Second Amendment Reform?

[Whyarentlibsred]

Amendment II: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Upon reading the above, it is clear to me that the first part of the Second Amendment “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,” no longer applies to the situation in America today and should be changed to better reflect valid reasons for allowing citizens to keep guns in the United States. While things may have been different in the 1700s, the days when ordinary citizens armed with light weapons (rifles and handguns) can assemble and defeat a professional military are long over. There is now a vast disparity between the amount of firepower that the average gun owner on one side, and the U.S. military on the other, could bring to a hypothetical fight, and historically even the successful guerilla movements that drove away professional armies possessed more weapons than just long arms. For example, the Afghan guerillas who defeated the Soviets possessed recoilless rifles, RPGs, and Stinger SAMs, all weapons that are banned by law from U.S. citizens today. Besides, the National Guard already fulfills the function of a State Militia, and the existence of the National Guard has almost nothing to do with guaranteeing a citizens right to bear arms. Because of these reasons, it is clear that using a well-regulated militia to defend the state as a reason to allow people to keep guns is outdated.

A much better reason to allow people to keep guns is so they can defend themselves from criminals, as demonstrated in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. After Katrina, it wasn’t the government people were worried about, it was armed gangs of their fellow American citizens looting and raping that were a threat to them. The government has enough checks and balances in place to take care of itself; if some Commie dictator did win the presidency I can’t see the mainly conservative military following any orders to disarm the people or send all conservatives to reeducation camps. However, when it comes to defending his family from the ravages of his fellow citizens, a man has no choice but to rely on his own weapons. The police won’t always be there for you, but as long as concealed carry is legal, your gun will be. I think the Second Amendment should be changed to reflect this fact, that the security of the state is up to the military, but personal security is up to the nation’s individual citizens. I think a better Second Amendment would read “An individual’s ability for self-protection being necessary to a secure society, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Sure, the original intent of the founders may have been to allow citizens to form militia, and to protect against the government, but I think this bit of Constitutional reconstruction to reflect the reality that fellow citizens are more of a threat than the government ever will be is justified.

[ExSoldier]

is the government really a bigger threat than social criminals?

If A Clinton (any Clinton) were President, this article would never have been written. Same for any RAT. The Second Amendment was written at a time by the Founders own writings when a militia was considered to consist of ALL the people, except for a few public officials. Self defense against two legged varmits was a given, just as defense from the savages. But defense from one's own government, now that's a novel idea; even today. One that the likes of the UN does not appreciate...at all! That's why there is the great UN drive to grab our guns.

[TXnMA]

Is there anything else you would like us to do to help you with your report?

Please do report that you were treated decently and encountered strong logic here on FR. (Too bad we didn't confirm your teacher's prejudicial view of our behavior...)

P.S. Why not have your (presumably liberal) professor/teacher have other students post pro-2nd Amendment articles on Democratic Underground and DailyKos...

[Buzwardo]

....the days when ordinary citizens armed with light weapons (rifles and handguns) can assemble and defeat a professional military are long over.

Not so sure about that. Waco and Ruby Ridge both demonstrated that armed citizens could gum up the plans of a militarized police force. I expect that could prove to the case again.

Besides, the National Guard already fulfills the function of a State Militia, and the existence of the National Guard has almost nothing to do with guaranteeing a citizens right to bear arms.

You need to look up the definition of the militia in the United States Annotated Code. You'll find there are various sorts, including an informal militia which is very much in operations today, witness all crimes ended by armed citizens. As for the National Guard having nothing to do with the right to bear arms, I'd argue that citizen soldiers in fact are a prime repository of that right.

Be that as it may, welcome to FR. I suggest your future posts be less inflammatory and more informed.

[spunkets]

" A much better reason to allow people to keep guns "

LOL!

MOLON LABE.

[The Expert]

"50 million" in the 20th century????

I think 200 million is probably closer to the truth, if we also include those poor unfortunates who died due to Communist death camps, executions, and intentional starvation.

Here's a thought provoking discussion on the subject:

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat8.htm

The next time a gun banner or anti-nuke activist gets in your face, ask them to name the most dangerous invention of mankind: "Government" is the all-time champ by a huge margin!!

[derllak]

Problem: …”the days when ordinary citizens … can assemble and defeat a professional military are long over”. .. because of unconstitutional laws that restrict private citizens from owning many military weapons.

Why would anybody want to weaken the second amendment to only guarantee “an individual’s ability for self-protection”. My solution to the above problem would be to repeal those unconstitutional laws and let me and my neighbors purchase machine guns and cannons. And if the block wants to pool our resources and buy a used A10 Warthog we have the right.

[Rytwyng]

Here are some links that will help you write your paper:

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership

JPFO's links for research just like yours: JPFO's FAQ list -- note #6 especially

And my own summary, "Letter to Freeper Ethical"

Hope this helps.

[Atlas Sneezed]

What school? What kind of class singles out FreeRepublic.com?

[Atlas Sneezed]

You need to focus on the word "FREE" in the 2nd amendment.

Crime prevention doesn't secure freedom.

Also, keep in mind that while to some, it appears that the 2nd is not needed because it is not longer necessary to worry about our government becoming tyrannical, the truth is that the (relative) lack of tyranny over the past few centuries is the best evidence that the 2nd works.

If you must work to gut an amendment that works so well it has never been meaningfully violated, focus on the 3rd.

[longtermmemmory]

seems you know nothing about the second amendment as a part of the constitution. Perhaps you should substitute "first amendemnt" and see how absurd your analysis works.

[School of Rational Thought]

The writer is a fool.

The people of N.O. did have to fear the government.

[spunkets]

""Government" is the all-time champ by a huge margin!!"

The French govm't invented terrorism, in the name of Liberty of course.

[gatex]

"Selling firearms in Australia has been very complicated for a long time - there was a lot of paperwork involved in transferring ownership of a firearm because you had to make sure the person you were selling to was a 'fit and proper person' to own that firearm. "

This is what "war hero" Senator McCain is trying to accomplish when he campaigns to "close the gun show loophole."

Thanks for the info about Australia.

[Rob_DSM]

Thank you for giving the original poster a helpful response. He or she should know that conservatives are able to debate without becoming so derogatory.

[gatex]

" For example, the Afghan guerillas who defeated the Soviets possessed recoilless rifles, RPGs, and Stinger SAMs, all weapons that are banned by law from U.S. citizens today."

Afghanistan is smaller than Texas, with a current population of around 30 million and around 8 million males between ages 15-64

Link to --- www.cia.gov .

Describe the need for the heavy weapons with the U.S. area, population and number of guns. Who would be fighting who (whom ) and where ?

[Whyarentlibsred]

About the worst that happened was I was called a fool and a jerk, which as things go is really small potatoes. As mentioned before, the vast majority of responses were replies to points I raised, which is fine with me. I agree that I was treated decently, and I will be mentioning that fact. Revising the Second Amendment was a topic that people on this site could probably be expected to oppose, and they did, but people here spent lots more time attacking my arguments than me personally. As a previous poster mentioned, as long as someone doesn't post something that's deliberately inflammatory, I can't see why they would have a problem here unless they were so wedded to their ideas that they viewed any disagreement as oppression or other s**t like that. And acting that way is stupid. Anyways, I haven't seen anything here to confirm the teacher's opinion, so as far as I'm concerned its all good. Thanks for your time, and have a nice day, everyone.

[ctdonath2]

is the government really a bigger threat than social criminals?

IIRC, in the 20th Century the world suffered about 10,000,000 people killed by social criminals - vs. about 100,000,000 killed as a matter of government policy.

[Atlas Sneezed]

What school? What class? What grade?

Few here seem to accept the normality of a teacher assigning a student to post on a prominent conservative website. It just doesn't ring true.

[ctdonath2]

Thanks for actually showing interest and listening. All to often FR has people show up, post something inflammatarory, and disappear.

[William Terrell]

For example, the Afghan guerillas who defeated the Soviets possessed recoilless rifles, RPGs, and Stinger SAMs, all weapons that are banned by law from U.S. citizens today.

Do you seriously think that a legal ban will make any difference at all if an armed confrontation were to break out in America?