Gun Control and the Constitution: Should We Amend the Second Amendment?

[SecularMotion]

The liveliest (and oldest) former member of the U.S. Supreme Court is at it again. John Paul Stevens, 93, served on the highest court in the land for an impressive 35 years, from 1975 until his retirement in June 2010. Known for his bow ties, brilliant legal mind, and striking transformation from Midwest Republican conservative to hero of the political left, Stevens remains an intellectual force to reckon with. In his latest book, the forthcoming Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution, he offers a half-dozen stimulating ideas for altering, and he would say improving, our foundational legal document. Today, let’s consider his most controversial proposal: changing the Second Amendment. Stevens is not going to win any friends at the National Rifle Association, because his undisguised agenda is to make it easier to regulate the sale and ownership of firearms.

With exquisitely awkward 18th century syntax, the Second Amendment 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.

For a couple of centuries, you might be surprised to learn, the Supreme Court didn’t say exactly what the Second Amendment means. As far as Stevens can tell, “federal judges uniformly understood that the right protected by the text was limited in two ways: first, it applied only to keeping and bearing arms for military purposes, and second, while it limited the power of the federal government, it did not impose any limit whatsoever on the power of states or local governments to regulate the ownership or use of firearms.” He recalls a colorful remark on the topic by the late Warren Burger, who served as chief justice from 1969 to 1986. Responding to the NRA’s lobbying campaign opposing gun control laws in the name of Second Amendment rights, Burger, a lifelong conservative, remarked during a television interview in 1991 that the amendment “has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud—I repeat, fraud—on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-02-20/gun-control-and-the-constitution-should-we-amend-the-second-amendment

[hack89]

1. No - next question. nt

[cali]

2. navel gazing. this simply isn't possible at this time and would be a waste of energy

[seveneyes]

3. No

Changing it will not cause criminals to become law abiding citizens.

[jeff47]

4. Well, it can't serve it's original purpose anymore.

The original goals were:
1 - Not have a standing army.
2 - Make it so the citizens "out-gun" the government.

#1 is long gone.

#2 is also long gone. The Constitution was written in an era where the weapons available to the government was not that much different that what was available to private individuals.

Today, the weaponry available to the government is so far beyond what is available to the public that a true pitched-battle rebellion isn't possible. Even if we ignore the restrictions on private ownership of certain weapons (ex. fully-automatic guns).

A very rich person might be able to afford an F-35 or two. The government has 100. A very rich person can afford a few M-1 tanks. The government has over 10,000. Hell, the government has nukes.

As a result, we're left with a 2nd amendment that is as applicable to today as the 3rd amendment.

Keep long arms legal for hunting and true self-protection needs (ie. middle of nowhere, so 30min police response time). Heck, if you want to fight a revolution they're better for that too. Dump handguns.

[1awake]

5. no. n/t

[RC]

6. No, what we need to do is to enforce BOTH parts.

How many people think that the 2nd Amendment starts with "the right of the people to keep and bear arms...?

If people want to play with guns and guns are the main stay of the military, require monthly training meetings, gun safety when around other people and reminders on how not to shoot yourself and/or family members and friends you like.
Failure to attend too many meetings is cause to lose your weapons. To get your weapons back, you have to attend twice as meeting in a row, as you missed, to lose them.

[JJChambers]

7. NO

And we are doing democrats in office a disservice by pressing the gun control issue. It's a losing issue and will give the GOP ammo to pick up seats in congress and continue driving this country into the ground.

[SecularMotion]

9. That's a NRA myth.

The Deadly Myth of Gun Control in Electoral Politics

In politics, conventional wisdom can be slow to die, even when the so-called wisdom is neither true nor wise.

So I was reminded on a recent visit to Capitol Hill, when I asked several lawmakers and senior members of their staffs to explain the Democrats’ timidity about standing up to the National Rifle Association by pressing needed measures to curb gun violence.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and President Obama tossed cold water a few weeks back on Attorney General Eric Holder’s well-founded enthusiasm for reviving the assault weapons ban that Congress and the Bush White House let expire in 2004.

I was struck by a common thread in the responses I heard: Enactment of the original 1994 assault weapons ban cost Democrats control of Congress.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/09/opinion/09sat4.html?_r=0

[randome]

8. We should. We won't because we can't.

If we want to set our sights on a near-impossible goal, let's push for making the country a little less crazy about guns.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]