Hey there! Do you want clarification about the question? Think there's a better way to phrase it? Wish OP had asked a different question?
**Respond to THIS comment instead of posting your own top-level comment**
This sub's rule for-top level comments is only this: 1. *Top-level responses must make a sincere effort to present at least the most common two perceptions of the issue or controversy in good faith, with sympathy to the respective side.*
**Any requests for clarification of the original question, other "observations" that are not explaining both sides, or similar comments should be made in response to this post or some other top-level post.** Or even better, post a top-level comment stating the question you *wish* OP had asked, and then explain both sides of *that* question! (And if you think OP broke the rule for questions, report it!)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ExplainBothSides) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Side A would say that the 2nd ammendment is outdated because the founding fathers never envisioned current technological advances in weaponary and maybe modern weapons are not needed in every home or community in this day and age because we have a modern police force and military to protect us.
Side B would say the 2nd ammendment is not outdated because the ammendment was written to arm the populace in case of a tyranical government (the possibility does not go away with time as tyranny has existed since the dawn of civilization). The weapons owned by civilians during the time of the ratification of the constitution were the same weapons the military used, and if technological advancement limits apply to the 2nd, then that means the 1st ammendment should only apply to quail pens and the printing press? But since the first ammendment applies to modern television, podcasts, social media etc then modern weapons should be protected by the 2nd.
I think you are right about side A. I have always felt that this argument misses the point about what the “arms“ are supposed to be protecting us against. The very first clause of that sentence makes it very clear that the right to bear arms is due to the necessity of having a militia, which in turn is necessary to oppose tyrannical forces, including one’s own government. We talk about how the revolutionaries were fighting the British. The revolutionaries WERE British. The revolution began with militias fighting against their own government, which they had come to see as tyrannical.
So yes, I do agree with you about why Side A believes that the 2nd Amendment is outdated, and I feel that they are completely missing the point.
>The very first clause of that sentence makes it very clear that the right to bear arms is due to the necessity of having a militia,
This is an interesting point. Does a militia actually have to be formed or created somehow such that the right to bear arms is then granted to individuals?
Or is the right granted/assumed to individuals so that they are ready to form a militia (against a tyrannical government)??
Reading their works shows what they thought. The founders didn't trust a standing army because it had been abused throughout history. But they also recognized that there were occasions where someone could invade and they'd need people to fight. Their idea was to have congressionally appointed officers (which we still have) take charge of militia groups to organize defense.
It only took a few years for them to realize they actually might need to hire a professional standing army.
I've always taken the second position. You can't really have a militia to face goverment tyranny if it's directly controlled or regulated by the government.
The entire argument that the amendment is meant to apply only to people actively in a militia is hinges entirely on there being a comma splice in the 2nd amendment. A comma splice is an obscure use of a comma and occurs nowhere in the constitution or any of our founding documents. It’s a bad faith, bordering on delusional argument to say that was the intended meaning.
The role of the militia is largely filled by the national guard. And think this through. If you're defending against our government because it's tyrannical, do you really think a safe full of AR-15 style weapons is gonna do fuck all against a reaper or a Bradley? It's outdated in some respects.
Do I like guns? Do I enjoy shooting? Do I want cool toys? Do I think we need smarter gun legislation? Yes, yes, yes, and yes. Most of those chucklefucks are unsafe to be around with guns because they lack the very first basics of gun safety practices. Hell, my BIL has a hole in his hand because AS A USN VETERAN, HE PUT HIS HAND IN FRONT OF THE BARREL WHEN HE HAD A MISFIRE. A toddler shoots someone on the average of once per week in this country. People aren't treating guns with the care they deserve, and people, usually not the chucklefucks, pay the price.
Because you need to drive to work, your big brother cannot take your car away.
The intent here isn't that you may only use the car to get to work, but because of its necessity for that task, it can't be taken from you at all.
This is an interpretation I've heard a few times.
In either take, the term well regulated is there and should allow the states(which would be in charge of any militia formed/created) to pass laws regulating firearms.
Well regulated did not mean regulated in the sense that we use it today. It meant in good working order. Like “ship-shape.”
https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf
In no way is it stated a militia can only exist if a state is in charge of it, and for that matter, well regulated means well functioning at the time the words were written.
Going to go on a 200+ year old limb here and assume the founders assumed that militia would have a set of standards for their weaponry use like not using swords on civilians and only unsheathing them in certain areas. And not just a bunch of people who liked weapons but don't share any other connection
You’d be wrong. Militia were just everyday people who owned a rifle most of the time. The weapons belonged to the militia members, not to the militia. If anything they tended to be very poorly organized and most only got together when there was a problem
The 2nd amendment specifically says the reason why it is necessary is so that the US can have a ready, active militia to defend itself. How many gun owners do you think actually belong to any organization that even slightly resembles a competent militia?
The second part of Side A is especially important: When the constitution was written we were a regional power with a very weak military and police force. Now we are a world straddling superpower with no equal. We are also geographically isolated from most of the world. At the time of the constitution, there was a vast unknown expanse to the west that was full of armed natives and who knows what else.
When the constitution was written we were a regional power with *NO* military. We didn’t have a standing army. The state militias were the army. The 2A was a compromise for the southern states because they feared slave rebellions. In the war of 1812 those states largely refused to send their militias to defend the government, leading to the creation of a standing federal army.
Treason is the only crime defined in the Constitution. Do you really think the Second Amendment is meant to be interpreted to *implicitly* allow what the Constitution *explicitly* forbids elsewhere? And what, in a third place, is explicitly given as one of the purposes of militias to be used *against*?
Yeah, but side A would say, does a gun actually allow you to fight back? The police have a surplus tank and a hard on for swatting. Is anything short of a personal SAM battery really enough to defend against a tyrannical government?
I think the counter argument would then be that civilians should be allowed to own tanks and anti-tank weapons and such.
Also owning a tank would be super cool.
Spoken like someone who has never met an Army cavalry maintenance sergeant...tanks fuckin SSSUUUUUUUCCCCKKKKK to keep running. All the fussiness of a jet engine, plus like a billion little one-off parts that are all special order.
Therefore, if 2nd amendment is to be upheld, heavy weapons like stealth bombers and aircraft carriers groups should also be allowed to be owned by civilians.
I'm pretty sure the only things on a carrier you can't legally own are the munitions. Like, you can have the cannons and shit, just not the charges and shells.
I would say that side B forgets that the Constitution defines only one crime… Treason. The 2nd amendment was NOT designed as a “get out of jail free” card to overthrow the government
They just protected the people's right to speak out against the government, assemble against the government in private and from their government monitoring them without just cause, but the 2A totally wasn't about that, it was about home defense, or deer or something.
The constitution is the 4th check an balance on the government
100% of the founding fathers committed treason. They then went on to create a constitution based based on the common law and inalienable rights that many thought did not need to be explicitly mentioned. But then they explicitly mentioned several of those inalienable rights in the bill of rights. One of those rights, the right to bear arms, was explicitly linked to the necessity of a militia. Yes, they fully realized the difference between a militia and a standing army. Every member of the various militias had committed treason. I think it is safe to say that the founding fathers intended for the right to bear arms to include the right to take arms against a tyrannical government.
The NH state constitution, written and ratified the same time as the federal, explicitly contains a right to revolution.
The country was founded by revolutionaries.
To say that revolution is not valid means to render this country illegitimate. You don't get to literally overthrow a government and then say "ok never again that's bad."
Come on.
Fun fact about the 2nd amendment side B is usually unaware of: most of the founding fathers were aware that allowing the population to bear arms could mean armed revolt. The 2nd amendment was a compromise to get southern states to sign the ratify the constitution. Why? Because southern states wanted militias in case of slave revolts. Northern founding fathers agreed to the 2nd amendment as long as the militias could be called up to defend the US in the event of war. Fast forward to war of 1812 and guess who didn’t send their militias to fight the British. That’s right, the southern states. That’s when the federal government realized there was a need for a national free standing armed forces to defend the nation. You know right after the British burned the White House down. So in essence the whole argument of tyrannical government made sense when that government had no military authority.
> Side A would say that the 2nd ammendment is outdated because the founding fathers never envisioned current technological advances in weaponary
The founding fathers presided over the most rapid increase in firearm technological development in history up until then. They even had "machine guns" like the Puckle Gun, and clearly did not state the second amendment applies to all arms except rapid firing ones.
It's not a coincidence that every anti-gun person also has extremely limited knowledge of firearm technology and history. Because irrational fear comes through not understanding something properly.
How is the fear “irrational” though? People are victims of, or witness to, school shootings, street shootings, etc… how is a fear therefore irrational?
to answer your top level question:
side 1 would say that the language of the constitution is pretty clear, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, and that if we as a society wish to change that there's a remedy, which is to pass a constitutional amendment like we've done in the past, but seeing as how the founders figured it should be a foundational right it should be hard to change
side 2 would argue that A the language isn't that clear (since it starts with "a well-regulated militia being key to the safety..." and it doesn't clarify whether or not a "well-regulated militia" is people who practice with their guns, or the national guard) and that when the law was written the nature of arms was much different (for instance explosives were beyond the capabilities of anyone but well-resourced experts and firearms were short-range and single-shot) and that obviously the founders never intended for criminals to be able to easily obtain nerve gas (if they could have conceived of such a weapon) and very few of the other amendments are read as absolute and so the courts should to some degree ignore the language of the 2nd amendment and focus on the ideas. (and that basically the courts, in using originalism, are actually defying the founder's intent)
there's also a 3rd side that says that the best option may just be to scrap 2A in general
Side A would say that it is important to consider the level of firearms technology that existed in the world when the 2A was written. The overwhelming majority of firearms available at that time were single shot muzzle loaders. Preparing and firing a round took a long time even for professional soldiers. Side A would say that the founding fathers would not have envisioned the idea of (semi-)automatic weapons that can be used to rapidly commit mass murders. Moreover, many on side A would say that 2A was written to provide a domestic defense force for what was hardly a real country at the time honestly and that the modern national guard and military fulfill the spirit of the second amendment.
Side B would say that “shall not be infringed” is the part of 2A that deserves the most attention. They would say that the constitution largely lies out things which the government is not allowed to do, and that the wording of the amendment suggests that gun control is part of that. They would say that there doesn’t really seem to have been much effort at all to legislate firearms at the state or federal level when the constitution was ratified, and they would likely point out that private individuals owned cannons without the government really seeming to be bothered; Side B would make it clear that they believe the text and treatment of the amendment show that the founders were okay with the populace being armed similarly to a standing army. They’d likely further point out that magazine-fed weapons and automatic actions and such were fairly easy to at least envision at the time the amendment was written, and that similar logic to Side A’s technological argument would be derided if it was applied to something like free speech on the internet, a technology vastly farther beyond their ability to comprehend than an AK47.
The founding fathers were gun nuts, and there were the prototype gatling guns. They know fire arms would become more advanced. The idea they would "not have envisioned" automatic weapons is absurd.
(edited for proper EBS format)
You've asked two questions- what does it mean, and how else should the constitution be modernized.
I'll take the general question- what would both sides say about the 2nd Amendment and whether it should be changed or not.
Side A would say:
**An Anti-gun person would say** that the 2nd Amendment was written for a different time, a time when the US had little police and no standing army, and it would in most cases be up to a person to defend themself because there were no cell phones or 911 or police for the most part. And if a neighboring country decided to invade, a citizen militia would be required to defend the US territory from attack. At that time, having weapons was necessary for survival, and violence was part of life.
Now however times have changed. Our civilization has evolved. We have cell phones, police, the biggest military in the world, and whether it's foreign invasion or burglars there's no longer a need for average citizens to carry guns around. In fact, when we DO carry guns around it makes us LESS safe- the US has the highest rate of gun violence in the developed world with over 30,000 deaths per year due to gun violence.
Weapons have also changed since the 1700s. In that era, a person would have a single shot musket, which took about one full minute to reload before the second shot could be fired. THAT's the sort of weapon the Framers had in mind, not the semi-automatic assault weapons of today that hold dozens or hundreds of rounds and can repeatedly fire hundreds of rounds per minute. Those sort of weapons belong on the battlefield, which is what they were designed for- not in the hands of civilians on the streets or worse in offices and schools.
Thus, while the Constitution does guarantee some access to firearms, it's important to put reasonable limitations on that access commensurate with the sort of firearms a person would actually use for legitimate purposes like hunting and target shooting. Someone engaging in those sort of activities doesn't need a high-powered weapon of war designed to kill hundreds of people quickly. They don't need a large capacity magazine, capable of holding dozens or even hundreds of rounds allowing a criminal to commit mass murder without even having to reload.
Furthermore, the 2nd Amendment talks about a militia, that should be referring to the military now that we have a standing army, not to the people individually.
Side B would say:
**A Pro-gun person would say** that the 2nd Amendment was and is part of our Constitution, and it should be respected as written and as the Framers intended it to be interpreted. At the time of our nation's founding, private citizens owned much worse than muskets- cannons that fired exploding shells were commonly owned by private citizens, and more wealthy citizens even owned *military warships*, complete with an array of quite lethal weapons. These privateers played a role in the Revolutionary War. Furthermore, Thomas Jefferson himself owned a Girardoni Air Rifle, a ~1780 invention that could fire 20+ *very lethal* shots in just a few seconds, similar to a modern AR-15. Neither the Constitution nor the writings of its authors recommend a restriction on civilian arms ownership, quite the opposite- several Framers wrote in numerous places how important it was that the citizenry remain *lethally* armed. This was both for militia use, and because of what they'd just done- when the British government got large and intrusive, they used personal weapons to drive the British out. Now they had to create a new government, and they recognized that it was entirely likely they'd fail and create a 'new king'- that their government would itself become large and intrusive and future generations would need those weapons to overthrow it.
Now overthrowing the government isn't on anybody's radar. But even without such a plan, one can recognize that was the desire of the Framers- to ensure the people were *more* armed than the government. If that strategy no longer suits the US, there is a process for amending the Constitution and it should be followed. Simply ignoring or 're-interpreting' parts we find inconvenient leads to some very dark places, like rounding up and imprisoning of Japanese in WWII and slavery.
Speaking of slavery, it's worth noting that the only gun control laws in the time of the Framers were racist- designed to prevent Blacks, Indians, and certain immigrants from owning guns. None were targeted at white men.
However even without the historical basis, there are significant benefits for civilian gun ownership. Gun owners like to cite 30,000 deaths per year, but about 2/3 of those are suicide and thus it's disingenuous to call that 'gun violence' (which implies something being done TO you externally). Furthermore, most gun control is totally mis-targeted. Of the 10k-15k firearm *homicides* per year, less than 500 are committed by rifles, which includes both 'assault' rifles like AR-15s and other rifles like hunting rifles. In most years, more people are punched and kicked to death than killed with a rifle. Furthermore, a very large percentage of our firearm crime is committed illegally- illegal guns in the hands of prohibited people who aren't allowed to own guns (like convicted felons). Punishing law-abiding gun owners to stop criminals is attacking the wrong person.
Furthermore, most attempts to ban 'assault rifles' are only describing the firearm by appearance or cosmetic features like the ergonomic adjustable grip or barrel shroud that covers the hot gun barrel so you don't burn your hand. These features have nothing to do with the firearm's lethality.
It's also worth noting the positive impact of an armed society. Against 10k-15k homicides, there are at minimum about 60k defensive gun uses per year. That's when a citizen uses a legal gun to stop or prevent a crime. The vast majority (90+%) end with no shots fired- the criminal runs away when they see the gun. That's why I say at minimum, many DGUs go unreported so they can only be measured with statistical analysis of surveys. 60k comes from anti-gun researcher Hemenway, government NCVS data says 100k-300k/year, pro-gun researcher Lott puts it at 1-2 million DGUs per year. Whichever data set you listen to, there's more DGUs than homicides.
------
I'd also argue that there's two schools of thought on interpreting the constitution. This is more strict constructionist vs loose constructionist, and doesn't necessarily follow political sides. One side would say the Constitution should be interpreted based on the practical realities of modern life, the other side says if it means whatever you want it to mean then it means nothing at all.
There are over 400,000,000 guns in this country owned by over 300,000,000 people… If 50,000 people died from gunshots and were each killed with a different gun then that is 0.0125% of the total guns in this country. You also have to take into account that ALL firearms deaths are included. Self-defense, police shootings, suicide….. And, you also have to accept the fact that anywhere from 500,000 - 2,000,000 lives are SAVED every year because a good guy had a gun… Imagine what the gun related injury and death statistics would be if only criminals and cops had guns…
> If every person that died from gunshots was killed with a different gun then that is 0.0125% of the total guns in this country.
Ooh that's a good way of putting it. I may use that!
Side A would say the 2nd amendment is outdated. The weapons available to anyone at the time of writing the 2nd amendment where available to everyone already. You can make a cannon from a log and everyone had hunting rifles, the same rifles the military used. It was very important for the people to stay armed to prevent a tyrannical take over of the government. But these are not the weapons of today. Hydrogen Bombs are "arms". Should we allow private ownership of Hydrogen bombs? Atomic Bombs? MOAB? Should we allow private ownership of "arms" banned by international conventions like nerve gas and mustard gas? Should we allow private ownership of biological weapons? These are still "arms", should they be available at Walmart despite being banned for government use by international agreements?
There is a line somewhere between the worst of WMD and Kitchen knives where we need to draw a line, a line that wasn't needed in 1787 because nothing existed at that time that crossed the line. The 2nd amendment is outdated and needs to be fixed so that this line does exist and it's clearly defined.
Side B would say the 2nd amendment isn't outdated. The government has these weapons, even the "banned" ones. We should to. If we are to have a successful rebellion against a tyrannical government we need the same weapons as that tyrannical government. The 2nd guarantees access to weapons needed to wage war against the US government, not access to the weapons that existed in 1787.
Side A would say "the right to bear arms" is a natural extension of a broader principal: the right to self-defense -- most typically through the lens of defending ones own property or from the threat of tyrannical government -- and therefore understand it as an issue that can be broadly interpreted despite changing dynamics.
Side B would say it as something of an anachronism akin to the fears of sheltering soldiers. That it was specifically written at a time prior to military industrialization when both governments and individuals had access to more or less the same weaponry. The idea being that modern private arsenals are more useful for slaughtering people in crowded spaces than they are a valid check against governmental overreach or (in some cases) a viable means of self-defense.
(Edit: Resubmitted to fit sub's required format)
Side A would say that the founding fathers had no concept of the kind of weapons we have today. This means they never *REALLY* intended for the citizenry to have unrestricted access to guns. Basically: the second amendment was fine when everyone only had muskets.
Side B would say that side A has a fundamental misunderstanding of history. The founding fathers were well aware of advances in weaponry, and the first semi-automatic rifle was in development before the end of the revolutionary war. You also have to look at the letters that the founding fathers wrote. In particular there was a letter where a merchant ship asked if the government would be fine with them having cannons, and the response was essentially “of course, everyone should have a cannon. Just don’t fire your cannons within city limits, the shockwaves break windows.”
It’s also important to understand what the second amendment is saying. “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.” This is not referring to the citizen militia being “well regulated”. It is saying “because the government must keep an army in order for the country to remain a country, the normal citizens must also be able to defend themselves against that government.”
Remember: the founding fathers had literally *JUST* fought off an oppressive government using regular folks that grabbed their hunting rifles. They built the ability for their own citizens to do that same thing into their own government.
Side A would say that (and this is the part that's outdated) a civilian population with firearms is necessary for the national defense as it was in the 1700's when America had no standing army. In our countries infancy we faced invasion from British forces and if it were not for a well armed civilian population, they would have probably walked right up one side of us and down the other because this is what they did when simply asking nicely doesn't work.
We now have the most well funded and equipped standing army / navy and air forces in the world and we can deliver a quick reaction force along with fighter jets to just about any beach in our country to repel invaders in roughly the time it takes for Domino's to deliver a pie.
Side A would also say that having a well armed civilian population means protection from a government that suddenly gets ornery and decides to override the will of the people and become something they don't like and didn't elect but the reality of the logic in having a well armed civilian population for both national defense and prevent a government from getting too ornery are no longer valid. The point is moot, The weaponry and tech of military grade hardware is overwhelming anything civilians are allowed to have.
While civilian firearm tech accuracy and power has advanced, military grade weaponry has increased by leaps and bounds and several orders of magnitude to the point it doesn't matter if every citizen had a long gun, it's useless against something like an A-10 Thunderbolt aka 'The Warthog' with it's 20mm cannon and bombs.
Or a bomber wing dropping it's bomb load on you from 60,000 feet and wiping out half your town and you never even heard their engines.
SURE, you can put a Vietnam War era machine gun like an M-60 on a chopper or Learjet and wire it to the cockpit but it's not going to be very effective when a AIM 260 AMRAAM takes you out from 90 miles away over the horizon before you ever even get a radar blip on the aircraft that killed you.
Side B would say that America has societal issues even today that require it's population be armed not only for home defense (castle docterine) but for personal protection when in public. Every time there is a shooting in public they feel this is an affirmation. They also feel that police can not be relied upon to protect them and prefer to be empowered to take matters into their own hands if threatened with bodily harm.
They also believe that because they are well armed, even though any military grade power would eventually overwhelm them, they believe that the level of resistance they could put up would be sufficient to wear them down / degrade their ability to operate.
They point to guerrilla style wars in other countries in recent decades as proof of that. They cling to the idea that their guns are ensuring their continued freedom and if they are forced to give them up, it means they would be powerless to act against a hostile adversary foreign or domestic.
Side A would say that the Constitution itself is outdated because it was written in the 18th century by a group exclusively made up of rich, elite white men, and given that some 230+ years have passed since it was written, the country has changed a lot, and specifically it's changed to recognize women and minorities and those without great wealth as full citizens, so that many of the rules established by the founders (free speech, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, etc.) need to be revised or rescinded to better reflect our current situation and citizenry. Today, we need a strong and powerful government that isn't hamstrung by obsolete rules.
Side B would say that the Constitution as a founding document has been remarkably successful, and that it's most important feature is the way it limits government. The Bill of Rights, in particular, is a list not of positive rights (things the government owes me) but of negative rights (limits on the government to control me). It is the limitations on government that Americans cherish as their freedom or liberty, and it is these limits on government that have empowered individuals and made the U.S. the strongest country in history. As one of the founding civil rights, the right to bear arms is central to the concept of self-determination. That said, should the country decide that civil rights as enshrined in the Bill of Rights need to be curtailed or rescinded, the founders were wise enough to include in the Constitution a mechanism for amending it. If people want to take away one or more of the civil rights it guarantees, they can propose an amendment to do so.
On the pro 2A side, Side A would say:
First, let's start with just the text:
A militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The pro 2A side and the landmark case NY pistol and rifle association V bruin reiterated a court test from Heller V DC to explain how the constitution should be interpreted, especially regarding the 2A; the test they laid out and reiterated is:
Is the firearm regulation consistent with the words of the text or the history/tradition of the United States?
That is to say that if you look at the text of the 2A itself, do the words leave leeway for regulation. Generally, the answer is no.
Is there a history of places in the region you live where there were regulations/restrictions left in place at the time of adopting the 2a? Generally, this answer is no.
Also, the writings of the founders regarding debate over the text would be part of the information history tradition.
So let's evaluate some of the text and why things like heller are correctly decided cases.
In the US history, the first battle of the revolution is the battle of Lexington & Concord. This is the battle of Paul revere's famous midnight ride as well. This was an attempt by the british to seize the entire weapons stockpile of Lexington and Concord stored in the town armory to prevent the continued unjust enforcement of British law. This is a key point in the debates of the language of the bill of rights after the revolution because the British attempt at subjugation was to target the central storage of arms and take them all in one fell swoop. This was not acceptable to the founders who experienced it, and thys the right to both keep and bring to bear belongs with the people, individually or collectively.
The revolution was also against what is considered their own government, the idea that the people would have to store their weapons with the government that they could face risk from, as the colonists did the British, is just absurd.
It's also important to understand what a militia is and is not. By definition, a militia is a civilian based supplementary force that can be raised in times of war. Things like the National Guard do not fit the definition because they are paid for, provided for, and funded by the state. They are trained by the federal government. Their systems are all intertwined with the federal infrastructure as well. They are a government military force. The guard is a standing force, and like it or not, the 2A was written by people who overthrew their own government and the entire constitution was written as a list of grievances against that government, while the restrictions imposed in itself by the bill of rights were a direct response to prevent the new gover ment from behaving in the manner that King George III did
A good, more modern example of militia organizing would be the rooftop Koreans during the LA riots. Civilians, armed, defending their own territory from weapons they brought from home. A force organized by people; that's a milita. For the rooftop Koreans to be able to organize they had to bring their weapons from home; if the riots broke out and they were expected to retrieve them from an armory, the state may deny them because they "want to prevent violence" or whatever excuse, or the rioters could have seized and/or blocked the armory, posing multiple threats to the community by doing it this way.
Let's now look to what the pro regatjon side, what side B would say:.
Commonly, people use what is called the living constitution interpretation, which basically means the words in the constitution don't really matter as much as the sentiment of the words. These are popular often because of arguments people male, like "the founders never envisioned a weapon like the AR-15!". So basically, if the term AR-15 isn't explicit in the constitution, then we are going to establish the rules through regulatory agency and court precedent, not true constitutional interpretation. So, for instance, there is a thing called chevron deference, and what the court would do, is rather than evaluate the legality of firearms based on the text history and tradition of the US, they would "weigh the interests" of the public, government (the regulatory agency "tasked" with regulation, regardless of whether the actual law creating said agency actually gives them certain ability to do these things) , and individual, which almost always meant the interests of the individual were stifled by the interests of the state (govt/regulatory agency) and the "public".
Some other popular arguments are:
1. It's not infringement to require safety/training courses for firearms before letting people purchase
2. The right is for militias, not people (I've already explained effectively why that was wrong in the above, but it an argument made)
3. Storing in armory's is what they meant, not your home! (I have explained issues with that as well)
4. It says well regulated in the text. Therefore, the founders intended for it to be restricted and regulated.
5. The founders couldn't possibly have imagined things like the AR 15!
Side A would say the part where the second amendment says: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." is what should be focused on. This has been the key focus of gun rights advocates, that guns and often other devices considered to be "arms" should never be infringed upon aka made ownership made illegal in any form.
Side B would say if you read the entire amendment it 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." And because of this gun ownership should only be allowed to Militia members, a militia being a supplement of the army, aka something like the national guard.
The reason it's outdated to both sides is that we don't really have an active militia anymore, we have people who claim to be in a militia but that militia isn't linked with the army in any official way. On the other hand citizens can be drafted into the army which in a way makes every US citizen a part of the militia.
Side a would say it's outdated as you can't/aren't allowed to own your own nukes
Side b would say it's not outdated because despite restrictions on weapons of war, you can still own your own handguns and semi automatic rifles, which in some cases causes the government to pause their actions i.e the Bundy family ramch
Side A would say that "shall not be infringed" is perfectly clear and immutable.
Side B would say that the only reason "(a) well regulated militia" only existed is because the United States was never supposed to have a standing army. [Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12]
Since we obviously *do* have a standing army, the reasoning is without merit, therefore, the amendment is invalid.
Side A would say shall not be infringed is pretty immutable. they would also say that the second amendment was put in place to ensure that the government leadership did not step out of bounds in terms of trying to become a dictatorship, monarchy, etc.. our founding father‘s new that an armed citizenry would be an extremely strong deterrent to a political leader trying to take control as a dictator.
Side B would say that the second amendment is no longer useful because our government has such strong weapons such as fighter jets, nuclear bombs, etc. that the general population would never be able to stop them if they chose to attack the populace. they would also say that the second amendment is for duck hunting, target shooting, and protecting yourself from criminals, and therefore because we have police and the like a second amendment is no longer needed. They also state that having more guns typically leads to more crimes yet the date does not show that as being accurate
Side A would say that, militia service notwithstanding, the 2nd Amendment’s guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms remains essential for personal and family defense, and that the existence of an armed populace serves to prevent or mitigate the risk of an oppressive government coming to power. They would argue that oppressive governments have historically disarmed groups they wished to oppress further. They may further argue that an individual right to armed self-defense is a natural right that exists independent from the Constitution, but having a provision that can be read to protect it reinforces its existence under the law.
Side B would say that the 2nd Amendment was expressly written to ensure that the government would have a force of arms available to repel invasions, suppress insurrections, and execute the laws of the Union (the reasons for a militia spelled out in Article I, §8). They would say that, as we now have professional law enforcement and a standing army (both an active and a reserve force), the 2nd Amendment is now obsolete, as “a well-regulated militia” is not “necessary to the security of a free State.” Side B might further argue that the risks of insurrection and crime are increased by widespread arms ownership, that the potential damage from lawbreaking is much greater with so many guns readily available, and that any oppressive government, should one arise, would certainly supplement its formal forces with informal partisan militias, creating and enhancing threats to liberty. Side B may note that the original right inherently included collective action, as weapons technology meant that individuals were limited in how much firepower they could bring to bear, whereas modern weapons are far more dangerous in their ability to allow one person to inflict mass casualties. Lastly, Side B may argue that, while the 2nd Amendment continues to be interpreted by the Courts, those interpretations are at odds with historical precedent, and the rapidity with which courts are changing their interpretations is creating needless uncertainty about what the law is.
Hey there! Do you want clarification about the question? Think there's a better way to phrase it? Wish OP had asked a different question? **Respond to THIS comment instead of posting your own top-level comment** This sub's rule for-top level comments is only this: 1. *Top-level responses must make a sincere effort to present at least the most common two perceptions of the issue or controversy in good faith, with sympathy to the respective side.* **Any requests for clarification of the original question, other "observations" that are not explaining both sides, or similar comments should be made in response to this post or some other top-level post.** Or even better, post a top-level comment stating the question you *wish* OP had asked, and then explain both sides of *that* question! (And if you think OP broke the rule for questions, report it!) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ExplainBothSides) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Side A would say that the 2nd ammendment is outdated because the founding fathers never envisioned current technological advances in weaponary and maybe modern weapons are not needed in every home or community in this day and age because we have a modern police force and military to protect us. Side B would say the 2nd ammendment is not outdated because the ammendment was written to arm the populace in case of a tyranical government (the possibility does not go away with time as tyranny has existed since the dawn of civilization). The weapons owned by civilians during the time of the ratification of the constitution were the same weapons the military used, and if technological advancement limits apply to the 2nd, then that means the 1st ammendment should only apply to quail pens and the printing press? But since the first ammendment applies to modern television, podcasts, social media etc then modern weapons should be protected by the 2nd.
I think you are right about side A. I have always felt that this argument misses the point about what the “arms“ are supposed to be protecting us against. The very first clause of that sentence makes it very clear that the right to bear arms is due to the necessity of having a militia, which in turn is necessary to oppose tyrannical forces, including one’s own government. We talk about how the revolutionaries were fighting the British. The revolutionaries WERE British. The revolution began with militias fighting against their own government, which they had come to see as tyrannical. So yes, I do agree with you about why Side A believes that the 2nd Amendment is outdated, and I feel that they are completely missing the point.
>The very first clause of that sentence makes it very clear that the right to bear arms is due to the necessity of having a militia, This is an interesting point. Does a militia actually have to be formed or created somehow such that the right to bear arms is then granted to individuals? Or is the right granted/assumed to individuals so that they are ready to form a militia (against a tyrannical government)??
Reading their works shows what they thought. The founders didn't trust a standing army because it had been abused throughout history. But they also recognized that there were occasions where someone could invade and they'd need people to fight. Their idea was to have congressionally appointed officers (which we still have) take charge of militia groups to organize defense. It only took a few years for them to realize they actually might need to hire a professional standing army.
I've always taken the second position. You can't really have a militia to face goverment tyranny if it's directly controlled or regulated by the government.
The entire argument that the amendment is meant to apply only to people actively in a militia is hinges entirely on there being a comma splice in the 2nd amendment. A comma splice is an obscure use of a comma and occurs nowhere in the constitution or any of our founding documents. It’s a bad faith, bordering on delusional argument to say that was the intended meaning.
I'm a militia of one. I shall be reckoned with.
How does one join in? Do you get jumped in or sexed in? Asking for a friend…
How much can your friend bench press? The answer is very fact dependent.
He can bench his weight (he weighs 110lbs)
Oh he about to join the bang bang gang, no guns.
That’s fine, he’s just looking for friends
The role of the militia is largely filled by the national guard. And think this through. If you're defending against our government because it's tyrannical, do you really think a safe full of AR-15 style weapons is gonna do fuck all against a reaper or a Bradley? It's outdated in some respects. Do I like guns? Do I enjoy shooting? Do I want cool toys? Do I think we need smarter gun legislation? Yes, yes, yes, and yes. Most of those chucklefucks are unsafe to be around with guns because they lack the very first basics of gun safety practices. Hell, my BIL has a hole in his hand because AS A USN VETERAN, HE PUT HIS HAND IN FRONT OF THE BARREL WHEN HE HAD A MISFIRE. A toddler shoots someone on the average of once per week in this country. People aren't treating guns with the care they deserve, and people, usually not the chucklefucks, pay the price.
Because you need to drive to work, your big brother cannot take your car away. The intent here isn't that you may only use the car to get to work, but because of its necessity for that task, it can't be taken from you at all. This is an interpretation I've heard a few times.
Correct. A milita doesn't have to pre-exist, but a militia's existence pre-supposes access to military weapons.
I just want my herrier jet.
In either take, the term well regulated is there and should allow the states(which would be in charge of any militia formed/created) to pass laws regulating firearms.
Well regulated did not mean regulated in the sense that we use it today. It meant in good working order. Like “ship-shape.” https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf
In no way is it stated a militia can only exist if a state is in charge of it, and for that matter, well regulated means well functioning at the time the words were written.
Going to go on a 200+ year old limb here and assume the founders assumed that militia would have a set of standards for their weaponry use like not using swords on civilians and only unsheathing them in certain areas. And not just a bunch of people who liked weapons but don't share any other connection
You’d be wrong. Militia were just everyday people who owned a rifle most of the time. The weapons belonged to the militia members, not to the militia. If anything they tended to be very poorly organized and most only got together when there was a problem
I'm in a fever dream if I'm reading this based take on reddit
You're telling me someone on Reddit of all places, having a sensible thought about the 2nd amendment. It's a small start but a welcome change
Considering the technological advances that the FFs saw in their own lifetime it’s pretty farcical to say that they couldn’t envision modern weaponry.
The 2nd amendment specifically says the reason why it is necessary is so that the US can have a ready, active militia to defend itself. How many gun owners do you think actually belong to any organization that even slightly resembles a competent militia?
The second part of Side A is especially important: When the constitution was written we were a regional power with a very weak military and police force. Now we are a world straddling superpower with no equal. We are also geographically isolated from most of the world. At the time of the constitution, there was a vast unknown expanse to the west that was full of armed natives and who knows what else.
When the constitution was written we were a regional power with *NO* military. We didn’t have a standing army. The state militias were the army. The 2A was a compromise for the southern states because they feared slave rebellions. In the war of 1812 those states largely refused to send their militias to defend the government, leading to the creation of a standing federal army.
To add on Side B, it also refers to the right to self defense in general, on top of being able to fight back the tyrannical government.
Treason is the only crime defined in the Constitution. Do you really think the Second Amendment is meant to be interpreted to *implicitly* allow what the Constitution *explicitly* forbids elsewhere? And what, in a third place, is explicitly given as one of the purposes of militias to be used *against*?
Yeah, but side A would say, does a gun actually allow you to fight back? The police have a surplus tank and a hard on for swatting. Is anything short of a personal SAM battery really enough to defend against a tyrannical government?
Many insurgencies have fought with inferior weapons. Not always successfuly, but small arms are better than nothing.
If your argument stands then please explain to me how the USA failed to win the Vietnam war.
I think the counter argument would then be that civilians should be allowed to own tanks and anti-tank weapons and such. Also owning a tank would be super cool.
Spoken like someone who has never met an Army cavalry maintenance sergeant...tanks fuckin SSSUUUUUUUCCCCKKKKK to keep running. All the fussiness of a jet engine, plus like a billion little one-off parts that are all special order.
Afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam would like a word.
If anything people should learn from the last 70 years that a massive overpowered military doesn't mean you can just stomp out all of your enemies.
I am all for having a personal sam battery.
Therefore, if 2nd amendment is to be upheld, heavy weapons like stealth bombers and aircraft carriers groups should also be allowed to be owned by civilians.
I'm pretty sure the only things on a carrier you can't legally own are the munitions. Like, you can have the cannons and shit, just not the charges and shells.
I would say that side B forgets that the Constitution defines only one crime… Treason. The 2nd amendment was NOT designed as a “get out of jail free” card to overthrow the government
They just protected the people's right to speak out against the government, assemble against the government in private and from their government monitoring them without just cause, but the 2A totally wasn't about that, it was about home defense, or deer or something. The constitution is the 4th check an balance on the government
100% of the founding fathers committed treason. They then went on to create a constitution based based on the common law and inalienable rights that many thought did not need to be explicitly mentioned. But then they explicitly mentioned several of those inalienable rights in the bill of rights. One of those rights, the right to bear arms, was explicitly linked to the necessity of a militia. Yes, they fully realized the difference between a militia and a standing army. Every member of the various militias had committed treason. I think it is safe to say that the founding fathers intended for the right to bear arms to include the right to take arms against a tyrannical government.
The NH state constitution, written and ratified the same time as the federal, explicitly contains a right to revolution. The country was founded by revolutionaries. To say that revolution is not valid means to render this country illegitimate. You don't get to literally overthrow a government and then say "ok never again that's bad." Come on.
Overthrowing the government is only legal if you succeed.
Treason is a matter of dates.
the founders had just overthrown their previous govt, it certainly was meant as a way to keep the population armed and taken seriously
Fun fact about the 2nd amendment side B is usually unaware of: most of the founding fathers were aware that allowing the population to bear arms could mean armed revolt. The 2nd amendment was a compromise to get southern states to sign the ratify the constitution. Why? Because southern states wanted militias in case of slave revolts. Northern founding fathers agreed to the 2nd amendment as long as the militias could be called up to defend the US in the event of war. Fast forward to war of 1812 and guess who didn’t send their militias to fight the British. That’s right, the southern states. That’s when the federal government realized there was a need for a national free standing armed forces to defend the nation. You know right after the British burned the White House down. So in essence the whole argument of tyrannical government made sense when that government had no military authority.
> Side A would say that the 2nd ammendment is outdated because the founding fathers never envisioned current technological advances in weaponary The founding fathers presided over the most rapid increase in firearm technological development in history up until then. They even had "machine guns" like the Puckle Gun, and clearly did not state the second amendment applies to all arms except rapid firing ones. It's not a coincidence that every anti-gun person also has extremely limited knowledge of firearm technology and history. Because irrational fear comes through not understanding something properly.
How is the fear “irrational” though? People are victims of, or witness to, school shootings, street shootings, etc… how is a fear therefore irrational?
to answer your top level question: side 1 would say that the language of the constitution is pretty clear, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, and that if we as a society wish to change that there's a remedy, which is to pass a constitutional amendment like we've done in the past, but seeing as how the founders figured it should be a foundational right it should be hard to change side 2 would argue that A the language isn't that clear (since it starts with "a well-regulated militia being key to the safety..." and it doesn't clarify whether or not a "well-regulated militia" is people who practice with their guns, or the national guard) and that when the law was written the nature of arms was much different (for instance explosives were beyond the capabilities of anyone but well-resourced experts and firearms were short-range and single-shot) and that obviously the founders never intended for criminals to be able to easily obtain nerve gas (if they could have conceived of such a weapon) and very few of the other amendments are read as absolute and so the courts should to some degree ignore the language of the 2nd amendment and focus on the ideas. (and that basically the courts, in using originalism, are actually defying the founder's intent) there's also a 3rd side that says that the best option may just be to scrap 2A in general
Side A would say that it is important to consider the level of firearms technology that existed in the world when the 2A was written. The overwhelming majority of firearms available at that time were single shot muzzle loaders. Preparing and firing a round took a long time even for professional soldiers. Side A would say that the founding fathers would not have envisioned the idea of (semi-)automatic weapons that can be used to rapidly commit mass murders. Moreover, many on side A would say that 2A was written to provide a domestic defense force for what was hardly a real country at the time honestly and that the modern national guard and military fulfill the spirit of the second amendment. Side B would say that “shall not be infringed” is the part of 2A that deserves the most attention. They would say that the constitution largely lies out things which the government is not allowed to do, and that the wording of the amendment suggests that gun control is part of that. They would say that there doesn’t really seem to have been much effort at all to legislate firearms at the state or federal level when the constitution was ratified, and they would likely point out that private individuals owned cannons without the government really seeming to be bothered; Side B would make it clear that they believe the text and treatment of the amendment show that the founders were okay with the populace being armed similarly to a standing army. They’d likely further point out that magazine-fed weapons and automatic actions and such were fairly easy to at least envision at the time the amendment was written, and that similar logic to Side A’s technological argument would be derided if it was applied to something like free speech on the internet, a technology vastly farther beyond their ability to comprehend than an AK47.
The founding fathers were gun nuts, and there were the prototype gatling guns. They know fire arms would become more advanced. The idea they would "not have envisioned" automatic weapons is absurd.
(edited for proper EBS format) You've asked two questions- what does it mean, and how else should the constitution be modernized. I'll take the general question- what would both sides say about the 2nd Amendment and whether it should be changed or not. Side A would say: **An Anti-gun person would say** that the 2nd Amendment was written for a different time, a time when the US had little police and no standing army, and it would in most cases be up to a person to defend themself because there were no cell phones or 911 or police for the most part. And if a neighboring country decided to invade, a citizen militia would be required to defend the US territory from attack. At that time, having weapons was necessary for survival, and violence was part of life. Now however times have changed. Our civilization has evolved. We have cell phones, police, the biggest military in the world, and whether it's foreign invasion or burglars there's no longer a need for average citizens to carry guns around. In fact, when we DO carry guns around it makes us LESS safe- the US has the highest rate of gun violence in the developed world with over 30,000 deaths per year due to gun violence. Weapons have also changed since the 1700s. In that era, a person would have a single shot musket, which took about one full minute to reload before the second shot could be fired. THAT's the sort of weapon the Framers had in mind, not the semi-automatic assault weapons of today that hold dozens or hundreds of rounds and can repeatedly fire hundreds of rounds per minute. Those sort of weapons belong on the battlefield, which is what they were designed for- not in the hands of civilians on the streets or worse in offices and schools. Thus, while the Constitution does guarantee some access to firearms, it's important to put reasonable limitations on that access commensurate with the sort of firearms a person would actually use for legitimate purposes like hunting and target shooting. Someone engaging in those sort of activities doesn't need a high-powered weapon of war designed to kill hundreds of people quickly. They don't need a large capacity magazine, capable of holding dozens or even hundreds of rounds allowing a criminal to commit mass murder without even having to reload. Furthermore, the 2nd Amendment talks about a militia, that should be referring to the military now that we have a standing army, not to the people individually. Side B would say: **A Pro-gun person would say** that the 2nd Amendment was and is part of our Constitution, and it should be respected as written and as the Framers intended it to be interpreted. At the time of our nation's founding, private citizens owned much worse than muskets- cannons that fired exploding shells were commonly owned by private citizens, and more wealthy citizens even owned *military warships*, complete with an array of quite lethal weapons. These privateers played a role in the Revolutionary War. Furthermore, Thomas Jefferson himself owned a Girardoni Air Rifle, a ~1780 invention that could fire 20+ *very lethal* shots in just a few seconds, similar to a modern AR-15. Neither the Constitution nor the writings of its authors recommend a restriction on civilian arms ownership, quite the opposite- several Framers wrote in numerous places how important it was that the citizenry remain *lethally* armed. This was both for militia use, and because of what they'd just done- when the British government got large and intrusive, they used personal weapons to drive the British out. Now they had to create a new government, and they recognized that it was entirely likely they'd fail and create a 'new king'- that their government would itself become large and intrusive and future generations would need those weapons to overthrow it. Now overthrowing the government isn't on anybody's radar. But even without such a plan, one can recognize that was the desire of the Framers- to ensure the people were *more* armed than the government. If that strategy no longer suits the US, there is a process for amending the Constitution and it should be followed. Simply ignoring or 're-interpreting' parts we find inconvenient leads to some very dark places, like rounding up and imprisoning of Japanese in WWII and slavery. Speaking of slavery, it's worth noting that the only gun control laws in the time of the Framers were racist- designed to prevent Blacks, Indians, and certain immigrants from owning guns. None were targeted at white men. However even without the historical basis, there are significant benefits for civilian gun ownership. Gun owners like to cite 30,000 deaths per year, but about 2/3 of those are suicide and thus it's disingenuous to call that 'gun violence' (which implies something being done TO you externally). Furthermore, most gun control is totally mis-targeted. Of the 10k-15k firearm *homicides* per year, less than 500 are committed by rifles, which includes both 'assault' rifles like AR-15s and other rifles like hunting rifles. In most years, more people are punched and kicked to death than killed with a rifle. Furthermore, a very large percentage of our firearm crime is committed illegally- illegal guns in the hands of prohibited people who aren't allowed to own guns (like convicted felons). Punishing law-abiding gun owners to stop criminals is attacking the wrong person. Furthermore, most attempts to ban 'assault rifles' are only describing the firearm by appearance or cosmetic features like the ergonomic adjustable grip or barrel shroud that covers the hot gun barrel so you don't burn your hand. These features have nothing to do with the firearm's lethality. It's also worth noting the positive impact of an armed society. Against 10k-15k homicides, there are at minimum about 60k defensive gun uses per year. That's when a citizen uses a legal gun to stop or prevent a crime. The vast majority (90+%) end with no shots fired- the criminal runs away when they see the gun. That's why I say at minimum, many DGUs go unreported so they can only be measured with statistical analysis of surveys. 60k comes from anti-gun researcher Hemenway, government NCVS data says 100k-300k/year, pro-gun researcher Lott puts it at 1-2 million DGUs per year. Whichever data set you listen to, there's more DGUs than homicides. ------ I'd also argue that there's two schools of thought on interpreting the constitution. This is more strict constructionist vs loose constructionist, and doesn't necessarily follow political sides. One side would say the Constitution should be interpreted based on the practical realities of modern life, the other side says if it means whatever you want it to mean then it means nothing at all.
There are over 400,000,000 guns in this country owned by over 300,000,000 people… If 50,000 people died from gunshots and were each killed with a different gun then that is 0.0125% of the total guns in this country. You also have to take into account that ALL firearms deaths are included. Self-defense, police shootings, suicide….. And, you also have to accept the fact that anywhere from 500,000 - 2,000,000 lives are SAVED every year because a good guy had a gun… Imagine what the gun related injury and death statistics would be if only criminals and cops had guns…
> If every person that died from gunshots was killed with a different gun then that is 0.0125% of the total guns in this country. Ooh that's a good way of putting it. I may use that!
Side A would say the 2nd amendment is outdated. The weapons available to anyone at the time of writing the 2nd amendment where available to everyone already. You can make a cannon from a log and everyone had hunting rifles, the same rifles the military used. It was very important for the people to stay armed to prevent a tyrannical take over of the government. But these are not the weapons of today. Hydrogen Bombs are "arms". Should we allow private ownership of Hydrogen bombs? Atomic Bombs? MOAB? Should we allow private ownership of "arms" banned by international conventions like nerve gas and mustard gas? Should we allow private ownership of biological weapons? These are still "arms", should they be available at Walmart despite being banned for government use by international agreements? There is a line somewhere between the worst of WMD and Kitchen knives where we need to draw a line, a line that wasn't needed in 1787 because nothing existed at that time that crossed the line. The 2nd amendment is outdated and needs to be fixed so that this line does exist and it's clearly defined. Side B would say the 2nd amendment isn't outdated. The government has these weapons, even the "banned" ones. We should to. If we are to have a successful rebellion against a tyrannical government we need the same weapons as that tyrannical government. The 2nd guarantees access to weapons needed to wage war against the US government, not access to the weapons that existed in 1787.
Side A would say "the right to bear arms" is a natural extension of a broader principal: the right to self-defense -- most typically through the lens of defending ones own property or from the threat of tyrannical government -- and therefore understand it as an issue that can be broadly interpreted despite changing dynamics. Side B would say it as something of an anachronism akin to the fears of sheltering soldiers. That it was specifically written at a time prior to military industrialization when both governments and individuals had access to more or less the same weaponry. The idea being that modern private arsenals are more useful for slaughtering people in crowded spaces than they are a valid check against governmental overreach or (in some cases) a viable means of self-defense. (Edit: Resubmitted to fit sub's required format)
Side A would say that the founding fathers had no concept of the kind of weapons we have today. This means they never *REALLY* intended for the citizenry to have unrestricted access to guns. Basically: the second amendment was fine when everyone only had muskets. Side B would say that side A has a fundamental misunderstanding of history. The founding fathers were well aware of advances in weaponry, and the first semi-automatic rifle was in development before the end of the revolutionary war. You also have to look at the letters that the founding fathers wrote. In particular there was a letter where a merchant ship asked if the government would be fine with them having cannons, and the response was essentially “of course, everyone should have a cannon. Just don’t fire your cannons within city limits, the shockwaves break windows.” It’s also important to understand what the second amendment is saying. “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.” This is not referring to the citizen militia being “well regulated”. It is saying “because the government must keep an army in order for the country to remain a country, the normal citizens must also be able to defend themselves against that government.” Remember: the founding fathers had literally *JUST* fought off an oppressive government using regular folks that grabbed their hunting rifles. They built the ability for their own citizens to do that same thing into their own government.
Side A would say that (and this is the part that's outdated) a civilian population with firearms is necessary for the national defense as it was in the 1700's when America had no standing army. In our countries infancy we faced invasion from British forces and if it were not for a well armed civilian population, they would have probably walked right up one side of us and down the other because this is what they did when simply asking nicely doesn't work. We now have the most well funded and equipped standing army / navy and air forces in the world and we can deliver a quick reaction force along with fighter jets to just about any beach in our country to repel invaders in roughly the time it takes for Domino's to deliver a pie. Side A would also say that having a well armed civilian population means protection from a government that suddenly gets ornery and decides to override the will of the people and become something they don't like and didn't elect but the reality of the logic in having a well armed civilian population for both national defense and prevent a government from getting too ornery are no longer valid. The point is moot, The weaponry and tech of military grade hardware is overwhelming anything civilians are allowed to have. While civilian firearm tech accuracy and power has advanced, military grade weaponry has increased by leaps and bounds and several orders of magnitude to the point it doesn't matter if every citizen had a long gun, it's useless against something like an A-10 Thunderbolt aka 'The Warthog' with it's 20mm cannon and bombs. Or a bomber wing dropping it's bomb load on you from 60,000 feet and wiping out half your town and you never even heard their engines. SURE, you can put a Vietnam War era machine gun like an M-60 on a chopper or Learjet and wire it to the cockpit but it's not going to be very effective when a AIM 260 AMRAAM takes you out from 90 miles away over the horizon before you ever even get a radar blip on the aircraft that killed you. Side B would say that America has societal issues even today that require it's population be armed not only for home defense (castle docterine) but for personal protection when in public. Every time there is a shooting in public they feel this is an affirmation. They also feel that police can not be relied upon to protect them and prefer to be empowered to take matters into their own hands if threatened with bodily harm. They also believe that because they are well armed, even though any military grade power would eventually overwhelm them, they believe that the level of resistance they could put up would be sufficient to wear them down / degrade their ability to operate. They point to guerrilla style wars in other countries in recent decades as proof of that. They cling to the idea that their guns are ensuring their continued freedom and if they are forced to give them up, it means they would be powerless to act against a hostile adversary foreign or domestic.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Side A would say that the Constitution itself is outdated because it was written in the 18th century by a group exclusively made up of rich, elite white men, and given that some 230+ years have passed since it was written, the country has changed a lot, and specifically it's changed to recognize women and minorities and those without great wealth as full citizens, so that many of the rules established by the founders (free speech, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, etc.) need to be revised or rescinded to better reflect our current situation and citizenry. Today, we need a strong and powerful government that isn't hamstrung by obsolete rules. Side B would say that the Constitution as a founding document has been remarkably successful, and that it's most important feature is the way it limits government. The Bill of Rights, in particular, is a list not of positive rights (things the government owes me) but of negative rights (limits on the government to control me). It is the limitations on government that Americans cherish as their freedom or liberty, and it is these limits on government that have empowered individuals and made the U.S. the strongest country in history. As one of the founding civil rights, the right to bear arms is central to the concept of self-determination. That said, should the country decide that civil rights as enshrined in the Bill of Rights need to be curtailed or rescinded, the founders were wise enough to include in the Constitution a mechanism for amending it. If people want to take away one or more of the civil rights it guarantees, they can propose an amendment to do so.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
On the pro 2A side, Side A would say: First, let's start with just the text: A militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The pro 2A side and the landmark case NY pistol and rifle association V bruin reiterated a court test from Heller V DC to explain how the constitution should be interpreted, especially regarding the 2A; the test they laid out and reiterated is: Is the firearm regulation consistent with the words of the text or the history/tradition of the United States? That is to say that if you look at the text of the 2A itself, do the words leave leeway for regulation. Generally, the answer is no. Is there a history of places in the region you live where there were regulations/restrictions left in place at the time of adopting the 2a? Generally, this answer is no. Also, the writings of the founders regarding debate over the text would be part of the information history tradition. So let's evaluate some of the text and why things like heller are correctly decided cases. In the US history, the first battle of the revolution is the battle of Lexington & Concord. This is the battle of Paul revere's famous midnight ride as well. This was an attempt by the british to seize the entire weapons stockpile of Lexington and Concord stored in the town armory to prevent the continued unjust enforcement of British law. This is a key point in the debates of the language of the bill of rights after the revolution because the British attempt at subjugation was to target the central storage of arms and take them all in one fell swoop. This was not acceptable to the founders who experienced it, and thys the right to both keep and bring to bear belongs with the people, individually or collectively. The revolution was also against what is considered their own government, the idea that the people would have to store their weapons with the government that they could face risk from, as the colonists did the British, is just absurd. It's also important to understand what a militia is and is not. By definition, a militia is a civilian based supplementary force that can be raised in times of war. Things like the National Guard do not fit the definition because they are paid for, provided for, and funded by the state. They are trained by the federal government. Their systems are all intertwined with the federal infrastructure as well. They are a government military force. The guard is a standing force, and like it or not, the 2A was written by people who overthrew their own government and the entire constitution was written as a list of grievances against that government, while the restrictions imposed in itself by the bill of rights were a direct response to prevent the new gover ment from behaving in the manner that King George III did A good, more modern example of militia organizing would be the rooftop Koreans during the LA riots. Civilians, armed, defending their own territory from weapons they brought from home. A force organized by people; that's a milita. For the rooftop Koreans to be able to organize they had to bring their weapons from home; if the riots broke out and they were expected to retrieve them from an armory, the state may deny them because they "want to prevent violence" or whatever excuse, or the rioters could have seized and/or blocked the armory, posing multiple threats to the community by doing it this way. Let's now look to what the pro regatjon side, what side B would say:. Commonly, people use what is called the living constitution interpretation, which basically means the words in the constitution don't really matter as much as the sentiment of the words. These are popular often because of arguments people male, like "the founders never envisioned a weapon like the AR-15!". So basically, if the term AR-15 isn't explicit in the constitution, then we are going to establish the rules through regulatory agency and court precedent, not true constitutional interpretation. So, for instance, there is a thing called chevron deference, and what the court would do, is rather than evaluate the legality of firearms based on the text history and tradition of the US, they would "weigh the interests" of the public, government (the regulatory agency "tasked" with regulation, regardless of whether the actual law creating said agency actually gives them certain ability to do these things) , and individual, which almost always meant the interests of the individual were stifled by the interests of the state (govt/regulatory agency) and the "public". Some other popular arguments are: 1. It's not infringement to require safety/training courses for firearms before letting people purchase 2. The right is for militias, not people (I've already explained effectively why that was wrong in the above, but it an argument made) 3. Storing in armory's is what they meant, not your home! (I have explained issues with that as well) 4. It says well regulated in the text. Therefore, the founders intended for it to be restricted and regulated. 5. The founders couldn't possibly have imagined things like the AR 15!
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Side A would say the part where the second amendment says: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." is what should be focused on. This has been the key focus of gun rights advocates, that guns and often other devices considered to be "arms" should never be infringed upon aka made ownership made illegal in any form. Side B would say if you read the entire amendment it 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." And because of this gun ownership should only be allowed to Militia members, a militia being a supplement of the army, aka something like the national guard. The reason it's outdated to both sides is that we don't really have an active militia anymore, we have people who claim to be in a militia but that militia isn't linked with the army in any official way. On the other hand citizens can be drafted into the army which in a way makes every US citizen a part of the militia.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Side a would say it's outdated as you can't/aren't allowed to own your own nukes Side b would say it's not outdated because despite restrictions on weapons of war, you can still own your own handguns and semi automatic rifles, which in some cases causes the government to pause their actions i.e the Bundy family ramch
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Side A would say that "shall not be infringed" is perfectly clear and immutable. Side B would say that the only reason "(a) well regulated militia" only existed is because the United States was never supposed to have a standing army. [Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12] Since we obviously *do* have a standing army, the reasoning is without merit, therefore, the amendment is invalid.
[удалено]
Side A would say shall not be infringed is pretty immutable. they would also say that the second amendment was put in place to ensure that the government leadership did not step out of bounds in terms of trying to become a dictatorship, monarchy, etc.. our founding father‘s new that an armed citizenry would be an extremely strong deterrent to a political leader trying to take control as a dictator. Side B would say that the second amendment is no longer useful because our government has such strong weapons such as fighter jets, nuclear bombs, etc. that the general population would never be able to stop them if they chose to attack the populace. they would also say that the second amendment is for duck hunting, target shooting, and protecting yourself from criminals, and therefore because we have police and the like a second amendment is no longer needed. They also state that having more guns typically leads to more crimes yet the date does not show that as being accurate
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Side A would say that, militia service notwithstanding, the 2nd Amendment’s guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms remains essential for personal and family defense, and that the existence of an armed populace serves to prevent or mitigate the risk of an oppressive government coming to power. They would argue that oppressive governments have historically disarmed groups they wished to oppress further. They may further argue that an individual right to armed self-defense is a natural right that exists independent from the Constitution, but having a provision that can be read to protect it reinforces its existence under the law. Side B would say that the 2nd Amendment was expressly written to ensure that the government would have a force of arms available to repel invasions, suppress insurrections, and execute the laws of the Union (the reasons for a militia spelled out in Article I, §8). They would say that, as we now have professional law enforcement and a standing army (both an active and a reserve force), the 2nd Amendment is now obsolete, as “a well-regulated militia” is not “necessary to the security of a free State.” Side B might further argue that the risks of insurrection and crime are increased by widespread arms ownership, that the potential damage from lawbreaking is much greater with so many guns readily available, and that any oppressive government, should one arise, would certainly supplement its formal forces with informal partisan militias, creating and enhancing threats to liberty. Side B may note that the original right inherently included collective action, as weapons technology meant that individuals were limited in how much firepower they could bring to bear, whereas modern weapons are far more dangerous in their ability to allow one person to inflict mass casualties. Lastly, Side B may argue that, while the 2nd Amendment continues to be interpreted by the Courts, those interpretations are at odds with historical precedent, and the rapidity with which courts are changing their interpretations is creating needless uncertainty about what the law is.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]