Would you support a bi-partisan rewrite of the 2nd?
Forums:
As the recent article below correctly notes: there has been very little in the way of efforts to either "re-write" or repeal the 2nd Amendment; understandably so, given the "heavy lifting" that would be required to make this happen in reality.
Astronomical odds of it happening aside, I don't see it as impossible if approached "correctly". Seems to me, the unspoken sticky wicket is the lack of an explicit enumeration in the Constitution to the "right of self defense". Without said enumeration, advocates for gun ownership are clinging to whatever interpretation that can be derived from the 2nd as written to allow for such. At the same time, it's apparent the 2nd wasn't intended to be a provision pertaining to the explicit right to *individual* self defense. I suspect the founding fathers regarded such a right as obvious and "self evident". However, it turns out that in general terms, Jefferson was mostly right in so far as his insistence via correspondence with Madison that the Bill of Rights be enumerated. I believe self defense slipped through the cracks on this front, BECAUSE it is so obvious and due to the nature of it being an inalienable right.
In practical terms, I'm curious if there could be bi-partisan support to find a way to bring the 2nd as written up to speed by enumerating the right to self defense in broad terms, yet also be reasonable in so far as limiting the destructive power any individual may possess?
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/03/guns-second-amendme...
- Log in to post comments
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Dan
The country couldn’t agree
The country couldn’t agree that women were equal, no chance to change the 2nd amendment. The action is in the courts.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Thumbkinetic
https://www.youtube.com
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=if+i+had+a+rocket+launcher+...
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Charlie
Pay attention Obama already
Pay attention Obama already did.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: St. Mark
OSAMEA!
OSAMEA!
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: _
>> it's apparent the 2nd wasn
>> it's apparent the 2nd wasn't intended to be a provision pertaining to the explicit right to *individual* self defense
You lost me here. The term, "the people", is used 12 times in the Constitution. Why would it apply to individuals in the 1st and 4th amendment, but mean something completely different in the 2nd?
"The right of the people" is literally the same subject in all 3 sentences.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: 19.5 Degrees
That's an interesting
That's an interesting question to ponder, but aren't you still just making an inference with respect to the existence of an explicit right to self defense?
There are a lot of interpretations that could be made vs. a statement along the lines of "the people shall always retain the right to pursue any recourse to preserve one's life or avoid bodily injury".
In reality, the 2nd leaves open the question of what purpose does the "right to keep and bear arms" exist for? It might seem obvious, but where is said purpose written? If anything, it's somehow related to "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", but even as written it's still not exactly explicit due to the grammatical style.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Ausonius
I wouldn't trust any
I wouldn't trust any progressive leftist with any changes to the Constitution.
It was designed to thwart the ambitions of people like that.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: ________
What would jerry do?
What would jerry do?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: good at drinking water
The Constitution was designed
>>>> any changes to the Constitution.
What do they call it when they change the Constitution?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Def. High
(((People like that)))
(((People like that)))
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: 19.5 Degrees
I wouldn't trust any
I wouldn't trust any progressive leftist with any changes to the Constitution<<<
Who said anything about a "progressive leftist"? Is there something about a genuine bipartisan effort you're adverse to?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Oaksterdam Dan
<<<<<What would jerry do?
<<<<<What would jerry do?
He would ponder it over a jelly roll then cruise on over to shakedown street
2nd amendment shakedown down now. Isn't that congress job to update outdated laws? Another thing there fucking up at.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: CT
Not with the current line up
Not with the current line up of clowns in Washington DC.
in fact no laws or changes should be made until there’s a complete wash of all current politicians and the current administration,
considering it’s the most corrupt we’ve seen in a lifetime.
throw them all out, both sides.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Def. High
I like my guys - don't throw
I like my guys - don't throw them out.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Alias
I don't foresee any scenario
I don't foresee any scenario in which we have agreement on what is "apparent".
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: vivalavuvuzela
At the end of the day I
At the end of the day I honestly don't think it directly matters whether any of us pleebs support or oppose the master plan. Que sera sera... they will do what they want, and it looks like it's closer than ever. I think we all know where it eventually leads - just more loss of freedoms, and same as it ever was> Repeat infinity.
That said, I would support a 'rewrite' even though it's just furthering the downward spiral our freedoms are in since 9/11.... *IF* there were clearly defined limits/steps for the inevitable next wave and wording to address future approaches to solving a problem that ain't going away overnight from passing a new law.
Basically, if/when nothing changes and murders still happen daily, what will the inevitable next step be? IF it's to be re-written it needs to be ironclad in meaning and interpretation going forward. Remove all debate and doubt or don't bother. I'd like to see it defined clearly and settled once and for all so we don't have to worry losing more freedoms after the next time. We all know it's just a slow chipping away, though. That is the direction it will continue to go, unless the tide of our society changes drastically.
TL,DR: I might support a rewrite if it completely removed the potential for controversy/interpretation and tighter restrictions down the road... permanently sealing this problem as done,solved, and any further debates completely settled. You can weaken some freedoms, but I also think the intent of the 2A should be clarified and strengthened against future attack and hysteria. Whatever is done needs to be the end all be all, not just a step by step erosion and revisiting it over and over after things don't get any better (they won't). But that's not gonna happen and nobody cares what I think. ;P
I would like it to offer some clear roadmap of what the possible plan would be when the shootings keep happening, and settle all interpretive debate once and for all... anything less is a waste of time and just a stopgap measure until the next time. Remove all doubt. That way we don't have to worry about continuous debate and calls to revisit it AGAIN after not achieving the desired results. I might be open to giving them ONE chance to alter it... make it right, settle it once and for all, and lock it in.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Sun so hot, clouds so low
The 2nd amendment could use
The 2nd amendment could use some clarification. In addition to what it already states, they should add “the people have the right to petition a Coup d’état carried out by a well armed militia like the one we already have- the United States Army.
To clarify, the people should have the right to override the commander in chief at any time during their presidency if it is petitioned and voted as such.
It should also state that the 2nd ain’t dick without the 1st
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: ________
I guess we are NOT taking
I guess we are NOT taking over
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: ________
https://twitter.com
https://twitter.com/intellectualAJ/status/969683471948972037
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: vivalavuvuzela
It definitely makes sense to
It definitely makes sense to address the murderous and miserable media and the awful visuals and emotions they are feeding our society 24/7. You reap what you sow...
How many times a day does your average American see, hear, or think about a bullet passing through a human body? There's NO WAY that is having anything but negative effects... especially on young minds. It's appalling to be honest. I have not watched prime time news or TV in years because of it. I CAN'T. I find it nerveracking and anxiety-inducing... can't imagine the responses it may trigger in a developing mind. Downright disgusting.
Our news alone should be rated R. Exposing a child to TV news, even in passing or in the background, almost constitutes mental abuse, IMNSHO.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Hitchhiker awaiting "true call"
How do we get news?
How do we get news?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: _
I agree with everything you
I agree with everything you said VivaLaVuvuzela. But all that should be addressed by good parenting or self-discipline, not by censoring or regulating media content.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: ________
https://twitter.com
https://twitter.com/RealDonaldTrFan/status/969629545925169157
Donald J. Trump @RealDonaldTrFan
FollowFollow @RealDonaldTrFan
More
Hope Hicks is leaving the White House! SAD! Already looking to replace her. Good news is theirs a NEW intern in the White House. Young and VERY attractive! Already lots of flirting going on. Very smooth legs! Not sure if she's in college or high school. #FridayFeeling
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: vivalavuvuzela
I would advise anyone to seek
I would advise anyone to seek out and find a source (or multiple sources) that isn't part of the glowing idiot box mainstream regimen of spoon-fed thoughts, strife, and misery.
I'm not saying no news... but I'm also not drinking from a polluted well just because it's the closest and most convenient.
Ender, I never believed in censorship.. I still don't. But clearly people are just too willfully ignorant and our media companies cannot be trusted to do the right thing in the face of viewership and profit. Almost like people WANT this crap, so they keep giving it. :/
2/3rds of this country either forms their opinions from it, or the TV/games/movies *ARE* the de facto parent. If a kid spends hours a day slaying people on Xbox or watching TV/movies, how much facetime or genuine positive parenting is really happening in the first place??
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Hitchhiker awaiting "true call"
You don't have any
You don't have any suggestions?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: ________
Twitter is the best for news
Twitter is the best for news FACT
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: An organ grinder’s tune
how come the British are
how come the British are better at journalism?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: 19.5 Degrees
IF it's to be re-written it
IF it's to be re-written it needs to be ironclad in meaning and interpretation going forward. Remove all debate and doubt or don't bother. I'd like to see it defined clearly and settled once and for all so we don't have to worry losing more freedoms after the next time. We all know it's just a slow chipping away, though. That is the direction it will continue to go, unless the tide of our society changes drastically.
TL,DR: I might support a rewrite if it completely removed the potential for controversy/interpretation and tighter restrictions down the road... permanently sealing this problem as done,solved, and any further debates completely settled. You can weaken some freedoms, but I also think the intent of the 2A should be clarified and strengthened against future attack and hysteria. Whatever is done needs to be the end all be all, not just a step by step erosion and revisiting it over and over after things don't get any better (they won't). But that's not gonna happen and nobody cares what I think. ;P<<<
^ this
I believe the lack of clarity pertaining to a "right to self defense" within the 2nd is THE root issue that needs to be addressed. A rewrite will likely not solve the problem of mass shootings, but at least it would put us on a more stable trajectory with respect to the debate (about regulation) in so far as it being grounded in more rational terms vs. a paradigm of polarization derived by fear ... with the pot always being stirred by various societal forces.
And for the record: I'm in favor of an individual's right to keep and bear arms. For better or for worse, guns are clearly a significant "democratic equalizer". Guns allow a 50 year old 5' 100 lbs woman to defend herself against a 21 yo thug who's 6' 3" 250 lbs and out to do her harm. Likewise, why should a 70 year old Vietnam vet who put one's life on the line for their country dodging bullets in the jungle be compelled to go "hand to hand" with some 6' 3" 250 lbs punk who would otherwise just as easily leave said vet for dead in a hold up? I could go on and on with examples. By the same token, I believe the destructive power any given individual should be allowed to possess ought to somehow be limited to the scope of immediate self defense needs. Not saying this would be an easy proposition ... since you only get one chance at living & there will invariably be different perspectives with respect to the degree to how far one should be able to go to preserve one's life.
However, just as "Freedom of Speech" is not absolute, I also believe the right to defend oneself is not absolute. For example, should one be able to kill innocent bystanders (by intention or not) in the process of defending oneself?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: New & Improved
Sounds like you're supporting
Sounds like you're supporting the status quo.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: 19.5 Degrees
Not in the least bit. I don
Not in the least bit. I don't believe the 2nd = right to self defense, yet would like to see said right codified broadly in reasonable terms.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: New & Improved
>>> I don't believe the 2nd =
>>> I don't believe the 2nd = right to self defense <<<
>>> And for the record: I'm in favor of an individual's right to keep and bear arms. For better or for worse, guns are clearly a significant "democratic equalizer". <<<
These don't square up.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: ________
maybe one should not take
maybe one should not take oneself so seriously
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: 19.5 Degrees
Read my original post.
Read my original post.
Do you believe a "right to self defense" is an inalienable right?
I believe the Bill of Rights was passed with almost zero debate and don't believe it's a reach to conclude the right to self defense was looked upon as something so obvious and self evident that it was simply "overlooked" in terms of the need to have it be enumerated.
In this sense, the only thing that doesn't "square up" is that an inalienable right, by definition, is not something that can be given or taken away by government.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: New & Improved
>> Do you believe a "right to
>> Do you believe a "right to self defense" is an inalienable right? <<
I think that's a different conversation.
The US Constitution states:
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.
I don't see it stating 2A as an inalienable right.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Hitchhiker awaiting "true call"
You have a beautiful
You have a beautiful vocabulary. It paints a pretty picture.
Truly captivating.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: 19.5 Degrees
>> Do you believe a "right to
>> Do you believe a "right to self defense" is an inalienable right? <<
I think that's a different conversation.
The US Constitution states:
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.
I don't see it stating 2A as an inalienable right.<<<
I agree with you wholeheartedly re: 2nd not purporting an inalienable right to self defense. For that matter, I think it's a big stretch to derive an enumerated "individual right to self defense" from the 2nd. In fact, I believe the 2nd has far more to do with the historical context of mitigating tyranny created by the centralization of military power vs. anything to with individual self defense.
What I'm ultimately saying is that Jefferson was 100% right in the need to spell out a Bill of Rights, but they fucked up by not including a right to self defense (probably because it was so obvious an inalienable right). I believe it's inextricably part of the same conversation.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Lucky Day
>>>>>I believe the Bill of
>>>>>I believe the Bill of Rights was passed with almost zero debate
Why do you believe that?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: 19.5 Degrees
>>>>>I believe the Bill of
>>>>>I believe the Bill of Rights was passed with almost zero debate
Why do you believe that?<<<
Perhaps I put it too simply, but ...
https://jeffersonhour.bandcamp.com/track/634-bill-of-rights
^ starting at 45:45 for a few minutes
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: VivalaSchwa
Does it say anything about
Does it say anything about ammunition in the 2nd Amendment?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Druba
(No subject)
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: That’s Nancy with the laughin’ face
Donnie wants to rewrite the
Donnie wants to rewrite the 22nd amendment and wants to know why America can't be more like China:
"He's now president for life. President for life. No, he's great," Trump said. "And look, he was able to do that. I think it's great. Maybe we'll have to give that a shot some day."
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: 19.5 Degrees
I wouldn't put it past him
I wouldn't put it past him just to be stirring the pot in order to agitate his detractors and cause them to appear to be more "hysterical" as part of advancing and cultivating the whole "deep state narrative".