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.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

No lol

[Esteemed Jimmy]

No lol

[brucejoel99]

The current wording is arcane & ought to be amended to reflect changing times, yes.

[SnowLabrador]

Yes. At least, the way it's worded is. They were talking about a well-regulated militia, not "anyone can own a gun no matter what".

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

No lol

[Del Tachi]

The very fact that there's a non-negligible number of people who want to take it away is a good reason why the Second Amendment isn't "arcane".

Now, the Third Amendment, we can discuss...

[KaiserDave]

The very fact that there's a non-negligible number of people who want to take it away is a good reason why the Second Amendment isn't "arcane".

Now, the Third Amendment, we can discuss...

Arguably an equally important amendment

[zoz]

No lol

[dead0man]

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.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

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.

Even though I've always been a man of the left-of-center, I have always in general terms, for as long as I have held a position on this issue, been resolutely in favor of the right to bear arms (with some few exceptions almost entirely dating to before I posted on Atlas).

[Orwell]

I'm undecided on the issue really, like I do support some regulations along with background checks, but I don't think the "Second Amendment is Arcane" I'm kinda confused by the question on whether it's asking if I think the amendment is arcane or the idea itself.

[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

[dead0man]

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

no its not

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

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.

[cris01us]

To judge the 2nd Amendment in terms of "Do we really need this today, anymore" seems rather myopic. Who knows what the future will bring and what kind of a world our children or grandchildren will live in. 

[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.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

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.

That's the common progressive talking point on it, yeah, but I don't actually believe that it's true. Just because it doesn't appear to mean what most American left-liberals would like it to mean doesn't mean its apparent meaning is some great mystery.

Also the archaic part is covered by it being clearly antiquated, and meant for the 18th and 19th Centuries, not modern society.

Again, this is the standard progressive talking point, but I'm not sure whether or not I'm convinced by it.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Arguments over gun rights aside, I don't necessarily think it is helpful to have it in the constitution. I have trouble considering the right to bear arms, if it exists, to be so important that it must be constitutionally protected while other things, like gender equality, aren't. The 2nd amendment is unique to America yet I don't think we're any less susceptible to tyranny or an overreaching government when compared against the rest of the world.

[Mr. Smith]

Yes, or at least very much archaic.

[MarkD]

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.

[Mr. Reactionary]

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?

[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.

[Dr. MB]

Of course it isn't. It should be reworded though so there isn't any vagueness about how the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. There's plenty of infringement going on already.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The Second Amendment has always been one of the most problematic parts of the American Bill of Rights. To begin with, its historical antecedent in the English Bill of Rights is basically a codification of Protestants can bear arms so that virtuous men can shoot evil Papists and Jacobites as needed. It's also part of the American mythological hagiography of amateur militia as being able to fight against professional troops on an equal basis. The idea that its primary purpose was to guarantee a right to self defense is patently false. At most, such a purpose was but secondary to those of venerating the militia and guaranteeing the right of armed revolt. Jefferson was being literal, not metaphorical when he opined that "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

That's a major reason the Second Amendment is so poorly phrased. It was an attempt to cover radical politics with conservative clothing.