The 2nd Amendment in the 21st Century

[Gadianton]

I don't think the only model for a country without a 2nd Amendment is Mexico

It's worth mentioning from time to time the impact that government has on an economy from the perspective of The Heritage Foundation, one of the most pro-Trump idiocy think tanks out there.

According to the Heritage foundation, the USA ranks 25th in terms of economic freedom.

On their front page, you can see the top 10 most economically free nations in the world. So now, according to the gold standard of right-wing economic dogma, here are the top 10 most economically free countries -- the envy of the rest of the world, including the envy of #25:

Very strict or non-existent gun ownership.
Singapore
Luxemburg
Taiwan
Netherlands
Denmark

somewhat strict to permissive, but with extensive licensing and documenting far beyond what the USA does:
Ireland
Switzerland
New Zealand

So there you have it. Many of the best countries to live in economically have draconian gun laws, per the Heritage Foundation. Your choice isn't just Mexico, but a lot of places that the right-wing pro-Trump think tank Heritage says are better than the United States.

[Kukulkan]

In my opinion, there is no “textual” answer. Intent doesn’t help us much either. Modern weaponry is so different from what arms meant back in the day, that there in no rational way to divine the intent.

I appreciate your answer Res. After thinking about it, I think you bring up a great point here. Modern guns are leaps and bounds ahead in terms of capability and use to the rudimentary muskets of the revolutionary day. I think this does present several issues when factoring in the person ownership of guns today, as they are far more capable of killing a larger amount of people in a shorter span of time.

It really is a tough issue. On the one hand I understand people's need to own a firearm for peace of mind when it comes to self defense. There is a reason that gun sales shoot through the roof after a major mass shooting. People are scared and feel the need to essentially outgun the next shooter. It creates this nasty loop where more and more guns enter circulation, thereby leading to the next mass shooting, and the cycle continues. With the current SC I don't see a drastic change in how the 2nd amendment is interpreted as the current court would continue to hold up the NRA backed interpretation of '2nd amendment = right to own for self defense.'

But as others have pointed out if we stay on the current course, the shootings will continue and innocents will die. In terms of achievable solvability I see this akin to the Israel and Palestine issue where everything is so intertwined and muddied that no real solution seems to be in sight. An outright ban on guns like New Zealand and more recently Canada is doing doesn't feel right. But 18 year olds being able to purchase a gun willy nilly with hundreds or thousands of ammo doesn't either.

[dantana]

Ask yourself: If the founding fathers were to write the Constitution today, what exactly would the worlds "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state" mean? What would a debate about the 2nd Amendment look like?

.Well, back in the old days, firearms were in essence the ultimate weapon and it made sense to want the right to bear arms to guard against a world history of tyranny. Today though, not as much, in regards to the usefulness of firearms in putting down a guy like Trump through force. All the hayseeds in the country with their ARs and thousand round clips aren't going to stand much chance against Apache helos and AC gunships. Like Rep. Swalwell says, "we've got the nukes."

In other words - Is the reasoning behind the writing of the 2nd A. still relevant given the evolution of warfare/weaponry?

[Kukulkan]

In other words - Is the reasoning behind the writing of the 2nd A. still relevant given the evolution of warfare/weaponry?

An interesting point that I have wrestled with. On one hand, past conflicts like Afghanistan (both Soviet and U.S.), Iraq, Vietnam, heavily showcase that even what were considered modern armies of their day had an extremely difficult time or were unable to defeat their respective insurgencies. So part of me wants to say that an insurgency in the United States would have a fair shot at fighting off the government. You would also undoubtedly have foreign governments supplying said insurgents with weaponry like MANPADS or even armored machinery.

Yet, comparing those conflicts to a hypothetical revolution or insurgency in the U.S. is somewhat disingenuous considering an army fighting on their own turf with established bases, infrastructure, and intel would fare well against an insurgency. All of the conflicts mentioned above were on foreign soil which assuredly made them more difficult. I think because of this the rationale and understanding behind the 2nd amendment has naturally shifted away from the idea of owning a gun to fight off a despotic government or outward threat, to more of the modern understanding of self-defense.

[ajax18]

Also, police regularly keep an eye out for nonseatbelted, unlicensed, unregistered, impaired and/or distracted drivers, imposing fines and penalties that hopefully discourage those behaviors.

I guess you've never been to traffic court in Memphis or had the privilege of driving there. I wouldn't recommend getting gasoline there without a firearm either.

[ajax18]

Thanks for the nice post. But I do think you have me slightly wrong. Ajax seems to think it would be terrible and dangerous to live in a society where he could not freely own firearms. I am simply pointing out that I do live in such a society, and I feel in no danger as a result. Hence I ask what I would gain if the society I live in suddenly went over to unrestricted gun ownership on the US model.

So far neither ajax not anybody else has given me an answer.

The USA is a different demographic than England. White Anglo Saxon Protestants are a minority here. Latin America is actually a much more fair comparison for what disarming law biding citizens would look like.

But you do have subway bombings and mass shootings in western Europe thanks to radical Islamic terrorism. Your gun control was powerless to stop it.

[ajax18]

And again, if we were writing the Constitution today, what would the words "well-regulated militia" mean in the context of defending the United States in the 21st Century?

I think the founding fathers would have intended that American citizens have the right to protect hearth and home. I doubt they would have expected shopowners to allow their merchandise to be destroyed and looted especially if they saw the movement to defund the police and stop any real law enforcement because they themselves owned slaves some 250 years earlier.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Thanks for the nice post. But I do think you have me slightly wrong. Ajax seems to think it would be terrible and dangerous to live in a society where he could not freely own firearms. I am simply pointing out that I do live in such a society, and I feel in no danger as a result. Hence I ask what I would gain if the society I live in suddenly went over to unrestricted gun ownership on the US model.

So far neither ajax not anybody else has given me an answer.

The USA is a different demographic than England. White Anglo Saxon Protestants are a minority here. Latin America is actually a much more fair comparison for what disarming law biding citizens would look like.

But you do have subway bombings and mass shootings in western Europe thanks to radical Islamic terrorism. Your gun control was powerless to stop it.

I think we can create a new term here: Radical Idiocy.

US subway bombing - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Ne ... ay_bombing

Islamic terrorism - I dunno. 9/11

Latin American gun laws - https://www.as-coa.org/articles/explain ... -economies

Ajax. Man. You’re the dumbest idiot I’ve ever seen post outside of Atlantic Asswipe and Bing Bong. You’re an embarrassment to White men. I swear, if you’re the paragon for Whiteness I need to see if the Latinos will adopt me, because you’re honestly, and I mean this, damned pathetic.

- Doc

[Moksha]

I guess you've never been to traffic court in Memphis or had the privilege of driving there. I wouldn't recommend getting gasoline there without a firearm either.

A shootout at the gas station. Ajax blows himself up. More on the news at 10.

[Res Ipsa]

Ask yourself: If the founding fathers were to write the Constitution today, what exactly would the worlds "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state" mean? What would a debate about the 2nd Amendment look like?

.Well, back in the old days, firearms were in essence the ultimate weapon and it made sense to want the right to bear arms to guard against a world history of tyranny. Today though, not as much, in regards to the usefulness of firearms in putting down a guy like Trump through force. All the hayseeds in the country with their ARs and thousand round clips aren't going to stand much chance against Apache helos and AC gunships. Like Rep. Swalwell says, "we've got the nukes."

In other words - Is the reasoning behind the writing of the 2nd A. still relevant given the evolution of warfare/weaponry?

What’s not in the Constitution is the notion of a right to forcibly overthrow the government. The founding fathers had just come through a revolution, so it’s not surprising that there is lots of revolutionary talk. But there’s no hint in the Constitution about some kind of right of a group of citizens to just decide the government is illegitimate and so there is a right to own weaponry for that purpose. The right to change the government is built into the Constitution itself, and it operates through non-violent action. If the founders thought the right of citizens to violently overthrow the government was the reason for the second amendment, it’s impossible to to explain the wording they actually used.

I think you can make a valid argument that looks exactly like the right of privacy analysis that supports Loving, Griswold, Roe, etc. that the Constitution embodies a right to be secure in their homes that would include owning a weapon for home defense. Frankly, I think that would be more intellectually honest than what the texualists pretend to do.