Its illegal to license a right.
We shouldn't penalize the hundreds of millions of legal gun owners in the US because we're unable to catch psychopaths before they kill people.
Disclaimer: I am a gun owner. I like guns very much.
Here's the 2A in full:
"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 am not a historian but I believe that this quote from James Madison in The Federalist Papers helps give some context to the second amendment:
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
The idea is that a federalist country needs a power equalizer between states who wish to self-govern, and a federal government that seeks to grow its power. The gun ownership is tied to the idea of a well-regulated state militia, which we have now called the National Guard-- which is a reserve force of the US Military because in the Civil War we basically decided that a federal system was kind of stupid.
All of this to say, the second amendment is not scripture from the hand of God. It is a law written with historical context from a different time, by men whose beliefs would disgust most people alive today. It's not Orwellian to discuss licenses or background checks, it's our modern society outgrowing laws from a bygone era.
"The National Guard is a state-based military force that becomes part of the reserve components of the United States Army and the United States Air Force when activated for federal missions."
It may be organized by state, but it's a federal force.
The 2A exists to give people tools to fight the government (or support it), it's not a gun fetish, it's literally a tool to empower citizens. If you doubt that people armed with rifles, shotguns, and semi-automatics can overcome the Worlds Biggest Armed Forces(tm), then look at the most recent example: Afghanistan (repelled the US -and- the USSR).
On top of that, the Bill of Rights is focused on rights of the people and states. IIRC there's nothing in it about protecting the "rights" of the federal government. Why would it need to explicitly give itself the right to arm its own standing army?
That is why anyone stating the National Guard is a standin for "well armed militia" is wrong..."a reserve force of the US Military" is not representative of the people; it is a protector of whomever is in power at any moment in the US.
I am not a constitutional law expert, but the way the second amendment has been interpreted has become its meaning. At this point, I think what would have to happen is the 2nd amendment would need to be replaced with another amendment that better describes the limits on individuals rights to bear arms.
Until then, these events will continue indefinitely. I simply do not believe that any SCOTUS would make a different decision.
So the idea that guns are special is idiotic. You can already get in trouble for using a gun with too many rounds when bird hunting. Is that actually illegal?
Firearm: a weapon from which a shot is discharged by gunpowder.
Small arm: portable firearms, especially rifles, pistols, and light machine guns.
The second amendment as strictly read says only "arms" the definition which has not changed since it was written only the lethality of the arms has increased through technological advancement culminating in nuclear arms.
A "destructive device" is a type of arm as defined by the 1934 Firearms act nearly 150 years after the second amendment was written.
A machine gun is not considered a destructive device but is still regulated and obviously still a type of arm.
So clearly you are ok with adding restrictions on arms not specifically laid out in the constitution if you are ok with the regulation of "destructive devices" and "machine guns" semantic word games aside. Otherwise if you strictly adhere to the wording of the amendment then there should be no regulation on the type of arms a citizen may own up to including nuclear arms.
These days, we have autonomy in our own country, no British will invade us now. What is the purpose of keeping the full right to any gun ownership, if it's not a good thing for the nation? We didn't keep slavery when we realized it was wrong, how bad must it become before we say guns be restricted to use by qualified and safe individuals?
And the idea of "arms" as only guns is silly, there are restrictions on many sorts of weaponry, including guns, so there is not an absolute right for any citizen to have guns at any time already. There are already restrictions and they're neither enforced nor strong enough.
Did you sign up for the 1st amendment? Maybe next time we're facing a crisis of "facts" (ie. during covid), we should be able to repeal free speech by simple majority? After all, with electronic communications and deep fakes, fake news is much more dangerous now than to the colonists 250 years ago.
> "in many places and in ordinary times, the defendants, in saying all that was said in the circular, would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done."
Although in all honesty even if an amendment did occur the faith and trust in the government at this point is so low it would probably just encourage rather than convince gun owners.
Yes. Yes we should.
(collective) Do you think Ukraine would have been invaded if they didn't unilaterally give up their nuclear weapons?
(individual) Does the bully pick on the child who stands up for themselves?
Unless the law is changed, which is what many are trying to do.
The constitution and bill of rights weren't handed down by God himself to the founding fathers. There's always room for improvement, e.g. allowing women to vote, or outlawing slavery.
I'm not saying that this is or isn't the right move -- merely that "it's in the constitution" isn't a very good argument any more than "this is the way it's always been done".
