that the Court considered the case to be of significance and did not simply dismiss it on procedural grounds.

Additionally, it is inaccurate to suggest that the individual rights position was not present in Miller. As mentioned, the dicta in the case suggests that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess and use a weapon suitable for militia service. This language has been relied on in subsequent cases, including District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago, to support the argument that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

In conclusion, the United States v. Miller case was not a contrived case arranged to support the 1934 National Firearms Act, but rather a significant legal decision that considered the constitutionality of the act. While the decision did not provide a comprehensive interpretation of the Second Amendment, it did provide language that has been relied on to support the individual rights position in subsequent cases.

Forgive any redundancy in my reply, I will respond only to your link, as if that was all you presented:

The abstract in your link presents a negative view of the United States v. Miller case and argues that it is largely irrelevant to the contemporary debate over the Second Amendment. However, this view is misguided and overlooks the important role that Miller has played in shaping the modern understanding of the Second Amendment.

While it is true that the Supreme Court's decision in Miller was narrow and focused on the specific issue of the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act, the dicta in the opinion have had a significant impact on the development of Second Amendment jurisprudence. The language in Miller suggesting that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess and use a weapon suitable for militia service has been cited in numerous cases, including the landmark decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

Furthermore, the argument that Miller was a "test case" arranged by the government to support the constitutionality of federal gun control is based on speculation and lacks evidence. The fact that Jack Miller was a career criminal and government informant does not necessarily mean that the case was a set-up. Moreover, the Supreme Court's decision in Miller was not a rubber stamp of the government's position, but a thoughtful and independent analysis of the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act.

In conclusion, while the United States v. Miller case may not be a comprehensive answer to the question of the meaning of the Second Amendment, it has played an important role in shaping modern Second Amendment jurisprudence and cannot be dismissed as irrelevant.

So, yes, the United States v. Miller case has been cited in support of the individual right to bear arms. The dicta in the case suggests that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess and use a weapon suitable for militia service. This language has been relied on in subsequent cases, including District of Columbia v. Heller, to support the argument that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

However, it is important to note that Miller did not directly address the issue of whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms. The Supreme Court's decision was narrowly focused on the specific issue of the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act and did not provide a comprehensive interpretation of the Second Amendment.

As a result, Heller v. Washington D.C. was needed to clarify the scope of the Second Amendment and to establish the principle that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. In Heller, the Supreme Court explicitly recognized the individual right to bear arms and struck down a D.C. law that banned handgun possession in the home. This decision provided a more comprehensive interpretation of the Second Amendment and confirmed the individual right to bear arms as a central aspect of the amendment's protection.