CQ Roll Call May 25, 2013 | Register

Is the Second Amendment Outdated?

Posted at 12:15 p.m. on Dec. 17, 2012

Jeffrey Sachs: “The claim that gun ownership ensures freedom is especially absurd, given that most of the world’s vibrant democracies have long since cracked down on private gun ownership… Indeed, America’s gun culture is a threat to freedom, after the murder of a president, senator, and other public leaders, and countless assassination attempts against public officials over recent decades.”

“Australia and other countries provide models of how to do it: regulate and limit gun ownership to approved uses. America’s real freedoms depend on sane public policy.”

5comments
Gun Control, Social Issues

Headlines

  • http://ClientSidePolitics.Blogspot.com/ JeromeKJerome

    Repeal and Replace 2nd Amendment

    The time has come to change the 2nd Amendment and replace it with something stronger. A revised 2nd Amendment could work to reduce the senseless gun violence in America and at the same time protect the right to bear arms.

    Constitutional guarantees over the right to bear arms should be entrusted to the states and not the federal government. A revised 2nd Amendment would guarantee states’ rights to control guns within their own borders. The federal government would be prevented by the revised 2nd Amendment from infringing on those rights.

    The 2nd Amendment embodies a great deal of what is valuable in the American character – the right to freedom, the right to defend one’s freedom, and the desire to do so. It goes hand and hand with the 1st Amendment, the right to free speech. Yet the 2nd Amendment has become an anachronism in the modern era of drone strikes, extrajudicial killings and global terror. The kinds of weaponry needed to arm a state militia are far different today than they were in the 1700′s. Wako, Texas, provides an unfortunate illustration.

    Americans find themselves in a conundrum now. How many toddlers and other loved ones need be gunned down, en-mass, 20 at a time, before we look this problem squarely in the face?

    Repealing and replacing the 2nd Amendment will be difficult and lengthy. The argument will have to be framed in a way that does not attack the right to bear arms that we so cherish. Most people who are strong on gun rights are also strong on states’ rights. Local control allows for the various social and geographical characteristics to define the extent of those rights. What might be acceptable in a rural state like Arizona may not be acceptable in highly-populated New York. This is certainly a framework within which we could discuss repealing the 2nd Amendment and replacing it with something better for everybody.

    JeromekJerome at Client-Side Politics

    • FreeStateLarry

      You’re absolutely right about repealing and replacing the second amendment. What it should be replaced with are secure regulations that every state must adhere to, and are free to expand to tailor to their own environments.

      Let’s also not forget that the Second Amendment was conceived and ratified when our military and governmental infrastructure were in their infancy and even predated the founding of the U.S. Navy. It was not so much an amendment to preserve individual rights to possess deadly weapons,- God knows why so many people believe they need them- it was more a granting of the right to preserve militias in the event of war. Again, the historical context is very important- for a nation of farmers with a fledgling law and order infrastructure and still living under threat of European invasion it was probably necessary that citizens be armed to protect themselves in the absence of law enforcement and a strong military.

  • http://twitter.com/jodamiller Joshua Miller

    The second amendment is just ink on parchment to me. The right to weapons is not inalienable to me. The right to life, and to live, is.

    Why anyone would think that a 21st century nation should be held to the understandings of 18th century founders is beyond me.

  • http://twitter.com/BobFishell Bob Fishell

    Outdated and misinterpreted. The Framers, who disdained standing armies, feared foreign invaders and wanted a citizen militia to help repel them. That hasn’t happened since 1812. The 2nd is a much a relic of those times as the muzzle-loading muskets they used then. Any strict constructionists in disagreement – you’re welcome to keep your muskets.

    • Dave

      I’m not a gun nut and have never fired a gun in my life. But I actually have a muzzle-loading musket circa 1780! It descended in my father’s family. I highly doubt it still works and I have no idea how to use it. The thing must weigh 25 pounds.

      But that makes me ready for the foreign invasion!

Sign In

Forgot password?

Or

Subscribe

Receive daily coverage of the people, politics and personality of Capitol Hill.

Subscription | Free Trial

Logging you in. One moment, please...