If you could abolish the 2nd Amendment, would you?

All rights are social agreements.

Click to expand...

OK. So then why are you saying they have some existence in natural law outside of what we as a society agree to?

Some social agreements are universal: life, expression and self defense.

Click to expand...

Universal?! What are you talking about? Looking at all human history, all around the world (yes, including the west), the idea that you should have any kind of rights protected by government has been a very recent and rare exception, not the rule (let alone "universal").

These universal agreements are natural rights. Protecting them is the basis of all Western law.

Click to expand...

Nope. The basis of most western law before the enlightenment was "the divine right of kings" to absolute and unquestionable power and dominion over their subjects.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings

And don't forget law necessarily requires a system of government to enforce it. Without it, rights do not exist in nature. In nature, the strong rule and thrive, and the weak and vulnerable get eaten for lunch. They don't even get the right to breathe. If you want to know what natural law and natural rights is, that's it. The idea that you can look at the order of nature and think it gives you any kind of rights is laughable. That's why humans created modern systems of law, justice, and government in the first place, so they don't have to exist in a state of nature, nor have to listen to kings tell them why it's "natural" that they should have unlimited powers over them.

You were criticizing the other poster for not having read intellectual history up to the Enlightenment or the American/French revolutions. Looks like you can be criticized for not having read anything since. Things have changed. Our founding fathers cast these thoughts in the language of their time. And it's very noble and we thank them for it. Acknowledging that it's really not natural, but just a highly contingent and fragile social agreement, however, does not weaken it. It only strengthens our resolve to defend it. But it also makes us realize when the changes in the material culture, like the breathtaking advances in weapons technology since the 18th century, require us to revisit some of these issues. These are not laws of God or nature. It's not natural to haul around frighteningly powerful and efficient modern weapons the same way they carried around front loading muskets in the 18th century.

Natural law developed in the early modern period through the work of Suarez, Grotius, Hobbes, Cumberland and Pufendorf, among others. Natural law is a universal, obligatory set of rules for action, known without revelation and legislated by God. The phrase ‘natural law’ carries with it a set of claims about moral norms – where they originate, what justifies them, how we know them...

Natural law informed much academic moral philosophy in the eighteenth century and exerted strong influence on moral and political thought (for example, the American Declaration of Independence). By the nineteenth century, however, utilitarian and historicist critics attacked the ideas of morality as law and of timeless, universal norms as constituting morality.
Natural law in early modern philosophy - Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Click to expand...

_______________
And BTW, please try to resist the temptation to cuss and personally insult so much. This is not a Trump rally where that kind of thing impresses low class people so much. It just makes you look bad. Thank you.

Renae said:

Now, this doesn't mean people couldn't OWN guns, it would just remove the 2nd Amendment. This would greatly free up the state, local and federal systems to more tailor and regulate firearms.

Would you pursue this path? If so/not so, why?

REGULATED* ARGH typo to the fail.

Click to expand...

Yes, I would abolish the 2nd Amendment. Guns are too easy to get. Here in California 18 year olds can buy AR15s. Crazy. Also, the country has changed a lot since the 2nd Amendment was written.

Repeal it and institute sane regulations that allow for trained and qualified people to own guns for hunting and self defense. Limit the type of weapon to something less effective so that no one could ever fire more than six rounds at a time. Let people who want to shoot more powerful weapons do so on sanctioned ranges where you rent or lease the gun, it never leaves the premises. Buy back guns continuously that do not conform with the new laws, give people one year to turn them in. After that, its a felony. Go after gun manufacturers like flies on ****.

Amanda1858 said:

Yes, I would abolish the 2nd Amendment. Guns are too easy to get. Here in California 18 year olds can buy AR15s. Crazy. Also, the country has changed a lot since the 2nd Amendment was written.

Click to expand...

Okay, so when only criminals and the government have guns, how does that make you safer?

Have you placed a "THIS IS A GUN FREE HOME" sign in your windows, letting people know you aren't a threat?

Vadinho said:

Repeal it and institute sane regulations that allow for trained and qualified people to own guns for hunting and self defense. Limit the type of weapon to something less effective so that no one could ever fire more than six rounds at a time. Let people who want to shoot more powerful weapons do so on sanctioned ranges where you rent or lease the gun, it never leaves the premises. Buy back guns continuously that do not conform with the new laws, give people one year to turn them in. After that, its a felony. Go after gun manufacturers like flies on ****.

Click to expand...

You are why the amendment is in place, just saying.

Renae said:

Have you placed a "THIS IS A GUN FREE HOME" sign in your windows, letting people know you aren't a threat?

Click to expand...

Funny enough, but it turns out most burglars prefer homes with a car displaying a "Proud Member of the NRA" bumper sticker parked in the driveway. Guns are valuable items and attract burglars, much like jewelry and large screen TVs. Knowing you have guns in the home doesn't scare away any burglar worth their salt. Studies show it just attracts them.

Interviews with actual convicted burglars:

2. Once inside, what was the first thing you looked to steal?

Jewelry, electronics, cash and credit cards are all attractive to burglars. Inmates also added collectibles and guns.

“NRA sticker on car bumper = Lots of guns to steal,” wrote one burglar.
kgw.com | We asked 86 burglars how they broke into homes

Click to expand...

ataraxia said:

Funny enough, but it turns out most burglars prefer homes with a car displaying a "Proud Member of the NRA" bumper sticker parked in the driveway. Guns are valuable items and attract burglars, much like jewelry and large screen TVs. Knowing you have guns in the home doesn't scare away any burglar worth their salt. Studies show it just attracts them.

Interviews with actual convicted burglars:

Click to expand...

Studies.
"One burglar"
Good on you.

Renae said:

You are why the amendment is in place, just saying.

Click to expand...

Not really but likely one of my ancestors in Florida probably threatened the colonies, my family is Spanish so there may be a connection in the distant past. You should read up on the history of the 2nd amendment, it is not nearly as clear as most NRA fed people believe it is. Scalia had to become a linguistic gymnast to write his opinion in Heller. Here is a scholars history of the second amendment, you might find it interesting.

The Hidden History of the Second Amendment Redux

We don't need the 2nd amendment any longer, it has served its original purpose and now merely arms people to kill each other mercilessly. Other advanced nations understand this truth, we are sadly lacking in moral and social sophistication. His original piece is hyperlinked in the first paragraph of this article, it is quite exhaustive and well researched.

Vadinho said:

Not really but likely one of my ancestors in Florida probably threatened the colonies, my family is Spanish so there may be a connection in the distant past. You should read up on the history of the 2nd amendment, it is not nearly as clear as most NRA fed people believe it is. Scalia had to become a linguistic gymnast to write his opinion in Heller. Here is a scholars history of the second amendment, you might find it interesting.

The Hidden History of the Second Amendment Redux

We don't need the 2nd amendment any longer, it has served its original purpose and now merely arms people to kill each other mercilessly. Other advanced nations understand this truth, we are sadly lacking in moral and social sophistication. His original piece is hyperlinked in the first paragraph of this article, it is quite exhaustive and well researched.

Click to expand...

When seconds count, police are minutes away. I'm trans, I'm a target for hate crimes. You think I don't need a gun?
Also, we do need the 2nd Amendment, it helps keep Government, in check, always has and always will.

I wouldn't want it abolished. Can't get toothpaste back in a tube. Too many guns are on the streets to turn back now. If the bad guys, (who could give 2 ****s about a gun law,) has a gun, I want a gun too.

But I do think the 2A could be amended to better suit society as society has evolved. You gotta remember, when the ol' dudes in satin pants and wigs wrote the 2A, people were shooting muskets and no one ever heard of crack cocaine. It is sad to think that all future generations, forever-and-ever-amen, have to dictated by laws that were created over 200 years ago and have become unhealthy in a modern day society. That''s being "dictated" to. I think, perhaps, the next generation coming up will have the majority will on their side to amend the 2A.

They have had "enough."

Even still, until the sick minds in our pervasive society have been eliminated, they will find a way to kill regardless if they abolish/amend the 2A.

But, it might help the murder rate go down. It has in other society's.

I don't buy the argument that the civilians should be allowed any and all weaponry it might take to defend against a tyrannical government because even your AR-15 ain't gonna help against a high flying drone with your house in it's cross-hairs.

Renae said:

When seconds count, police are minutes away. I'm trans, I'm a target for hate crimes. You think I don't need a gun?
Also, we do need the 2nd Amendment, it helps keep Government, in check, always has and always will.

Click to expand...

When seconds count...you live in a fantasy world. I love kung fu movies but I never imagine myself as Bruce Lee.

Vadinho said:

When seconds count...you live in a fantasy world. I love kung fu movies but I never imagine myself as Bruce Lee.

Click to expand...

Current estimates are guns are used to prevent 2 million crimes in the USA Annually.

Renae said:

Current estimates are guns are used to prevent 2 million crimes in the USA Annually.

Click to expand...

That doesn’t explain then why the higher the rate of gun ownership in a city, state, or country, the higher the crime rate. That’s been a consistent finding.

If you live in a gun culture, you may have to use your gun to defend yourself two to three times a day. Does not mean you live in a safe place. Just means you live in gun culture hell hole. No other developed nation in the planet has as many guns, and none of them have the level of violent crime that we do. Places, on the other hand, where there is “small government” and people are free to carry around any weapons of their choice to defend themselves, like Somalia or the remote villages to Afghanistan, are among the most violent and dangerous places on the planet. I am sure if you look in those places and count the number of times weapons are used to defend themselves, you will have very high numbers too. That does not mean they are safe or desirable places to emulate.

ataraxia said:

That doesn’t explain then why the higher the rate of gun ownership in a city, state, or country, the higher the crime rate. That’s been a consistent finding.

If you live in a gun culture, you may have to use your gun to defend yourself two to three times a day. Does not mean you live in a safe place. Just means you live in gun culture hell hole. No other developed nation in the planet has as many guns, and none of them have the level of violent crime that we do. Places, on the other hand, where there is “small government” and people are free to carry around any weapons of their choice to defend themselves, like Somalia or the remote villages to Afghanistan, are among the most violent and dangerous places on the planet. I am sure if you look in those places and count the number of times weapons are used to defend themselves, you will have very high numbers too. That does not mean they are safe or desirable places to emulate.

Click to expand...

2-3 times a day? Do you live in the real world?