Why the Second Amendment is superfluous

[Skwim]

This all came about because of a CBS Sunday Morning show today on guns, gun ownership, and gun violence.

As explained in the program:

The second Amendment was written so as to ensure the citizens of the USA had the wherewithal to thwart any attempt by Congress to take away states rights by force. In order to do so a well regulated militia was deemed necessary.
​

This reason was so crucial it was stated at the very top of the Amendment:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, . . ."
​

And why was establishing this reason necessary? Because it explained why the people had

" . . .the right of the people to keep and bear arms. . ."​

and what law would insure that both concepts here, the right to bear arms and the formation of a militia, would be met? It was that the right to keep and bear Arms

". . .[would] not be infringed.​

Hence, we have

"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."​

Note that the reason for all this wasn't to insure we have firearms for hunting, target practice, personal safety, or establishing one's manhood, but for "the security of a free State."

We therefore have the

WHAT: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.

WHY: regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

DIRECTIVE: shall not be infringed.​

So the test question here is: why were the citizens of the country protected from anyone taking their firearms from them? So they could form a militia. And this wasn't just any kind of militia but a "well regulated" one. But why "well regulated"? Because the framers of the Second Amendment recognized this was the only form of militia that stood a reasonable chance against a nationally assembled armed force.

So, the existence of the expressed rights in the Amendment are justified by one thing, and one thing only, the simple necessity of maintaining "a well regulated Militia."

Take away this reason and the stated need to keep and bear arms no longer exists. And having no stated need to keep and bear arms there's no reason to insure it.

The question then is, is a well regulated militia necessary to protect the rights of the states? Of course it isn't, which is why there aren't any. The Second Amendment has become superfluous.

Yet, there are a lot of people who fail to see the reasoning above, or choose to ignore it, pretending the Second Amendment says:

"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."​

How convenient, and how transparently self serving. Not that we don't see why they're doing it, but that they're so short changed upstairs that they think we don't.
So, my advice to the the gun nuts is to stop trying to make something out of the Second Amendment that it's not, and simply admit you can't feel like a man unless possess a gun. You actually N E E D to have a gun. This goes to for women as well, although I'm not quite sure of what psychological need it serves.

Any women gun nuts out there want to explain?




And Yes, I am aware of the 2008, U.S. Supreme Court decision on District of Columbia v. Heller.


.

 

[Revoltingest]

We've been thru this argument so many times.
Look at conflicts around the world....guns play a role in all of them.
They are far from obsolete.
This could change some day, but it hasn't yet.

 

[Skwim]

We've been thru this argument so many times.

No one 's required to reply.

 

[Revoltingest]

No one 's required to reply.

I thought it was mandatory!
I didn't want to get any more infractions.

 

[Thief]

I need several guns....
22cal has become hard to find and then expensive

apparently someone noticed navy seals use 22 for their 'covert' efforts
and the public should not have that abililty

paranoid?.....not meEeeee!

 

[Sees]

Firearms now more than ever have been made tools for utility, sporting, personal defense, etc. their importance in warfare has drastically gone down due to advancement in technology. It's important to look at them from that perspective. Miscellaneous people who aren't any part of your life deciding whether or not you need them for one or more of those purposes is ridiculous, IMO.

 

[jeager106]

When I was a police officer (22 + years) I got interested in defensive tactics with firearms.

My Chief sent me to LOT'S of firearms training schools for police.
I LOVED IT. Once I shot 5,000 rounds of ammo at a training class at the expense of
the taxpayers. ( in just a few wonderful days! )
I'm darned good with a handgun, shotgun, sniper rifle, etc.
I could put every round from a handgun into a man sized target at 100 yards with ease.
I LOVE my 30 odd firearms and as I live in the country where all people shoot guns
in the back yard.
I have a 125 yard range right behind my house.
No one complains about the noise. Fact is every one is welcome to come shoot any time
they please. Don't bother me a bit. And they do!
If the gov't wants my guns and ammo the can start with the ammo
ONE BULLET AT A TIME!

 

[Theweirdtophat]

They claim that gun control keeps people safe, but let me ask all of you: Do you seriously feel safer knowing you have no way to defend yourself against criminals and corrupt governments? I sure don't.

 

[Ingledsva]

"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."

"Regulated" also means to maintain the rate or speed of (a machine or process) so that it operates properly.

We have writings from the people whom put it together, and discussions, etc.

People of the time hunted and protected themselves with guns, - which kept them in good practice, - and able to hit a target.

As to speed, - they could call up people who obviously already had weapons training, and knew how to use guns, - at a moments notice.

*

 

[jeager106]

This country is very unique in that we have a LAW that protects our rights
to keep and bear arms.
"An armed society is a polite society!"

 

[jeager106]

How long does it take police to respond to YOUR emergency?
3 minutes? Not likely but even 3 minutes can be a lifetime. Especially if it's
your life!

 

[LuisDantas]

We've been thru this argument so many times.
Look at conflicts around the world....guns play a role in all of them.
They are far from obsolete.
This could change some day, but it hasn't yet.

The OP claimed (correctly IMO) that firearms as a necessary tool for enforcing the Second Ammendment are obsolete, not that the guns themselves are.

Guns as tools for violence, maiming and homicide are of course not obsolete, but rather over-emphasized and over-developed.

Nor are they likely to become obsolete in that sense in the foreseeable future, since for well over a century they have been more capable and developing faster than our ethical and anthropological capabilities for handling them would justify.

It is necessary to consciously refuse them instead. The sooner, the better.

They claim that gun control keeps people safe, but let me ask all of you: Do you seriously feel safer knowing you have no way to defend yourself against criminals and corrupt governments? I sure don't.

That question does not really connect with the matter of private ownership of firearms.

This country is very unique in that we have a LAW that protects our rights
to keep and bear arms.

Hardly. Most countries love to legislate about guns. It just turns out that most are not in love with the idea that people should be encouraged to own firearms.

"An armed society is a polite society!"

Who said such a thing?

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

My understanding is that in recent Second Amendment jurisprudence, the majority based their rulings on what they found as its original intent to protect the general right to bear arms. So, the OP conflicts with this reading of the amendment. There are dissents though (even ignoring those who don't much care what the original intent was). Justice Stephens, for example, claimed Scalia, in his majority opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, focused heavily on how the amendment was viewed by the public who first received it in the decades after it was written, rather than what it meant to those who wrote it.

 

[Skwim]

My understanding is that in recent Second Amendment jurisprudence, the majority based their rulings on what they found as its original intent to protect the general right to bear arms. So, the OP conflicts with this reading of the amendment.

Yup. And a sorry reading it is.

"This dissent called the majority opinion "strained and unpersuasive" and said that the right to possess a firearm exists only in relation to the militia and that the D.C. laws constitute permissible regulation."
Source: Wikipedia
​

That Scalia found "the text and history of the amendment's operative clause (i.e., “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”) [to be] controlling"* is to ignore the Why of the Amendment, its raison d'être, and is no different than the gun nut who also disregards the prefatory clause: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, I find Scalia's disregard of its significance to be appalling.
*source

 

[Ingledsva]

This country is very unique in that we have a LAW that protects our rights
to keep and bear arms.
"An armed society is a polite society!"

I've always liked that slogan. I came across this one recently. LOL!

 

[Quetzal]

I thought it was mandatory!
I didn't want to get any more infractions.

I'm watching you!

 

[Revoltingest]

The OP claimed (correctly IMO) that firearms as a necessary tool for enforcing the Second Ammendment are obsolete, not that the guns themselves are.

Guns as tools for violence, maiming and homicide are of course not obsolete, but rather over-emphasized and over-developed.

Nor are they likely to become obsolete in that sense in the foreseeable future, since for well over a century they have been more capable and developing faster than our ethical and anthropological capabilities for handling them would justify.

It is necessary to consciously refuse them instead. The sooner, the better.

If government illegally voided the 2nd Amendment, then armed resistance might be appropriate.
So I disagree.

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

Still wouldn't feel safe in america with a gun .
Not like it would make any real difference .
Is a right to bear arms against a possible modern threat with more advanced weaponry .
In order to keep balance
Each American citizen should have by now his own Fatman fully laiden B52 , and small force of F22 s.
This law become disproportional from the reality.
Guns are causing more harm than good in US society imho.
You can't use you guns as intended by the founding fathers because in the bigger picture small arms are obsolete. So all that really happen in US they become protection from each other , which was not the intentions

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm watching you!

I'll keep me me kilt in place, & me blinds drawn!

 

[metis]

Of the industrialized countries, those that have fewer guns in circulation have lower rates of violent crime. Amongst the states, those that have the most strict gun laws tend to have lower rates of violent crime.

If one feels that having a lot of guns around makes one safer, let me suggest that they take a walk around the neighborhoods in Detroit whereas the DPD estimates that there is roughly three guns per household. or Chicago. or Atlanta. or...

But some don't see it this way because they don't want to see it this way as truth really isn't that important to them-- only their guns and their opinions count.