Do you believe that the Second Amendment is arcane?

[S019]

When the Founders wrote the Constitution, they included a Bill of Rights of 10 Amendments, all of these amendments were necessary then and most are still necessary today. However, there is one exception, the 2nd Amendment, in a modern day era, the need for the citizenry to own arms seems arcane, and the 1780's-1790's version of it is not all that applicable today. I am of the opinion, that the 2nd Amendment should either be struck from the Constitution or seriously rewritten. In its current form, it is an arcane and antiquated clause.

[S019]

it's nice unfortunate to see that even on this lean left political message board with many non-American posters that a small person's right to defend themselves against big people is still respected a majority of people want to do nothing about gun violence.

This is basically what you are saying

[S019]

Is it "arcane", meaning "understood only by a few" or "requiring secret or mysterious knowledge to understand"? No more than any other part of the Constitution. Is it archaic? Arguably, but I don't think that's a knock-down, drag-out case, either.

I would say it’s extremely vague and the reactionary courts have so misconstrued it, that no one really knows what it means anymore. Also the archaic part is covered by it being clearly antiquated, and meant for the 18th and 19th Centuries, not modern society.

[S019]

The Second Amendment as a whole is not arcane or archaic, but one of the theories about its purpose certainly is. The theory of purpose i'm referring to is that the the right to bear arms is needed so that the people can protect themselves from their own government should their government become tyrannical. That theory no longer has any utility; it's archaic. Our government has nuclear weapons, for Pete's sake. If our citizenry had to go to war against their own government, like a revolution, it is easy to see who would lose.

If you think the federal government is going to deploy nuclear weapons against civilians in the heartland you are either crazy or explaining why in the hell we need guns to shoot bureaucrats in the first place. If they nuke civilians here, they are so fundamentally evil that they should clearly be violently overthrown and its rather defeatist to just say "well if the government ever does become Fascist we should just accept it because Fascists are mean and will hurt us". Besides, the idea that you can police individual neighborhoods and hearts and minds with nukes is lunacy. We arent just going to line up in straight lines in matching uniforms in open fields and await the US Army like a bunch of redcoats. Guns let you shoot the bastard operating the tank from a distance when he gets out to pee. Guns let you shoot the bureaucrat lawyers illegally taking people to court. Guns let you shoot patroling foot squads from a rooftop. If you can get close enough, guns let you assassinate officers and politicians running the fascist machine. And there are 350 million of them in private hands so they can never just round up all the guns. I'm not trying to be rude but Ive always found the "we can never beat dictatorships through guerrilla warfare because NUKES!" argument stupid and ignorant of reality. Look at the politics of the bulk of soldiers. You really telling me they are gonna obey orders to kill american civilians?

This scenario is far-fetched and frankly ridiculous. This is a bad argument to keep allowing mass shootings to occur. Checks and balances will never let this happen, just admit it there is no right to own a gun, it's been so misconstrued, what it actually meant was a well regulated militia, not guns in the hands of everyone.

[S019]

it's nice to see that even on this lean left political message board with many non-American posters that a small person's right to defend themselves against big people is still respected.

Lol dude if the government really wants you dead, owning an AR-15 ain’t gonna save you.

I didn't mention the govt, so strawman fail

The 2nd Amendment was written back when the only guns were muskets and pistols. Why tf should it apply to ALL guns? Did the founders even think of the possibility of fully automatic guns being created?

The 1st Amendment was written back when the only communication were slow mail and the printing press. Why tf should it apply to ALL forms of communication? Did the founders even think of the possibility of the internet being created?

Lol imagine thinking that this is a good comparison. Letting people communicate faster is totally comparable to letting people kill people faster. Also haven’t there been laws passed that address free speech rights online?

I was really hoping that this pandemic would at the very least kill off crazy American libertarianism, but  it looks like there’s still some holdouts

Legally its a perfect comparison. You dont get to arbitrarily declare some parts of the Bill of Rights less deserving of protection than others just because you personally don't like the right.

BTW I've purchased 12 guns in the last 3 months, none with federal paperwork. Suck it.

That serves as an indictment on your character and no one else's. The smart thing to do would be to immediately return all of your guns, otherwise you are complicit in the scheme of the NRA to hide behind the guise of the Second Amendment to do nothing about gun violence.