It has been two years since I first called for the repeal of the second amendment. (Someone has to be the first.) It seems like a complete no-brainer to me that we need to at least say the obvious truth that the second amendment is a relic of the past and has no place in a modern technological society, if for no other reason than to start moving the Overton window for future generations. It has worked spectacularly well for abortion prohibition, so why would it not work equally well for guns?
At long last someone else has stepped up to the plate. Kirk Swearingen over at Salon has published a piece aptly entitled "The Second Amendment is a ludicrous historical antique: Time for it to go." So kudos to Kirk.
Unfortunately, despite the assertive title, he gets a little bit mamby-pamby about it.
We're not supposed to even whisper such things because the NRA and right-wing extremists have sensible Americans — including many gun owners — so bullied and cowed that we feel we are only allowed to hope for sensible gun-safety legislation around the edges of their highly profitable assault on American lives.
It's true. But this has to end now. The second amendment is quite literally an existential threat to American lives. More Americans are killed by domestic firearms every month than died on 9/11.
Say it with me. Say it loud. Say it often. Repeal the second amendment. Repeal the second amendment. Repeal the second amendment. Repeal repeal repeal. Repeat repeat repeat. The lives of our children literally depend on it.
I don't disagree, but there is a much more politically plausible and probably just as effective halfway-there solution: just get a sane SCOTUS interpretation of the second amendment that reflects its obvious intent. It is a right for states to have their own armed militias, not an individual's right to possess military grade weapons.
ReplyDelete@Coby: I don't disagree, but the reason for chanting Repeal is not because repeal is a politically viable outcome, it is because "Repeal the Second Amendment" is a snappier slogan than "get a sane SCOTUS interpretation of the second amendment that reflects its obvious intent". The former is only four words. It fits on a bumper sticker. The shortened version is only two syllables. It's easier to rally behind.
ReplyDeleteThe goal is not to actually get the 2A repealed (though that would be a great outcome) it is to move the Overton window so that we are more likely to get a sane SCOTUS again.
So: Repeal. Repeal repeal repeal repeal. Lather, rinse, repeat -- but mainly repeat.
Oh, forgot to add: if the intent of the 2nd amendment were obvious we would not be having this conversation. It might be obvious to *you* that the intent was not to guarantee an individual right to bear arms, but it is not obvious to supporters of the 2nd amendment, and, more saliently, it is not obvious to a majority of the current members of the supreme court.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, it is not even obvious to *me* that you are right about this, and I'm as sympathetic an audience that you are likely to find. The Bill of Rights explicitly distinguishes between rights granted to the states and rights granted to "the people." For example, it specifically calls out "the right of THE PEOPLE peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" and that is obviously (!) an individual right. By way of contrast, the Tenth Amendment reserves unenumerated rights "to the States ... OR to the people". So if the intent of the 2nd amendment was to grant a right to the states, it would have said so.
Understood about the window thing, no objection on that from me.
ReplyDeleteI did think the "the people" had a different implication in other places, I'm not that familiar with the exact text of the US constitution, so I concede on "obvious" even if it was intentionally a flip characterization.
Always awkward when I subscribe to a blog because of some content and then encounter other content I disagree with.
ReplyDeleteAnother time, I might even engage in a hopefully fruitful discussion, but this seems a bit like trying to 'discuss' religion with a true believer.
Just curious; what do you say to people who feel the same way about the First Amendment?
Also, given most amendments were written specific to (and addressing) conditions of the time, which other have outlived their usefulness?
@ejd:
ReplyDelete> Always awkward when I subscribe to a blog because of some content and then encounter other content I disagree with.
Why is that awkward? I've never met another human being with whom I agreed on everything. In fact, I've been known to change my mind about things, so sometimes I don't even agree with myself :-)
This idea that there is something bad about disagreement is one of the many system problems in today's society. There's nothing wrong with disagreement. The problem is that too many people don't know how to deal with it constructively.
> what do you say to people who feel the same way about the First Amendment?
When I meet such a person, I'll let you know.
> which other have outlived their usefulness?
It's not that the 2nd amendment has "outlived its usefulness", it's that it was badly written from the outset, but the damage that it could do was limited for a long time by technology and the laws of physics. That made its flaws less evident. But we can't rely on the speed at which someone can reload a muzzle-loader to protect us any more.
It's awkward because I don't typically subscribe to places where I might get into long, fruitless discussions.
ReplyDeleteMind you, I love discussions, but the whole gun debate is often akin to the religious debate.
As for the First Amendment, really? You've not met people who claim it's been misinterpreted (separation of church and state), or shouldn't apply to social tools currently available and the supposed influence of the various forms of media?
That, by the way, is somewhat related to your argument about the 2nd . . . no way the framers had any idea things like Facebook, TikTok, etc. would come to be and spread untruths at a speed that is difficult to counter and is putting our democracy in peril.
As for a badly written 2nd . . . I've read the arguments and counterarguments, and I don't see it as a given. In some ways, it's pretty clear. Using the definition of the framers and their subsequent correspondence makes it even clearer. But, that's me.
Your mileage may vary.
@ejd:
ReplyDelete> the whole gun debate is often akin to the religious debate.
Yes, exactly, and that is in no small measure because the 2nd amendment is written like scripture rather than law.
> As for the First Amendment, really?
I've really never heard of anyone who advocated repealing it, no.
The 1st A has problems too, but it's far less clear how to fix them. With the 2nd all it takes is a little common sense. Individuals should not be allowed to own nukes, or tanks, or artillery, or bazookas, and if they have AK-47s it should only be under very strictly controlled circumstances. It's a no-brainer. But once you decide that the 2nd A confers the individual right to own *any* weapon that did not exist in 1788 (which is the current SCOTUS position) then you have no principled leg left to stand on to stop someone from owning a nuke.
The problems with freedom of speech are much harder to find solutions for. Obviously I would like to see a lot less misinformation out there, but the problem is: who decides what is misinformation? It's a lot easier to tell if something is a weapon than it is to tell if something is the truth.
> I've read the arguments and counterarguments
The mere existence of the arguments and counter-arguments is enough to prove my point. However clear the correct answer is to you, I assure you that there are a great many well-informed people who think it's just as clear that you are wrong.
My position circumvents that by being purely pragmatic. It doesn't matter what the framers thought, what matters is what we today think. And I think there's probably a pretty broad consensus that there ought not to be a individual right to own WMDs. The law should be crafted accordingly.
You know what's weird? You don't use hyperbole when discussing religion.
ReplyDeleteYou are right; there is a broad consensus about individuals owning WMD. In part because deploying a bazooka in self-defense is a tad impractical. Same for chemical weapons, tanks, and the like.
That's because they don't make holsters for easily carrying bazookas. Oddly enough, I carry a chemical weapon (pepper spray, classified as a weapon if used as such, same as my pocket knife, also a weapon if used as such). Of course, I also carry a gun, and that is classified as a weapon. Got a permit for it and everything, and guess what? Some people say I shouldn't be able to carry one despite having undergone several background checks over the last 30 years (five different states plus the feds). No reasons given other than they don't like guns.
But, really, the challenges you're throwing my way put me off continuing this discussion . . . at least until I can get my hands on a bazooka.
That's because it doesn't feel like a discussion. And that's the problem. If you can't convince me, your chances with the "gun nuts" are practically nil. And you won't convince me of anything just by saying you are right.
We should switch to religion.
> You know what's weird? You don't use hyperbole when discussing religion.
ReplyDeleteWhy is that weird?
BTW, the only one I see employing hyperbole here is you, by talking about people wanting to "ban guns". No one is calling for banning guns (at least not all of them), certainly not me.
> You are right; there is a broad consensus about individuals owning WMD. In part because deploying a bazooka in self-defense is a tad impractical. Same for chemical weapons, tanks, and the like.
What does self-defense have anything to do with it? The Second Amendment says nothing about (individual) self-defense.
And even if I grant that "self-defense" is relevant, you are absolutely wrong that bazookas can't be employed in self-defense, it's just that your conception of "self-defense" is too narrow. If "self-defense" is extended to include defense of your property as well as your person, then bazookas and tanks and artillery can be quite useful, especially if your adversary is the government (ask the survivors of the Waco siege). Even WMDs can be useful as deterrents to attack -- why risk an actual shootout if you can just threaten to nuke the White House when the FBI shows up?
(And BTW, this kind of collective "self-defense" of the sort we saw at Waco is actually much more in line with what the founders had in mind when they wrote of "well-regulated militias".)
> But, really, the challenges you're throwing my way put me off continuing this discussion
That's because your position is untenable.
> That's because it doesn't feel like a discussion.
Really? It feels like one to me. It just seems like I'm exposing your position as untenable, and that is causing you to feel uncomfortable.
> And that's the problem. If you can't convince me, your chances with the "gun nuts" are practically nil. And you won't convince me of anything just by saying you are right.
My target audience is not the "gun nuts". I think they are beyond redemption. My target audience is the kids who are having to go through active shooter drills in school, and occasionally watch their peers die at the hands of active shooters notwithstanding the drills. I want them to know that they can build a world where *their* children don't have to put up with that.
> We should switch to religion.
I'm always happy to discuss religion, but I suspect you'd find that will cause you a fair bit of cognitive dissonance as well.