Last Monday evening, I was reading on my iPad when something strange happened: Notifications started popping up about comments on the article I had posted that day, “How Should We Rewrite the Second Amendment?“. Every minute or so, there was a new comment. I usually get 5-10 comments total on a featured post, not 5-10 comments in a few minutes, so I knew something strange was happening.
When I’m writing a post, I usually lose myself in what I’m trying to say. But as soon as I hit the Post button, I start imagining it catching on with readers: Maybe they agree with it, or maybe it just makes them look at something a different way, so they like it and tell their friends. Those friends tell their own friends, and a positive chain reaction gets rolling.
But that wasn’t what had happened. My anti-Second-Amendment post was getting attention not just from my usual readers (who I think mostly agreed with it), or from new readers who liked it, but from outraged NRA types. It was a chain reaction, all right, but not a positive one. People were telling their friends about it because they hated it.
Nothing motivates like outrage, so the post got 15K page views (independent of subscribers, who see posts via email) and 290 comments, the vast majority of which were negative. (For comparison, the previous week’s featured post had done quite well by recent standards: 1182 page views and 8 comments.)
Something similar had happened to me once before: Back in 2011, “Why I Am Not a Libertarian” became one of my first viral posts, and for a while it was the Sift’s most popular article. (Numbers are not really comparable any more, because changes in social-media algorithms have made it harder for posts to go viral, but the Libertarian article got 28K views and 282 comments.) It did that not by impressing people with its clear thinking and crisp prose, but by pissing them off. The vast majority of the comments (and I suspect of the page views as well) came from offended Libertarians.
So back in 2011, I saw a road to notoriety opening up: I could be a provocateur, the kind of blogger that folks love to hate. I could write posts that trolled large groups of people, and then make sure that they knew I was running them down (maybe by seeding a few links on the appropriate Reddit groups). They’d shoot emails and Facebook comments and text messages back and forth, saying “Can you believe what this jerk is saying about us?”. And my numbers would take off. If I simultaneously started having advertising on the Sift, this might turn into some real income.
I didn’t do that.
There are writers who love the provocateur role and even some who are good at it, and I don’t want to judge them. But to me it would be a kind of hell. It’s not in my character to take satisfaction in the hate and anger of others, so I don’t know how I could get up every morning and intentionally aggravate people.
But eight years had gone by, and I had accidentally done it again. I doubt there are a lot of 2nd Amendment absolutists in my subscriber base, so I don’t know how word of “How Should We Rewrite the Second Amendment” filtered out to them. I can’t find any popular pro-gun blog that blew the outrage trumpet, and I certainly didn’t seek out that kind of attention myself. So it’s a mystery.
But it produced an interesting artifact: that 290-long comment stream. I pretty quickly decided I wasn’t going to answer them all individually. (A real provocateur would. Annoy enough of the commenters individually and who knows how often they’d come back and how many of their friends they’ll tell. Trying to annoy me back might become a minor hobby.) However, I have read them all. They provide an interesting window into a world outside my usual neighborhood.
For those of you who don’t have the time to wade through all of them, the rest of this post is my summary.
A large number were just statements of disagreement, without much attempt to convince: The Second Amendment doesn’t need rewriting. Keep your hands off the Second Amendment. And so on.
Many others were statements of disagreement plus some insult. The shortest was my favorite: “Idoit”. Whether that was a typo or a bit of intentional cleverness, I’m not sure. (When I was in high school, my friends and I would intentionally mispronounce pseudo-intellectual the way it looks: puh-sway-dough-intellectual.)
I didn’t feel like any of these needed a response. I said something; you disagree. Fine.
One version of this was to dispute my assertion that the Second Amendment has become meaningless by counter-asserting that its meaning is perfectly clear. I’ve often seen this happen with Bible verses: If your ministers and teachers repeat an interpretation to you often enough, that meaning begins to seem obvious to you, no matter how obscure the original text is in reality. Apparently, the same process works with the Constitution.
Other people made objections that I felt I had already answered in the article, like saying that gun ownership is necessary to protect us against tyranny. I had considered that idea and rejected it for specified reasons. If people had a response to those reasons, I considered their views. But if they just reiterated the original point, my response was already available.
Several people repeated the myths about Hitler and Stalin disarming their people; I had already provided a link debunking those myths.
Some commenters entered into the spirit of my post, but want to rewrite the Second Amendment to make the NRA’s intended meaning clearer: that any gun-control laws at any level are unconstitutional.
Those comments speak for themselves and need no reply from me. Again: I said something; you disagree.
One of the stranger misconceptions in the comments was that I had said something about Denmark. “Denmark” shows up six times in the comments, and not at all in article. (I actually mentioned the Netherlands as a nation without an armed populace, but which doesn’t seem to be threatened by tyranny.) I think this was probably because Denmark had annoyed Trump this week, so it was in the minds of his minions.
Several bizarre theories about the Constitution were put forward.
A number of commenters asserted that the Bill of Rights can’t be changed. I’m not sure where that comes from or who promotes it, but it’s just flat wrong. Article V of the Constitution is pretty clear about that:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
One thing the Constitution does not give anyone the power to do is to is to amend the Constitution in a way that can’t be amended back. So when the First Congress wrote the Bill of Rights, it was creating a set of amendments that could be repealed in the future through the same amendment process.
Several people seemed not to get the whole idea of amending the Constitution. Quoting the Second Amendment against the idea of repealing the Second Amendment makes no sense.
Two anonymous comments (probably the same commenter posting twice) claimed that “the Preamble” said that our rights come from God. (He was kind of obnoxious about it, calling some other commenter “you of weak mind”.) This is false. Neither God nor any religious synonym appears in the Constitution, in the Preamble or anywhere else. Mr. Anonymous had confused the Declaration of Independence (a Revolutionary War polemic that has no legal significance) with the Constitution.
Others similarly found a religious significance in the Constitution that I doubt the Founders intended to put there. (More about that below.)
The constitution should be treated as sacred as the bible is. Both to be held in the highest regard and NEVER changed or messed with in any way. The government should stay the hell away from it, and keep their fat traps shut. If this country would live by both, the bible being the most followed, then we wouldn’t be in the crap hole this country is in. But we shouldn’t be changing it as we see fit, but follow it as the founding fathers and GOD saw fit.
The Constitution is a thoroughly secular document that sets up a secular republic. Some of the Founders had religious motives and some didn’t, but they didn’t write their religion into the Constitution.
If we regarded the Constitution as sacred and never changed it, blacks would still be slaves and women wouldn’t be able to vote. Anybody who regards the Founders as divinely inspired and their work as sacrosanct needs to own that.
Other commenters couldn’t comprehend the idea that the world can change out from under a text and leave it meaningless. (Back in 2015, I explained how changes in opposite-sex marriage had made bans against same-sex marriage indefensible, even though they had made sense a century or two before. Change erodes meaning.) Several argued that we could know what the Founders thought because they left extensive writings behind. And that’s true: We can know quite a bit about what they thought about the world they lived in.
What we can’t know is what they thought about the world we live in. And that’s my point: Applying the Second Amendment to the world we live in is just senseless. On either side, people are just making stuff up, because actual text doesn’t mean anything any more.
As an aside, this is one way that the Constitution does resemble the Bible: There are parts of the Bible that are meaningless now, because no one knows how to translate them into modern language. Anyone who says they know what the commandment against “coveting” means is lying to you, for example. So is anyone who claims to know the meaning of “witch” in “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.” Any honest discussion of those verses has to start by saying, “We don’t really know what this means.”
Quite a few commenters seemed to think that even talking about rewriting the Second Amendment should be taboo, because then somebody could rewrite all the amendments and take our rights away.
This is kind of a silly point, because amending the Constitution is a Herculean task. It will only happen when there is good reason for it to happen.
So yes, it is completely possible that we could repeal the First Amendment, or the 15th, or whichever one is closest to your heart. The Founders never intended to write a Holy Scripture. Jefferson was undoubtedly an extremist in this regard, but I doubt he was the only one who believed this:
no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation.
And yes, some of the arguments I made about the Second Amendment becoming meaningless can apply to others, because time is constantly eroding the meaning of texts. I was explicit about that.
Old laws become encrusted with layers and layers of debatable interpretations. If judges do their jobs well, the public may retain confidence that some “spirit” of the law lives on, even as it applies to novel and unforeseen situations. But at some point, we need to accept that the original meaning has been entirely lost, and so it’s time to shake off the encrustations and reconsider the relevant issues from scratch.
The First Amendment, like the Second, is often applied to situations the Founders didn’t foresee. Personally, I still find a “spirit of the law” in First-Amendment interpretations that I don’t find in Second-Amendment interpretations (where it seems to me that everyone is just making stuff up), so I would not favor repealing and replacing the First Amendment.
If, however, we found ourselves in a situation where an unfortunate application of the First Amendment was leading to thousands of deaths every year, I might change my mind.
But I do agree this far: We should absolutely be talking about all the rights in the Constitution, and evaluating what they mean and/or should mean, because we are the living generation. The earth belongs to us and not to the dead. If any part of the Constitution no longer serves us, and if that has become so clear that we can get supermajority agreement about it, we should change it.
One common criticism was that I didn’t know history, but usually commenters floated that objection without attaching it to anything in particular, so who knows what they meant or whether the criticism has any validity. Chances are, they have seen some of the bogus history the NRA spreads, so the criticism could just be turned back on them. But there was one exception: I in fact did not know about some of the bizarre early versions of multi-shot weapons.
Several commenters made claims about weapons the Founders might have seen, but only one provided a reference link. Admittedly, it’s a link to an NRA blog, so I take all this with a grain of salt. But apparently there were multi-barrel guns that were capable of multiple shots.
I have to question how reliable, accurate, or otherwise practical any of those guns were. But even if they worked reasonably well, I see no reason to change my conclusion that
An attack like the recent Dayton shooting, in which one man killed nine people and wounded 14 others in half a minute, would have been unimaginable [to the authors of the Second Amendment].
To sum up, nothing in the comment stream makes me want to go back and rewrite the original article, or change the amendment I would like to pass. Likewise, none of it changes my conviction that the Constitution is (and was always intended to be) open to amendment. As Jefferson said, the world belongs to the living, not the dead.
The Weekly Sift 
Comments
Thanks again, Doug. Your comments today pretty much capture my thoughts as I read the comments to last week’s post. I was most troubled by comments that clearly indicated that the commenter didn’t read or comprehend your original points. Keep up the good work.
I’ll second that. Many of the comments to this post also seem to be following the same pattern: they either didn’t read the text or didn’t understand it and they have no interest in exploring the issue beyond their established positions.
You are an idiot leave the 2nd amendment alone. It’s there for a reason.
Case in point…
The comments are a timely reminder that the people who most ardently defend gun ownership are the least competent to handle anything more hazardous than a butter knife. It’s unnerving that we share the highways with them.
I usually at least skim your articles, and find them thought provoking. I passed on the 2nd amendment article last week, because I have already been thinking for some time that this amentment needs a rewrite and I was kind of busy last week. Meanwhile, I noticed one of your quotes from a previous article, “Old laws become encrusted with layers and layers of debatable interpretations…” and was immediately reminded me of the NY Times article dated 1/18/2002 about the two Jews remaining in the capital of Afghanistan, who were too busy arguing with each other to move. I got a chuckle out of revisiting that idea. Thanks!
In the day, I helped conduct a blog on gun violence. The Gun Rightists would swarm us. Most of them were absolutists convinced that any slip towards gun control was a slide they could not bear. They challenged what we knew about guns, what we knew about the world, what else we cared about in our private lives. (Some of us on the blog were gun owners. Even I, not a gun owner, could accept Scalia’s view that all 2A did was to protect owning a gun for self defense in one’s own home. A few lower courts have expanded that seminal case, but SCOTUS hasn’t.) Above all, to Gunnies, the Second Amendment is sacred, and immutable. It means freedom to them and they write it large!
Personally, I would not touch 2A. I am deeply suspicious of polls that show the public wants this reform or that, for these are special interest polls and not state or district specific. And unlike most of the rest of us, the gun crowd votes as a single issue bloc. It would be safer to wait for SCOTUS to reawaken than to open Pandora’s box of Constitutional reform and expect sensible amendatory language to come forth.
Your article last week didn’t get swarmed by NRA people because they shared it with their friends. Google recommends articles in the news feed based on your search history. Therefore if you are someone who regularly looks at guns and information about guns online, the news feed is likely to recommend an article that mentions the second amendment. When someone who is pro second amendment sees an article like your previous one, we would be more likely to read and comment than we would an article about some random piece of clickbait.
The only reason I saw your previous article was because it was included in my Google news feed on my phone 😉. That being said, I don’t care how many criminals break the laws with a firearm. The only solution is to deter this criminals by the threat of reactionary force from armed individuals and security. Disarming or infringing the rights of law abiding citizens does nothing but make them less likely to be able to defend themselves and makes the criminals more capable of committing their crimes.
By the way, I am not an NRA member. I choose not to support the NRA as they are not strong enough on the second amendment. They were accommodating when it came to bump stock ban as well as other government legislation in the past. My personal belief is that there should be no restriction to what you can own except the restriction of what you can afford.
Whether you are speaking about black Americans, Jews in Nazi Germany or any group of people that have been persecuted or subject to terror attacks and killings in history. They have always been prevented access &/or disarmed prior to their persecution.
While I completely agree that the Constitution was designed such that it could be amended, it was also designed such that an amendment would be incredibly difficult to approve. When it comes to the second amendment though, this right is especially difficult to remove as the power held by those who own firearms is far superior to the government. As the number of gun owners far outnumbers the military/police and a large percentage of police and military would refuse to take part. Especially as their co-workers begin losing their lives and getting injured in each attempted raid.
It is because of this that I don’t need to prove anything to someone who wishes to remove my rights. Much like the Gadsden flag implies danger to those who would violate the snake’s freedom, those who seek to take freedom from 25% of the country or more are only going to harm themselves.
Couldn’t have said it any better, although I do support the NRA, GOA, NAGR, and many more gun rights groups. The NRA scares the left more than all other groups combined, making that alone, a worthwhile donation. I give well over $1000.00 every year to gun rights groups and I’m a single issue voter. You vote for gun control, you don’t get mine or my family’s support, and we vote in every election, be it town, county, state, or federal. Education is key. The left constantly villifies anyone who disagrees with their extreme, that’s right, extreme, far left positions.
Lastly, if you want to understand why gun owners won’t give an inch, just look at the utter hypocrisy that came from the gun control Parkland group. Hogg and his ilk repeatedly stated “we’re not looking to take anyone’s guns. We’re only looking for common sense policies”. Now this week they release their “demands” and they are more extreme than any of the candidates running for the Democrat nomination. They’re calling for mandatory gun buy backs which is CONFISCATION. Talk about hypocrisy.
> black Americans… disarmed prior to their persecution.
Sop why are the 2nd amendment fans not universally outraged that black americans aren’t armed, that they’re so often killed by police who think they might be armed, and that there’s so much racist outrage specifically on the topic of armed black americans?I believe Doug has mentioned this in the past.
I can’t help but think that the stereotype of those people as mostly white nationalists (subset: gun fetishists) is accurate. “a couple of them are black” does not disprove this point, any more than the election of Obama ended racism in US politics.
Thanks as always to your rational consideration of others despite their refusal to respond to your proposed argument with reason. As a student of human irrationality for 60 years, consider ir you will the insight that unconscious rage at himself of the NRA faithful forces him to assume the illusion of his idealized self image of the strong well armed ready to defend against ever present threats. As Trump defined this world, ” I trust no one.” This lack of trust in other blinds the believer in his would be omnipotence when his real inner enemy is within. His real source of anxiety is his inner conflicts..
The book that clearly describes these emotional disturbances in our ability to relate to one another is Karen Horney’s classic “Our Inner Conflicts.” Trump is the absolute perfect stooge personifying Horney’s characterization of those who externalize their anxiety that controls them.
Never doubt that your efforts at ascertaining truth are seeds that will even take root in those who glorify ignorance. Please keep sowing the seeds.
Several of the comments on the original post promised violent resistance to changing/repealing the second amendment:
“I will not acknowledge a replacement of my 2nd amendment right. You want the 2nd civil war, or a new American revolution?”
“You’re not changing it without blood shed.”
“I for one will die in a blaze of bullets before MY right to any amendment is INFRINGED.”
These brought to mind some of Doug’s earlier writings about the preconditions for a democratic government including “a national consensus about all the really important issues”. If enough people are willing to kill if the issue doesn’t go their way, it can’t be put to a vote. I don’t know how many is ‘enough’.
The level of paranoia that exists today is quite troubling and I’m cynical enough to think that much of the paranoia swirling around the Second Amendment and gun ownership has been promulgated by the gun industry and the NRA. There’s so much money at stake and as Country Joe McDonald said “there’s plenty good money to be made by supplying the army (read public) with the tools of the trade”. As long as the gun industry has the NRA to lobby and we have leadership in D.C. like we have these days we’ll have this intractable problem. Here in Eastern Washington we have a state rep. Matt Shea, and a bunch of Christian Dominionists, allied with other right wing splinter groups, all heavily armed, who are proposing to divide our state and create “Liberty” State. Recently they’ve been emboldened to claim that they either get “their” state or bloodshed might be the result. Never mind what the rest of us that live here want.
Perhaps you would be interested in the American Anti-Corruption Act:
https://anticorruptionact.org/
Among other things, it addresses the lobbying problem.
Today you made me laugh. My husband is a gun-nut who renounced his membership in the NRA because he thinks they’ve become tools of the right wing nuts. In the interest of peace at home I did not share your article of last week with him. (Gun rights is a battle we fight too regularly without any body changing their minds.) When I showed him the pepper barrel gun someone had sent you as an example of a multi-shot weapon of the 1830s. He laughed like hell. He says 1) there weren’t very many made because the cost so much. 2) they took a long time to load and 3) they likely weren’t accurate at distances so the parallel to present day multi-shot weapons doesn’t hold. Thanks for making my day and his.
Be careful what you wish for. A constitutional convention could change any amendment nit just the one you don’t like.
That is a possibility, although the probability is lower than that of another constitutional convention even happening in this current political climate.
You don’t. I like the Constitution and my country as it is.
What part of “shall not be infringed” do you not understand?
What part of “amendment” do you not understand?
What part of Bill of rights don’t you understand katie
Our rights never change. Nothing the goverbment says or does can change our rights. The second amendment did not give anyone any rights at all. Our rights are natural. If you’re not harming anyone else, you should be left in peace. Even if the 2nd amendment was repealed, we would still have a right to possess ANY arms that we want. Nobody can change right into wrong.
Doug explicitly mentioned that our conception of rights changes over time. One place you can see this is marriage – one of the major descriptions of marriage in the bible approvingly describes a man with hundreds of wives, hundreds of concubines and also hundreds of sex slaves. I think most people today consider that to be a morally unacceptable arrangement, but the man involved is simultaneously held up a a paragon of wisdom and virtue (King Solomon, no less).
That same bible, by the way, is completely silent on the need to either own a gun or have laws preventing people from owning guns. It seems strange that an omnipotent god would leave out something so important… perhaps he doesn’t consider it so?
sell your cloak to buy a sword….
This is just another awful opinion piece that really doesn’t aim to fix anything. This opinion is easily discarded as someone who doesn’t have any significant knowledge of firearms or laws relating to them.
Like I said the first go round, if the goal is to save lives I don’t believe this will help. Will it decrease death by these type of Weapons? Maybe. I believe the power of evil motivation is lost in these type debates. If a motivated individual wants to cause death and Carnage they will. You only shrink one category to grow another. Criminals or those planning criminal acts don’t quibble over legality.
I commented on your other article and still disagree with your conclusions. There were still founders alive when repeating arms were invented and they didn’t go back and denounce the 2nd Amendment. Compared to a musket, a Winchester lever action seems revolutionary and wide use of semiautomatic firearms is over a century old.
You seem to be an anti Second Amendment absolutist, in that you insist support of the Second Amendment requires absolutism. You are the problem not us. 90 million+ gun owners lawfully exercise their 2nd Amendment rights all their lives and let a handful of killers commit mass murder and you want to punish the innocent 90 million. We have a handful of court decisions affirming the individual RKBA and the Democratic party wants to either Amend the Constitution, Ignore the Second Amendment, or pack the Court when they regain power and overthrow the Constitution.
I didn’t perceive you as either a troll or provoking a negative response but that doesn’t mean that you are not extreme in your views. Amending the US Constitution to end the 2nd amendment rights actively exercised by a very large minority is extreme.
I am a proud gun owner and NRA member.
I am also a staunch 2a supporter.
And I understand some persons are willing to discard their own rights when THEY have little use or concern for a given right.
But the Bill of Rights was created as a unit for a singular purpose – codifying the rights of the people from the abuses (or potential abuses) of a tyrannical government.
The 1st amendment; Speech, Press, Assembly, et al were identified as rights; not to ensure folks could simply stand on a soapbox and scream to the heavens about their myriad of opinions; but to ensure that folks with grievance about their Government could meet, discuss and exchange ideas and the Government would be unable to impose their will upon the people unopposed.
The 2nd was enacted for the same purpose – to ensure the PEOPLE had the ability to oppose a over reaching government – by force if needed. The Militia clause referred to the desire that the Federal government would NOT hold a large standing army and the STATE would maintain a citizen army for it’s own internal defense and for the purposes of opposing a centralized Government if the need arose. This STATE militia of the PEOPLE has been transmorphed into the National Guard – a military division and under the direct control of our centralized and Federal standing army.
The founders have just fought a war against a tyrannical ruler – their desire was to maintain the power of force in the hands of the people via the state. In the current absence of a PEOPLES organized militia (remember, the Federal government has taken over and usurped this body) the right and ability to oppose by force the government must be allowed to exist within the hands of the people. It is to this end that the founders stated the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Words may change meaning over the years – but the intent remains crystal clear. To maintain a free state – the people must have avenues to oppose – by speech, by press, by assembly and yes, even by force.
Amendments have already been repealed, so there is historical precedent. Prohibition was established by the 18th Amendment to the Constitution, and Prohibition was repealed by the 21st Amendment to the Constitution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Couple of things
Semi automatic weapons in common use today both pistols and rifles , this technology is over 100 years old. For instance the colt 1911 45 semi auto pistol is model 1911 after the year it was adopted by the us military.
Also as a point the question that some on the anti gun side state what good willl your AR 15 do against the us military? The vietcong beat the the us military with the AK47 .
What baffles me is, people are killed way more frequently by other means other than firearms. If you remove suicides 11 to 15 thousand deaths in a country of 350mil is really not high a number. If you can deal with the gang violence in major cities you could half that number.
Why not consider suicides as part of the public health issue?
Part of the first amendment is the freedom of religion so yea the constitution speaks of God or religious synonyms.
You’re just another libaturd telling lies about Hitler and Stalin . I don’t know where you read those lies. They did disarmed the people . So they could kill the Jewish people. Stalin disarmed the people. Killed the doctors the farmers etc. Dont hand us that B.S. The 2nd amendment does not need changed. Also hard to do. You libaturd always blame the gun , not the nut job holding the gun.. They usually post there crime before they do it. Most of the nut jobs have had run ins with the law. Lock them up. Don’t f**k the law abiding citizens. That’s are rights. Move to a country with a dictator and see how it is with no rights. This is our rights. But libaturds dont respect our rights.unless it hurts people like you.
Two articles and still an idoit. Wow.
I just don’t get how u allow kiddos to train on killing video games for years n think that there is not going to b mass killings they have no sense of death n somehow it has become a norm tell just go kill that’s what happens when there is no one ever loses n all ways gets a 🏆 for nothing then get out in the real world n find out there not all that great n just can’t take it might want to look at changing the first amendment makes more sense
Why don’t we just allow the entire Constitution to be periodically be rewritten to whatever the prevailing political clime dictates ? Question is, who, what and when becomes the dictator ?
To the best of my recollection Thomas Jefferson actually suggested something close to this in a letter he wrote around 1815.
Big deal repealing the first amendment rights to the anti-gunners and people like you, changing the rights to the people that suits to you! I don’t agree with you or journalism at all! I’ll give you a subject to talk about: Stop the bullying stop mass-shootings! Talking never solves the problem action does. So far the Democratics have done nothing but talk
You don’t like the laws here find a Country who has better laws to your liking and move there.
Thank you for the interesting read. I would like to add a little context from the period when the amendment was written, just to spice up the comments.
It’s my belief that our country has become too unified, with the states being dependent on the federal government and the mixing of policies and national party politics. So, here it is, my opinion. The 2nd amendment was intended as protection from the federal government marching troops into a state and imposing its will on the people of that state. In the time of writing, no one would entertain taking everyone’s gun. It was necessary to put food on the table. The very same gun was also the military arm of the day. The same as deer hunting with an AR15 today. It can be done and is done every season. Not a great choice but it’ll do. My opinion comes from the anti-federalists debates that took place during ratification.
So, with that said, there might not be a need to rewrite the 2nd amendment as it is for the protection of the states from the federal government and the people already have the right of self defense from another and the ability to use force in defending themselves. Yes, that does mean with firearms or sticks or any other weapons. Maybe instead of rewriting the amendment we should just make it illegal to kill people. Seems if that were the case it wouldn’t matter what guns people have they wouldn’t break the law and kill anyone. Simple.
Hello, are you the same Vincent Cotugno who wrote book reviews for the Village Voice in the 1970s? If so, can you contact me? Joe Ortiz (jmortiz7@utep.edu)
Information technology has changed even more than firearms technology since 1791, yet we have expanded the 1st Amendment protections related to freedom of speech and freedom of the press since the 1st Amendment was ratified.
You probably won’t get many responses on this one. The other article was so long and typical freedom controller I won’t even go there and didn’t when I first saw it.
I leave you with this, there have been about 10,000-11,000 amendments proposed over the centuries, 27 made it. I can’t wish you luck, I oppose everything in your article. You should probably consider the Netherlands as it may be a better fit.
Well I will start off by saying that I probably do not agree with you much at all on the 2nd Amendment but that is not going to keep me from saying I am extremely disappointed with the gun community and there inability to have a respectful argument. I do not think you are an Idiot, you obviously put a lot of thought into your first article and laid out some pretty fair arguments but now I must get to the part where I disagree with you. You lay out in your first article that every person has the right to self defense and I agree but then you say that someone should not own an assault weapon with a 100 round drum. Now I would not pick a 100 round drum for my home defense rifle but I would and have picked an “assault rifle” (I disagree with this term but ill go with it because legislatively it would be considered an assault rifle) with a 30 round Magazine as my ideal rifle and I will explain why. I have picked an AR-15 because the ammunition is available, low cost (which allows me to practice/train without breaking the budget) I can put a telescoping stock (a feature specifically banned under an assault weapons bill) on it in case I am not home and one of my relatives who is a smaller build can shoot it just as well as I can, An AR-15 has minimal recoil yet uses a round that is very lethal given an appropriate bullet( i mean projectile here) selection. All of the attributes listed above are the reasons I have chosen an Ar-15, Now you may say why not a shotgun? and that is a good question. The reason I have not chosen a shotgun is because I do not enjoy shooting them and for a home defense rifle you are using some sort of slug or buck shot which are very unpleasant to shoot when practicing, also the ammunition is not very cheap and takes up more room than the standard 223/5.56 NATO round I use in my AR-15. Another reason I have not chosen a shotgun ( in this case a pump action, reliable semi auto shotguns are too expensive) is because a shotgun is harder to use in a stressful environment without causing a user induced malfunction, while with my AR-15 I have enough practice with it that I am sure I could run it in a stressful environment and have enough ammunition in my 30 round magazine that I will likely not have to reload if someone breaks into my house and intends to do me or my family harm. I do believe I have a good reason for owning an “Assault weapon” and I do not believe that the state or federal government should tell me how best they think I should defend myself. Another argument is that ” well you have a good point but we have to do this for the good of everyone else” and I understand that viewpoint but I think it is fundamentally flawed because I have always believed ( and maybe I’m just wrong here) that the United States has always been about the individual and that is why our country is so great. Now I am going to take a darker turn. I do not believe an assault weapons ban would work in stopping crime committed with firearms, will it prevent large killings with rifles? perhaps but how many people are really killed with rifles a year? As it turns out out of the 10,982 people killed with firearms only 403 of those deaths were from a rifle that is only 3.7% of total firearms deaths that year and the rate is comparable from 2013-2016 according to the FBI UCR ( link here:https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls) now keep in mind that in 2017 696 people were killed with personal weapons defined by the FBI as “hands, fists, feet ect.” So if we band assault weapons would it stop mass killings with firearms? maybe. But people who want to do harm and kill masses of other people will look to something other than rifles/assault rifles and they will quickly find out that even the dreaded assault rifle is too precise a weapon to cause a real mass casualty event. let us look at a couple of mass casualty events and I will define that as 30 or more people dead just to pick a number out of the air. Now the worst mass shooting in US history was the Las Vegas shooting in which claimed the lives of 58 people not including the shooter in which multiple firearms were used. Now let us look at the attack in Nice France which killed 86 people and was perpetrated using a single rented truck and to throw another one out there we can look at the Oklahoma City bombing resulting in the deaths of 168 people and was conducted using a fertilizer bomb in a van. In shot people who have evil in there hearts will commit evil by what ever means necessary and to completely ban the means for them to commit those acts will mean the high regulation of common things that you can pick up at a hardware store. And I do not believe that is the right way to go about things especially in the United States as Benjamin Franklin said ” Those who give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety” ( had to get that founding father quote in there just because). Now what do I suggest we do? I do not believe we have a violent video game problem, I do not think we have a violent movie problem but I do think we have a culture problem. Currently many young men are frustrated with there lives and are seeking some kind of purpose whether that means joining a terrorist group like we saw with ISIS or the current bread of domestic terrorism spawned by Nazis and members of ANTIFA ( though the ANTIFA attacks have been less “effective” for lack of a better term). I think families need to communicate with their children put them in something that gives them purpose especially young men because that is where we are seeing the biggest out lash. Sports are essential, Boy Scouts(now just Scouts I think), Sea Scouts, are also a great approach. We should talk to our family members who are on the wrong track about the military because if there is anything that can set someone straight it is a Drill Sergeant at Fort Benning or a Drill Instructor at MCRD Parris Island. In the end I do not think we have a gun problem in the United States but instead we have a culture problem and the best way to solve it is starting at home. Thank you for your time reading this LENGTHY response and I hope that more people in the gun community treat you with respect the next time you bump the hornets nest, Till then I suppose.
Thanks for this well thought out comment. You make some good points about lack of meaning/nihilism driving the violent actions of some of these individuals. My views on the 2nd amendment fall closer to Dougs than yours but I respect your right to an opinion and have to give you kudos for expressing it a thoughtful and respectful manner.
I am interested in gun issues, and my Google feed directed me to your article.
Unfortunately you gave the game away when you use the words “assault rifle.” There is no such thing; there are automatics — machine guns, that (believe it or not) can be obtained at great expense, but legally; and semi-automatics, which are single shot but reload themselves. What most people think of as “assault guns” are actually semi-automatics, with purely cosmetic, military-like features. They are extremely common guns, e.g., the Ruger 10/22 is probably the best selling gun for the past 35 years, given to many sons and daughters as their first gun, and with many millions in circulation. It is a .22 caliber semi-automatic rifle with a 10-round magazine — what some would consider to be an assault gun. You can buy larger, 3rd-party magazines for it, including one that holds 100 rounds, which saves time while target shooting, a skill that takes significant effort to be good at it.
When you lump together common, fun, useful guns into this pejorative category, you 1) demonstrate a bias against them; 2) show that you have probably never shot one; and 3) therefore, not qualified to pass judgement on their lawful and peaceful use.
One last point: like free speech, self-defense was/is understood to be a NATURAL right, granted by “our creator,” G-d, or otherwise as a part of being human, fundamental to our existence. You instinctively recognized this right. But to amplify: it is not granted by second amendment. Rather, and similar to the first amendment, the wording in the amendment ACKNOWLEDGES that it is prexisting right, like privacy. This is discussed at length in the Heller opinion.
They can rewrite all the laws they want but until the hearts of men change the world will continue on this path of self destruction because it isn’t the instrument that kills it’s the empty heart and lost soul on the other side that does.you could take every gun but it won’t stop another twin towers Oklahoma City or Boston Marathon the people that are leading this charge to take guns are only doing it for one reason power!!!
It’s less about what is in the hearts of men and more about what is in their hands.
Countries with more restrictive gun laws have the same hearts but not the same problem with mass killings. Notoriously Australia reacted to a mass killing with stringent gun laws and the next mass killing by an Australian was more than 20 years later… and the killer travelled to another country with more relaxed gun laws to carry out the atrocity (the Christchurch massacre).
Hey bud i think you need to take your hand and grab your crotch don’t let them fingers slip in that vagina and find your balls and mind your business on what other people own or don’t own.
But but it’s black but but it has a detachable magazine that holds 30 rounds but but it has an adjustable stock but but it has a pistol grip its so scary well man up little boy and realize that just because you don’t like guns doesn’t mean I won’t own them and if you want me to give them up and if you want my guns you can pry them from my cold dead hands
I’ve read through most of these comments, and there’s A LOT, but you win 1st place for the most ridiculous ignorant garbage post I’ve seen in weeks. Did you graduate high school?
What is ignorant garbage is this guy’s thought process on the constitution a bill of rights and I assume you agree with him.
And as far as graduating high school yes I did and unlike you and that ass clown I understand what (SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED) means I also know that taking guns from law abiding citizens won’t make anyone safe because the criminals will continue to have them believe it or not felons have guns they just dont let people know about it.
And i also know that I am not being graded on an essay so who gives a shit
Leave the 2A alone. You democrats and liberals have no right what so ever to change any Amendment!!!!
“the right of the people to keep and bear military arms shall not be infringed by any government, local, state or federal, or any agency there under.”
Amendments can be amended.
To see the history of weapons and the different ones thru out the history of the USA check out the Ordenance Mussem at Ft. Lee, Virginia. There has been several attempts for multiple shot weapons, some work some didn’t. As far as the changing of the second amendment you did post some interesting points. But I believe that like all of the amendments you can not change them with out changing the culture of the USA. We tried that with outlawing the making of alcohol and had one of the most violent and lawless times in the USA. Change in the USA comes slow and the society needs to be the ones who makes the change.
Why is this garbage on the main feed of my google search?
It’s to brainwash the liberals into furthering their agenda to disarm the law abiding.
I think people are generally worried because governments commit violence against people, hell, people commit violence against people all the time.
Generally people in favor of amending or removing the 2nd just assume that the west doesn’t need it.
But that’s hardly a safe assertion to make- the UK alone is a great case study of what happens when the population steps down from having the potential to inflict violence – the government removes rights, and that’s pretty much the end of it.
The second part of the amending seems to have to do with either the safety provided by the police generally, or the military. That is also a rough one, given that depending on the media the police are either trigger happy killers armed and militarized or saints, when the reality is they are simply people. Some of them are well trained, some of them are poorly, and most probably somewhere in the middle.
If we are concerned with shootings, I’m always surprised that none ever occur in places where it is incredibly likely and casually known that most people are armed. The focus of people against the 2nd seems always wrought with emotion and howling children. Any reasonable human being agrees that human beings have the right to preserve their life- those that are against the second just believe they have clear knowledge and superiority to have foresight in any situation.
All these and more are typically why the idea of removing that amendment only exists in an echo chamber.
Best to remember your responsibility as a citizen of the US and what would be considered a common idea in a violent world such as ours- your life is yours to preserve. Lives cannot be preserved by paper, only by the capability of meeting force with equal or greater force.
I suppose the common counter arguments will appear, but really, a good question to ask yourself (as this issue is profoundly an individual one, not a groupthink) is whether humans have the right to defend themselves.
You likely won’t rewrite anything to do with the second A!
OPINION: Everyone needs to calm down and consider that this is an emotionally charged issue on both sides.
When a mass killer unleashes wanton destruction in a public place, it’s understandable that people rally behind a “do something” movement, because we really do need to do something.
On the other hand, when the popular solution people are drumming up is to ban arguably the most well designed rifle in history that is widely used by law enforcement, (note: NOT military) they are going to face some strongly worded rejection.
The pro-gun folks insult the opposite side as ignorant, whilst the pro-control leaders declare that gun nuts are indifferent to mass murder.
I say we as a nation need to seriously examine the results of gun-free zones, gun/magazine bans, and the anti gun culture as a whole.
I strongly believe that the BEST way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
The police may have professional training as part of their job, but they CANNOT be everywhere. Killers can come from anywhere and so can armed citizens.
At least with these mass shooters we actually have a chance to stop them in their tracks, unlike freaking suicide bombers that you’ll NEVER see coming.
My final two cents is if a school teacher feels responsible and confident enough to arm themselves and protect our most vulnerable, they should be supported a d praised, not ostracized.
If you feel like schools are the last places that we should allow guns then tell that to the sick and twisted hell bent on slaughtering children, or else put every school campus on a moat with a drawbridge.
Thank you.
It is interesting that you claim that the first amendment doesn’t take thousands of lives every year. You don’t think people commit suicide from hateful words on social media? Or the many people who think the words of President Trump exercising his first amendment rights instigated the Dayton and El Paso shootings? Or how about the people who kill other people because they were disrespected?
You think the founding fathers would have envisioned a medium where you were limited to 280 characters that politicians use to try and push important policy positions? Yes, I think the first amendment is open to rewriting as well.
As I am sure others have pointed out to you, the founders intended the bill of rights to be just that, a list of rights that could not be messed with. The argument can and has been made that the 2nd amendment protects all others. A government that can disarm it’s people can silence it’s people as well.
What a liberal idiot!wow!
Go Away!!!
Second amendment proponents didn’t change your mind, just like you didn’t change ours. You see reason to change the second amendment because of anomalies like what happened in Dayton. That man doesn’t define what millions and millions of responsible gun owners do with their weapons every single day. Just like that should spark conversation on changing something you don’t like, should a jerk white supremacist on 8chan spark conversation for changing the first? Once again, I’m sure that doesn’t change your mind, but at least it’s good for thought.
Also, to help you understand something, Google pushed your article into my news feed under the premise of Second Amendment.
I’m afraid I at least contributed to the response. I dropped the url of your article on a never-trumper site, asking for opinions. It’s a never-trumper site but it’s still a conservative group although they have a weird definition of conservative. I knew most would have a negative view but I thought I might get some balanced response from at least some. Honestly, some probably did not read it and those that did read it, did not get the gist of your post. I assume the pro-gun people took the article to their community.
There may have been others beside myself that called attention to the posting, but also there are those who monitor the web looking for keywords. They then bring their poorly thought out wrath to the comments.
Still, I’m sorry you had to read that guff.
I want people to share my articles, and if sometimes they wind up in the hands of people who hate them, that’s life on the internet. I’m just saying that I myself don’t try to fan outrage, even though I could probably boost my blog’s stats if I did.
Leave it alone!!!!!
I’m not your usual NRA right wing gun owner, I’m a left leaning social libertarian who hates the NRA. That being said until all the racists are dead I’ll keep my weapons of war! Trump’s Tiki Torch Terrorists exist and white privilege is not a sad historical footnote yet, so don’t try to take my guns, I have a mixed family to defend. Until area cops can respond within the hour, don’t try to take my guns! Until you can tame the wildlife around me and train the predators to avoid my home, don’t try to take my guns! It is my birthright to arm and defend myself and my loved ones, what kind of self serving coward would try to take my freedom?
Tyrants would love to confiscate our guns, the liberals. Why would the senators and their cohorts want to do that when they themselves live in high walls and protected by armed guards? It’s simple: they want to disarm us so we have no fighting chance if they want ultimate control. I was in the military and I have sworn protect the Constitution from both foreign and domestic threats.
What we really need to do is repeal the Second Amendment. Does anyone really think a citizens’ militia would have any chance against law enforcement or military sporting missiles, RPGs and explosives? The ability of the citizens to overthrow their government went away about 100 years ago! The only reason to own a gun is because you like guns. There’s nothing wrong with that.
The Second Amendment will protect you until the Supreme Court overrules the Heller decision in a couple decades. It will happen.
I propose we get rid of the Second Amendment and get a defined Right to Privacy amendment in its place. If you possess an item or engage in an activity that does not infringe on the rights of others, the government has no right to stop you. You can have your guns and I can have my marijuana and cocaine.
You can have my Glock (or blunt) when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.
Smhadam D
As far as citizens fighting law enforcement and the military I guarantee a lot of leo’s and service members would join the citizens the oath that one takes when joining the service is to protect the constitution and the people of the United States not as much as the government and we take that oath seriously.
Not saying all leo’s/servicemen and women would take the citizens side but the vast majority would
I can’t see exactly what your overall point is – that the 2nd Amendment is poorly written or irrelevant. The problem is that you’d be wrong on both counts.
As for how it was written, the Bill of Rights are not normal Amendments to the Constitution. Rather than laws enforced by the government, they are natural rights that the government cannot infringe upon. The 2nd Amendment is written as follows, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed”. Take that last point. The right of the PEOPLE.
Either way, it has been shown in many publications by the Founding Fathers, but very often Thomas Jefferson, that the 2nd Amendment is specifically for the defense of a tyrannical government, both foreign and domestic. To be able to combat a military force. All weapons should be available to the public. You may question if an AR-15 was in mind, but your argument for that only makes sense with actual “weapons of war”, like tanks and large explosives.
I know this is related to the recent mass shootings that were within a week, and related to so-called “assault weapons” (though the ATF has published that this phrase is simply political rhetoric and has no meaning or value when talking about any gun).
If you want to ban AR-15s and similar rifles, you should do some research on them. For starters, they are not weapons of war. They were used for an extremely short time during the Vietnam war because they ran out of M16s, and AR-15s simply used the same ammunition (also, per the Geneva Convention, guns and ammo are for disabling the enemy rather than killing the enemy. As such, all military rounds must by jacketed, meaning they do not expand, fragment, or deform when they impact an object, unlike common civil defense handgun ammunition, which is designed to kill. Therefore, military-grade ammo = less lethal than civilian ammo), but have never been used since.
Ignorant people (like yourself, no offense – you’re just not educated in firearms or AR-15s, quite obviously), believe that the ammunition fired by these weapons is massively more powerful than really any other gun that civilians commonly own. You’d be wrong. In fact, a .40S&W handgun not only has more stopping power and impact force, but also has rounds that can expand to over an inch in diameter. A common civil defense round, the .40S&W Gold Dot, is 160 grain (weight) and shoots at 1450fps. An AR-15 5.56x45mm military round is almost always 50 grain, at 3000fps. Do the math, and you’ll see which has more stopping power. Hint: it isn’t the tiny .22 rifle round, it’s the handgun.
It’s also important to look at the numbers regarding gun deaths related to the types of gun.
The point to be made here is that these types of weapons are far less dangerous than you or anyone in the media wants people to believe, and far less dangerous than a typical handgun.
So why are they “the weapon of choice for mass shooters”? They aren’t, handguns are. But why are they used at all? Because for those who are mentally ill, suicidal, and easily swayed to join hate groups, the media constantly telling them that they’re the most effective is helping make that decision.
And while AR-15s may not be your target regarding changing the 2nd Amendment – an informed person is better than an ignorant one, especially in media. And please, research this all youself. Stay away from news/commentary articles, and look up the raw data and do whatever math is needed. Hopefully you’ll see that anti-AR15 is a willfully stupid place to be. At least trying to ban all guns is an honest argument.
LASTLY – dissenting opinions from Supreme Court cases aren’t good arguments (to some commenters, not necessarily the author).
I respect your well-written, reasoned dissent, and your civil manner. Posters who call others stupid, idiots, etc. and who are just obnoxious and insulting instantly lose credibility in my eyes.
Physics states that force is equal to mass time velocity squared (F = mv^2). If your ammunition profiles are correct, the .40 round has *less* kinetic energy than the 5.56 round. I am left with the question as to why the round with less kinetic energy should have more stopping power than the one with higher KE.
.40 round:
160 grain, 1450 fps = 0.0103678 kg, 441.96 m/s yielding 1012.56 joules
5.56 round:
50 grain, 3000 fps = 0.00323995 kg, 914.4 m/s yielding 1354.51 joules
Post-coffee edit: energy & E = mv^2 not force & F = mv^2
Suppose I wanted a technical definition that corresponded to the vague idea “gun that can kill a lot of people in a short time”. How would I find that?
Thank you for your informative reply. I think that Doug already replied to your very first point, though. There’s nothing in the Constitution that prevents the Bill of Rights, or the main document, from being amended. The process requires supermajorities in the House and Senate and then a super-super majority of the States, but if it was done, there’s nothing in the Constitution itself that would prevent a rewritten 2A from taking effect.
Second, I didn’t see anything in Doug’s original article that said anything about “banning” guns. His proposed wording specifically permits “weapons adequate for personal defense” (sorry, not an exact quote), and he explains why.
Other’s have noted the Energy vs. Momentum issue. If “stopping power” = “momentum”, your ranking is correct; if “stopping power” = Energy (which seems more correct to me) then bobo has it right.
But again thanks for the civil discussion. I hope (but don’t expect) that others on this thread might learn from it.
The standard 40 cal pistol round does not have more stopping power than the standard 223 rifle round. Unless you have some definition of stopping power that is different than “creating a massive wound in soft tissue and bone.”
Kinetic energy is kinetic energy. You are spouting stuff you’ve heard from old timers about stopping power. It’s old wives tales you’re spouting.
Why waste everyone’s time complaining about people not knowing what they are talking about?
As I can agree a bullet that expands has a higher stopping potential but where you were not completely correct is that its the human mind is what stops someone more then the bullet (because when someone gets shot thanks to the magic of Hollywood) we think that oh ive been shot its game over for me
But thats not at all true unless you get shot in the heart or in the head or the spine
The human body can actually take multiple rounds and still keep going that’s until you pass out from blood loss and shock
And for where I got this information was from my time in service
The only rewrite should be that every American shall possess and carry a firearm.
Writing it is easy. Getting it ratified is a bitch.You’ll need the support of 2/3’s of Congress and the legislatures and governors of 38 states. There are 22 red states and 28 blues. Good luck!
No change to our Constitution will occur it is human right we have and, one that cannot be changed. Tampering or trying to change our American way of life is asking for another civil war with those who are strong supporters of the 2nd amendment. Dont forget your history also and what happened to the Jewish people during Nazi Germany. Also Americans today live in peaceful times these shootings that occur are not as massive and terrifying as one is lead to believe. Just go back to our grandparents generation more violence and death occured during that time than today. Those people’s lives who were taken by tyrannical and, corrupt power is damn good reason to remember those who lost their lives and why we as Americans need to keep the 2nd Amendment alive. Even today the law is clear it is up to us as individuals to protect ourselves. Police have no obligation to give their lives for us so we as citizens have to fight for our own life. Government will not be taking any weapons because I’ll fight along with my brothers and sisters to protect the constitution of the United States of America.
Jefferson intentionally left a better world for the future living. You are a fool and selfish to think that “we the people” is only for today’s living. If that’s your belief why even bother with any form of government or law? Oh wait that’s the America we live in today ! Laws for thee ,but not me. What we live in today IS a direct result of turning our backs on our Constitution. I will not supply links and footnotes for support, one need only look up from their computer screen and engage in the real world.
No one will rewrite the 2nd amendment, nor anyone take away the right to bear arms from law abiding citizens. You liberals do little to no research on firearms and quick to jump the gun to point fingers on the firearm itself before questioning the individual who pulled the trigger; did the firearm walk and discharge itself unto anyone? No, a very troubled person took it upon himself to commit this act, so never blame the firearm. Secondly, gun control does not work because criminals will always find a way to have access through the black market or a shady back alley salesman. How about we ban alcohol instead? That kills more people than guns did in recent history, it is a drug after all? What about tabacco? Or automobiles? Liberals are so quick to make these rash decisions. And I’m not a Conservative either nor a Liberal. But I stand by my right
Very troubled people without guns don’t kill 25 people in 1 minutes time.
Since criminals just ignore laws anyway, what’s the point of even having laws? Oh yeah, anarchy.
You are assuming that a rewrite/redraft of the second Amendment would just take away everybody’s guns. Why do you jump to that conclusion? Did you read the original article at all?
You are completely devoid of common sense when it comes to supporting a change to the 2nd amendment. Please know that a kindergarten approach to rewriting the 2nd (everyone in the class is punished because of the bad behavior of one person) will not solve the issue but will erode the entire document. Mess with the 2nd and all others become vulnerable.
When Google relays your stuff, it drops the byline. So I don’t know who you are and have not bothered to find out.
I do not, however, believe you to be simply an idoit. A smug, useless, superior idoit, yes. But not an ordinary one…
Only a smug, useless, Superior idiot would call someone else a smug, useless, Superior idiot.
You stick to your guns (no pun intended) ; your article was right on. Even for some of the comments below, it’s clear that they didn’t/don’t understand what your article was about. They see change as bad, no matter what. Hey, “Law Abiding Gun Owners,” a reconsidered, rewritten Amendment could even expand and/or strengthen your right to arms. Ever think about that?
I doubt that mass shootings would have been unheard of in early America. Violence is how the British maintained order and control. European expansion was always escorted by violent subjugation. If you trust your government enough to take away the citizens constitutional right to be armed you are extremely naive. You lay down your defenses they’ll be coming for your freedom!
You are either ignorantly or willingly facilitating Satan’s plan. Also you are ignorantly pushing a position that will lead to civil war. Your argument that we can’t stand against tanks etc is ridiculous because stand against tanks we will. The thing you don’t understand is us conservatives, deplorables etc would rather and are willing to die than be gov’t subjects.
You *really* can’t understand why people are upset when you advocate abridging one of their fundamental human rights??? Are you unfamiliar with what Mao (I’ll cite him, since you are a Leftist) said about political power coming from the barrel of a gun? Mao gave the game away. This isn’t about crime: that’s an excuse for your neo-Totalitarians. This latest push for more gun control is just another attempt to consolidate more power in the hands of the State, nothing less. Oh, and please note my spelling, since you think many of us are uneducated.
*you.
You wish to repeal the 2nd amendment? Go ahead a d try, you have to convince a lot of people and their legislators to even get it started. Then you have to deal with the war you started. Now you may think” No civil unrest could stand up against US military might!” But are you sure they would be on your side?
A lot of these soldiers and sailors have fought to stop exactly what your heading for.
But please go ahead, your right to do so is another reason why they have fought.
I’ll have to read the original article. But IMHO, you seem to conflate the issue with the statement saying the 2nd Amendment is “responsible for thousands of deaths each year”. This is false and misleading. The second amendment is, well, an amendment. It can’t rise up and kill anyone. Nor can a gun without a person to pull the trigger. Not attributing guilt to those who break the laws of our nation and murder, and instead blaming an amendment or a tool, seems to cheapen the horrendous act in itself in my view. There is also no factual way to prove that repealing gun rights would lessen gun violence. Don’t get me wrong. I don’t believe I will change your mind, but I thought I would share a view that is, at least somewhat, thought out…..
You don’t rewrite your rights!!
The constitution was not written to be rewritten, it was written as a frame and a foundation to build off of and like any framework or foundation, the moment you take out a support it will become weaker and sink what ever weight it was holding up. If you take out one basement foundation wall to a house the whole house will collapse. It might take sometime but the house will collapse and eventually be destroyed. We as a society need to use our brains and take the higher road to find a solution that will fix the problem within our prexisting framework or our country will indeed fall apart. I for one have traveled around the world and I can tell you without a doubt we are the greatest nation in the world and if you dont think so go live in some other country for awhile, especially a third world country.
In what world is calling for the removal of other people’s fundamental human rights (to be more accurate, removal of constitutional protections for those rights) considered “clear thinking”
Unbelievably ignorant.
Doug…I hardly ever comment, but in case you’re looking for more ammunition on your idea that “There are parts of the Bible that are meaningless now, because no one knows how to translate them into modern language.”
Did you know, have you read, that there are many, many words in the New Testament that simply have no meaning, no translation? They are called “hapax legomena,” (“words used once.”) Words in Ancient Greek that are simply untranslatable because they appear in no other Ancient Greek texts so we cannot gain a context and meaning for them. In the phrase “Give us this day our daily bread,” the word “daily” is a hapax. In the phrase “You cannot serve two masters. You cannot serve God and mammon,” “mammon” is a hapax and in this case the translators didn’t even try to translate it. Wikipedia says the Ancient Greek of the New Testament contains 686 hapaxes. I love the Bible, but I love it with my eyes open.
I will have to read more about hapaxes (or whatever the plural is).
My problem is the fact you lied with your title. You did not advocate for rewriting the 2nd, you advocated for repealing it with some lip service to gun owners that amounted to an illusion of us keeping our right to have firearms. Had you been honest and just said lets repeal the 2nd I probably would not have bothered reading it. Oh, wait, I see what you did there. Useful lie right.
Isn’t this IDIOT a presumptuous, pompous ass. Who does he think he is , to make the assumption that he knows what’s best for every American and how the Second Amendment should read. It’s pretty clear! It seems to me he just lumps Firearm Owners into his perception, then belittles them in an effort to give his ideals relevance. I suppose he’ll make the argument that the Police are there and will protect us. I’ll take care of my own, thank you, and refuse to be a victim. Go peddle your bullshit to the Sheep.
I am not an NRA member nor do I fully support them, but when you are talking about rewriting the 2nd I have issues. The 1st two amendments should not be touched, that would be a detriment to our freedoms.
When people want to start taking away rights, you are taking them away from law biding citizens. I’m a middle class person who is the 1st to be taxed and the one that obeys the law and government. Who is just trying to live his life and provide for his family the best way he can. Do you think that these extra gun laws are really going to effect the criminals(I think not) they will find away.
Their are more deaths by hammers and knives than with an AR. The AR is a semi automatic rifle it is not a military gun. When are we going to start putting the blame on the individuals instead of the tool. The culture needs to be changed not the amendment. Please look at the statistics and learn more about firearms.
I am a conservative and I know my history. You are correct Jefferson expected the lifetime of the Constitution to be about a generation. I think he would be surprised, and maybe even dismayed that it has changed so little in the last 200 and some years.
Thanks for another great blog, Doug. I look forward to your well written and insightful blogs every week.
You do realize the day you lib-toolies get your way on this is the day everyone in the country who believe what the second represents will line up, shoot twice, and fall back for a nice leisiourly lunch and a three day celebration in honor of saving the REPUBLIC from traitorous scum such as yourself.
Personally I hope it happenes sooner rather than later.
See you across the line comes the day.
GFU!!!
I love the public involved conversation about our constitution. There is not enough of it. But nobody thinks about or realizes that that founding document is in conjunction with the Declaration of Independence.Any article in the constitution can be clarified by the declaration. And if more clarification was needed, maticulous records were kept and would found there. The founders surmised that the constitution would become unclear. And it did. Americans have more right to protect their country, then someone does to destroy it. Especially a tyrant.It would behoove the USA to ratify the declaration because it is no less relevant then it’s other half,the constitution. Records also point out that the second amendment was important then because we were under constant attack by the king. His army soldiers were kicking in door and taking everything including American lives. People needed that protection to fight back. That is no longer the case. In my opinion the people that insist on weaponizing like another country is invading are descendants of the loyalists and shouldn’t even be here. The loyalists fought against freedom, not for it. Jefferson even made comments about the need then will most likely be the opposite in the future. Weapons of war are for war. There is no war here. Unless they plannig on starting one
Umm. Shoot yourself, to answer the question. 1 less spineless mug to stand down and undefend citizens.
Hey I really liked your original article, but I thought I might be able to shed some light on how I found it.
Google gives me a news feed on the left side of my pixel3 (idk if it’s an official app it’s just there) and since I tend to click on a lot of 2nd amendment articles yours popped up in my feed.
they should be work on helping people with depression instead of changing the gun control.
Giving these “so called” law makers ANY say about 2A is asking for trouble. These people can’t even run their own Districts to solve problems with homelessness. They ignore the important issues but if it involves taking more of everyone’s Liberty and Freedoms they seem to have the ability to immediately pass bills in a matter of a few days. Every last one of these DC turds are only interested in their own pockets and to Hell with the common people who actually WORK for a living. Let these politicians walk around WITHOUT armed security and ban them from ANY form of protection for Five Years and then report back to the public what a great idea it is not having protection, even behind their gated, Ten foot high walls surrounding their homes.
Dr John Lott.More Guns Less Crime.You need to Read it .2ND Amendment And the Constitution and Bill Of Rights.You need to read them.To protect against all enemy’s of the state both foreign and domestic.We the People must be armed to repel a tyrannical government both foreign or domestic.That means police or military that would seek to control the populas with the most modern arms of the times.1776,1876,1976,2019.To be armed against soldier or police who may seek to enslave the people as an arm of a government gone rogue.
The Salon article is full of inacuracies.The professors assertions of It”Probably” wouldnt have made a difference if “Jews were armed? That’s a big assertion.The US got its ass kicked in Vietnam by Gorilla warfare which is what any citizens would do to repel an invader .They used at first WW2 weapons against a fully equiped modern Army…and won.They were eventually backed by soviet arms.Gorilla warfare works but you still need arms.So let me simplify it for you .Those With The Guns Rule! I have a gun and you don’t Conclusion:I WIN.Just like in Germany or any other place that would impose …now hear this loud …GENOCIDE.So although unfortunate events happen when crazy people kill other people,One gunman killed 14 innocent people….375 MILLION GUNS IN AMERICA WERE SILENT! How many airplanes crashed that day that? How many flew?? How many people died from drunk drivers that day?? How many arrived safely?? Keep your liberal stupidity.Real Americans aren’t buying it!
The level of vitriol and childish commentary on this post by the gun fanatics underscores the need for stronger gun control laws. It is exactly the sort of unmanaged anger and incoherence that I would expect in a perpetrator of violent acts.
Many of them are foolish and childish. Many of them spout propoganda.
The same can be said for the other side, too.
Here’s one thing you may not have accounted for. They are tired of being attacked. I’m sure you would be, too if at every turn you were called a killer, an idiot, or worse, just because you have different beliefs.
They shouldn’t respond in such a way, but neither should you.
How are they being attacked? The vast majority of gun control advocates here (and most notably Doug) have been nothing if not civil and measured in their discussion of the issue. There is really no excuse for the ugly behavior that so many have exhibited in the commentary for this post and the preceding one no matter how attacked they feel elsewhere.
It is interesting that the people so concerned about what the founders intended regarding the second amendment conveniently ignore that the founders were strongly opposed to having a standing national army. As I have never encountered any of them calling for the dismantling of our entire military I can only assume that they don’t really care what the founders thought and are just using it as a spurious argument.
Go ahead and eliminate the 2nd amendment if you must. It changes nothing. According to the founders we have a right to own and carry weapons. It is implied in the 2a, not created by it. It says that said right shall not be infringed. This implies that we have the right independent of any law. In other words, they deemed it to be a natural right
A right cannot be taken, as long as you meet the requirements for it, which there seem to be none, other than being an American. If a right can be taken, it isn’t a right, but a mere privilege
Assault weapon is a propoganda term used to fool people and to equate certain weapons to assault rifles. It’s usage is inherently dishonest.
You are Correct!
What an excellent, well-reasoned summary and response. I also appreciate your discipline in staying civil in this post–for most people (including me), it would have been tempting to respond with more vitriol to such an onslaught of often-senseless negativity! Well done.
I was thinking how the original Constitution outlined how votes could only be counted from white, male, landowners, over 21, and how those words had to be amended to eventually include everyone…but it didn’t. It originally mentions “appointing” representatives as electors, and they get to vote. It’s not until the 15th Amendment that a person’s right to vote is mentioned, and that doesn’t say that there is any restriction to males or over 21 or literate or able to pay a poll tax or free from felony conviction or any of those other restrictions representatives in the legislature try to imply “only make sense” to have.
But, it’s true that from the very beginning, voting was very, very restricted and it was only after several amendments that it has become less so because society has changed in its understanding of what “only makes sense”. In other words, its unfounded biases were proven to be ignorant and unfounded.
The original Constitution likewise is believed to outline a person’s right to self-defense (or defence) .. but it didn’t. It does in Section 8, say that they have the power, “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
“To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress”
Then, noting that the right to arm the Militia was included, and the right to manage them in every way seemed to imply, as it “only made sense”, that Congress could disarm the Militias. The founders felt the need, based on what they knew from their own experience, for the second amendment, stating that you could not disarm Militias.
Like the 15th didn’t give women or felons or 18-year-olds the right to vote, the 2nd didn’t give gun rights to all men, women, minorities, children, or felons. Voting for representatives rather than having representatives being appointed was what made sense to people, and allowing people to own guns for hunting and self protection at a time when there were no police forces, only sheriffs and justices of the peace, “only made sense” but it was not protected by the Constitution. Things that “only make sense” are not protected by the Constitution until an amendment is added to make it so. If people are upset that their government doesn’t appear to follow their will, they have an outlet rather than bloodshed; they can amend the Constitution and force government to follow their will.
In that way, as I am a gun control advocate, I don’t feel the desire to enshrine any person’s “right” to own a gun by amending the Constitution. As it’s not there, any Congress is free to make laws restricting (or God forbid loosening) gun ownership which makes sense or, if they do not, we are free to remove them from office. What we are not free to do is remove Supreme Court Justices such as Scalia who wrote the opinion in the District of Columbia vs. Heller which was not agreeing with public opinion, did not just “make sense” and was based on highly partisan propaganda.
If you really want common sense gun control, or want most anything to follow public opinion and not the highly partisan calls from the wealthy minority of America, then you’d want to amend the Constitution to allow for the public to remove Supreme Court Justices by vote. That would also help elections be more fair because rulings like Citizens United would have never happened.
I think that we can do a lot about the underlying problem of high partisanship without amending the constitution. The American Anti-Corruption Act:(https://anticorruptionact.org/) addresses money in politics, lobbying, gerrymandering, voting rights, and a few other things that contribute to the highly partisan nature or our politics and government, and it doesn’t require a constitutional amendment.
Hi Doug,
After visiting some in-laws I was receiving The Weekly Sift and had been enjoying it very much. It sure clarified what was happening with the Brexit situation. All of a sudden, it has ceased to come my way. The only thing that I can think of is this, in cleaning out my emails I deleted the one that said “Confirm __ __ __.” I thought I had already confirmed it with my in-laws. Please continue sending it to me. You appear to be ‘well studied’ and fair in your analysis.
Thank you,
Lisa Misemer greenlite.synergy@gmail.com
I’m not sure how you were getting it originally. There’s a list I manage through MailChimp, and I’ve added you. Tomorrow look for something from weeklysift@gmail.com
Your articles are very well written and they are your opinion alone.
I do not see how you can compare playing baseball to the second amendment. Apples to oranges.
When the second amendment was put into Law the firearms of the day were modern, advanced for their time and state of the art.
The firearms of today are the same.
Our Forefathers had no way of predicting what firearm technology of the future would bring. To say they did not mean today’s weapons carries no weight.
To limit the number of firearms and rounds of ammunition one could own is tyranny in its simplest form.
“Shall not be infringed” has the same meaning no matter the year.
To rewrite the 2nd Amendment will give power to criminals because they do not follow the law and will hurt Law Abiding Citizens and also make them become victims to the criminals.
Please do not tell me or suggest to me that a handgun is suitable for me to use to protect my family, property and myself against criminals who will have semi automatic rifles.
Additionally today’s AR-15’s and AK-47’ that are sold to the Law Abiding public are not Military Weapons. They may appear to be to the uneducated because they look similar but they are not and we both know the reason why.
All manufactured items, cars, appliances, books, knives, bat, iron pipes and firearms are inanimate objects. If placed on a table top they will stay there beyond the end of time or until the table rots and collapses.
A firearm is manufactured for many reasons.
Hunting, collecting, target shooting, self defense and more.
In the case of self defense one has the right to meet the force of the threat with equal or more force to end the threat. Suggesting or telling Law Abiding Citizens what firearms they may use is again tyranny.
That inanimate object, firearm, on the table will only fire when picked up and the trigger is pulled. That requires a concentrated thought.
Be it a handgun or long gun.
What is the game changer that some suggest the 2nd Amendment be rewritten??
Mass Shootings? Let’s talk about the mental and emotional health of those who commit these tragic events. Did they acquire their firearm legally? Should the millions of Law Abiding firearms owners be punished and restricted because of them? Will rewriting the 2nd Amendment accomplish eliminating mass shootings? Of course not.
Can you please suggest rewriting Laws pertaining to by what means one can be deemed mentally ill, a threat to himself and others and how to enforce those laws and leave the 2nd Amendment alone?
Thank you
Just in case you didn’t know, this idea that the Constitution is a sacred document, literally inspired by God, comes to us originally from the Mormons. In the 19th century most Christians, who cared one way or the other, were horrified by our “Godless Constitution” and spent lots of time lobbying to have God added to the preamble in some form, but not the later iterations of Mormonism. This idea didn’t really take to the mainstream evangelical churches until the latter half of the 20th century.
BTW: I agree with you in the prequel and this article about the Second Amendment.
I would offer a slight edit to your rewrite rule 4. Specifically:
“4. States shall have the power to regulate the use, manufacture, ownership, and transfer of weapons within their borders, or to delegate such powers to local [or regional] governments.”
Rationale: States should be able to form “regions” (e.g. metropolitan areas like Boston and its suburbs) with uniform regulations or lack thereof. I’ll leave metro regions that cross state lines (e.g. NYC, Chicago) out of the discussion for now but that is an obvious area for further discussion.
Trackbacks
[…] and negativity of the comments, so I decided not to answer them one by one. Instead, I wrote a sequel that summarizes a lot of the points commenters made and answers the ones that seem to need or […]
[…] week’s featured post is “Follow-up to ‘How Should We Rewrite the Second Amendment?’” Last week’s post somehow went viral in the pro-gun world, earning me a stream of […]
[…] Follow-up to “How Should We Rewrite the Second Amendment?” […]
grout cleaning machines For sale
Follow-up to “How Should We Rewrite the Second Amendment?” | The Weekly Sift
[…] the face of the pushback, I wrote a sequel the next week to summarize and address my critics’ points. In retrospect, I’m surprised […]