We should repeal the Second Amendment

A blogger at the Economist writes about gun control.  He begins -

CONSERVATIVE Republican Brett Joshpe thinks the Republican Party has to embrace "sensible gun control" or pay a price at the ballot box.

Kevin Williamson calls Mr Joshpe's reasoning "soft-headed":The purpose of having citizens armed with paramilitary weapons is to allow them to engage in paramilitary actions. ...

The blogger, who goes by M.S., then goes on to examine, discuss, and dismiss Williamson's argument quite effectively (read his post).  The blogger the closes with:

Thinking about this question, however, is a useful exercise, because it helps us to picture what it is that Mr Williamson has in mind. He believes that American citizens have the right to engage in violence against the United States' armed forces and state or municipal police forces, whenever they decide that governments are usurping their powers. He believes in a right to insurrection. There is no such right in the American constitutional order. It is illegal for American citizens to decide on their own to attack law-enforcement agents or soldiers, regardless of whether they believe them to be acting on behalf of the "arbitrary power of rulers". In America, the government is chosen at the ballot box, and our representatives make the laws and execute them. What Mr Williamson is saying here is that Americans must have the right to own military-caliber weapons because such weapons are necessary in order to commit treason. [I bolded certain phrases for emphasis]

The blogger then proffers his view of the Second Amendment:

I have a different, somewhat idiosyncratic take on the second amendment: I think the first clause (the "well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" part) is clearly a logical qualifier, and since history has demonstrated that militias are not necessary but actively pernicious to the security of a free state, the rest of the amendment simply drops. But I also have no problem arguing that the damn thing ought to be repealed. It has nothing to do with any important human freedoms, and any of the founders who thought it did were wrong.

I agree.  I've been increasingly disturbed by what I hear from the right about why they are arming themselves with semi-automatic military-style weapons: because they believe our (freely elected) government is becoming tyrannical and they want to be prepared to fight back.  That is treasonous.  This isn't the government I would create if it were up to me and there are a LOT of things it does that I don't agree with, but the government we have is the government that the people voted for, and no citizen has the right to take up arms against it.

We would be much better off as a country if the Second Amendment was repealed.  Today's firearms are so different and so much more destructive that what the founding fathers could ever imagine that it adds nothing to the betterment of society.  If repealed, I have no doubts that there would be no cry to ban all firearms.  No industrialized nation bans them.  Huge majorities of Americans support firearms for hunting and self-protection, and that won't change with the repeal of the Second Amendment.

--Trakker

Comments

[Dan D. Doty]

Just a reminder Trakker...

The Nazis were freely elected too; and people in Germany thought they could vote them out as well.

[Dan D. Doty]

The left is getting this strange notion of gutting the Constition and getting rid of the Bill Of Rights because it gets in the way of what they want.

Fascism has come to America.

[Trakker]

Fascism: "a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism."

Sounds like the Republican Party to me. Funny how suggesting that we need to repeal the useless and confused Second Amendment (well regulated???!) is suddenly an attack on the Bill of Rights. The Founding Fathers got a lot right, but got somethings wrong: slavery, denying the vote for women, etc. I would add the Second Amendment to this list.

[Dan D. Doty]

Forcibly suppressing opposition and critcism? Sounds like the Campus speech codes.

Regimenting all industry and commerce? Sounds like the actions of someone I know that loves having and creating more and more regulations and they also believe that all business men are crooks that need to be controled.

And emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism? Right now, that would be you again claiming that disagreeing with the actions of government, and as for racism, that's you saying that those who live outside your bubble are lesser being that need to ruled by superior, informed, enlightened people such as yourself ... and anyone still clinging to an outdated notion such as The Bill Of Rights should concidered a traitor to the State.

[Trakker]

Wow, your response is truly bizarre!

[Dan D. Doty]

Since when have Republicans wanted to nationalize everything? The Left talks all the time about nationalize banks, big oil, mass transit, and anything else they don't want in private hands.

The Left wants to bring back the Fairness Doctrine; not because of they don't have a chance to express themselves, but it does shut up people on talk radio the Left doesn't like. And of course the Speech Codes on college campuses across America ( don't tell me you never heard those).

As for Nationalism, for you that would be the love you have for your bubble, and the contemp for you feel for those living in more rural America.

[Trakker]

Dan, but your strawman arguments and distortions merely increase my contempt. You really need to stop getting your news from biased sources. They lie to you...and laugh at you behind your back. Do you really think the rich newspeople and pundits at Fox News cares about you? Do you think uberwealthy talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh care about whats good for you and your rural American neighbors? Hell, they are getting rich from your ignorance and willingness to believe their lies.

[Dan D. Doty]

I don't listen to Rush.

Okay, lets turn it around, you show where Republicans want to Nationalize businesses, their campaigns to censor radio and college campuses.

I don't care if you hold me in contemp.

Contemp is one feeling suprior to another, and hold the opion that is a lesser being.

[horsec]

Car accidents, gun violence and drug overdoses were major contributors to years of life lost by Americans before age 50.

The rate of firearm homicides was 20 times higher in the United States than in the other countries, according to the report, which cited a 2011 study of 23 countries. And though suicide rates were lower in the United States, firearm suicide rates were six times higher.

Sixty-nine percent of all American homicide deaths in 2007 involved firearms, compared with an average of 26 percent in other countries, the study said.

[Trakker]

I'm surprised the suicide rate is lower in the U.S. given our high rate of gun ownership and the fact that suicide by handgun is one of the easiest ways to kill oneself.

I wonder if those mass shooters who end up shooting themselves at the end get counted as a suicide in those statistics.

And as long as I'm responding here: to Dan, contempt is not irrational. I have contempt for the Bush Administration for invading Iraq and wasting thousands of American lives and billions of our tax dollars in the process. I have contempt for those on the right who refuse to listen to facts like evolution or try to block efforts to reverse climate change. I have much contempt for gun nuts who insist they must be allowed to carry guns in public around my kids and grandkids. You are welcome to your own contempt.

[Dan D. Doty]

Well Trakker, you dodged the questions I laid out for you. What's the matter?

If you're so worried about the safety of kids, how come you've never said anything about groups like NAMBLA?

[Trakker]

Dan, I used to debate with you years ago, until I realized what a waste of time it was. Insinuating that I'm a hypocrite because I claim to care about the safety of kids because I condemn gun violence bey ignore NAMBLA is pretty stupid. It's like criticizing doctors for concentrating on curing cancer without also trying to cure weird diseases that kill a few people each year.

How many kids did NAMBLA members kill last year? Why would you even think that I would in any way approve of what NAMBLA promotes? Because I'm a liberal you think you can accuse me of supporting every sick thing in America? Have you not read my condemnations of all the good Christian priests who have spent decades preying on children with the church's blessings? Do I get to blame all religious right anti-abortion conservatives for that? Of course not - though it is weird how little outrage I've seen from the right about the rape of children by priests.

[Dan D. Doty]

There's been plenty of out rage from lots of people for what a handful of priest did.

But your campaign against people who's only crime has been to exercise their civil rights is crazy, if not done right tyranical.

As for the harm child molsters do, check the paper every day and you'll see it.

And besides you keep dodging the questions I asked you before.