John Paul Stevens, who dissented from the landmark ruling in D.C. v. Heller (2008) that expanded gun rights believes the best course of action now to solve the 21st century rash of gun violence is a repeal of the 2nd amendment. His stance on the issue was inspired by the 1.2 million youth protesters (largest since the Vietnam War) who marched on Saturday against gun violence in schools. Chief Justice Warren Burger (1969-1986) publicly criticized the National Rifle Association for perpetrating fraud on the American people when they said that federal regulation of guns violated citizens' Second Amendment rights. Now the nation still must decide how to address this ongoing issue of gun violence in schools.
Discussion Questions
1. Do you agree with Justice Stevens that a repeal of the Second Amendment is now necessary?
2. How do you feel about banning semiautomatic weapons, raising the gun purchase age from 18 to 21, and comprehensive background checks?
3. Even if access to guns is better controlled, America is already heavily armed. What are some ideas to reduce the number of guns in U.S. society or should that even be a goal?
17 comments:
The rationale for the second amendment is this.
It's not for self-defense (although that does help) and it's certainly not for hunting. It's if the President becomes tyrannical and if congress and the courts are unable or unwilling to stop the overreach of federal power. Then, it is up to the American people to overthrow the government, or to declare independence from the union. That's not a contingency plan or a conspiracy theory. That is the reason for the second amendment.
There's precedent for this. In 1775, a group of Massachusetts and Connecticut farmers fired on solders of the British Army at Lexington and Concord, sparking the first of what would be many conflicts of the American Revolution. In 1968, an army of rice farmers in Vietnam known as the Viet Cong fought and won a war against the South Vietnamese and their American and Australian allies. In both cases, that wasn't an organized army by any means. That was ordinary people taking up arms and rising up against their oppressive governments.
It's even in the constitution: "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." Many people on the left state that this is reason enough that the right to bear arms is only in the context of a well-regulated militia. However, the militia clause is the justification clause for the second amendment. The operative clause is the "right to bear arms" clause. This is the case because of the fact that in the 1790's, all able-bodied adult white men were considered a part of the militia. It's even more of the case when you realize that that definition of militia would be extended to include women and people of color as well. In addition, there's an additional clause mentioning "the security of a free state." Emphasis on free. The founding fathers clearly intended the nations people to rise up to threats against America as a free country-foreign and domestic.
If the Trump Administration and the current congress have proven anything, it's that governments, even western governments such as the United States, can prove tyrannical. This means that now more than ever, the second amendment will be necessary in the case of armed revolt. In addition, minority communities need to be able to defend themselves. If the cases of Tamir Rice, Alton Sterling, and others are any indication, it's that minorities cannot trust the police departments of America to protect and serve their communities.
However, there are some regulations that are necessary. I think we can all agree with that. And there's precedent for regulating constitutional rights: in Schenck v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment could be regulated if the speech posed a clear and present danger to the United States. So if the first can be regulated, why not the second? However, we need to toe the line where we can regulated a constitutional right without infringing on it entirely.
Thus, I'm all for background checks. As a member of the San Mateo chapter of the March for our Lives campaign, I introduced background checks as a key part of the San Mateo MFOL platform. I would be all for drafting a legislative proposal that would introduce a nationwide background check for buying guns, modeled after the DMV's licencing and registration process. I would also support a raise of the gun-buying age to 21, and a declaration of places of worship, government buildings, and schools as gun-free zones.
There is no possible was the people of America are able to overthrow an out of control government. Maybe in the 1700s when government was small, but now, if some folks try, like those loons up in Washington, they will be up against the full force of the american military. So the "real reason for the second amendment" is not even possible anyway. At this point the modern world needs to grow out of our barbary and, maybe not restrict all guns, but limit them. Civilians don't need machine guns. So the least they could do is ban assault weapons.
I totally agree with Tillman because 1. overthrow isn't possible and 2. its very unlikely for those sentiments to really stir up in that great of magnitude. I personally believe that assault weapons and semiautomatic guns are not needed in anyway for a regular civilian. These weapons are only needed for military personnel, maybe police officers, and that's only when on duty. It's completely illogical to say that you absolutely need a semiautomatic weapon to defend yourself. I don't think at this point that it is related to the second amendment, which is more focused on the idea of protecting the country rather than having guns to protect oneself from criminals. Background checks should be much more thorough, investigating people's history up to whatever limits the authorities need to go. With respect to reducing the amount of guns, there should definitely be a confiscation of all assault/semiautomatic weapons.
The Vietnamese were up against the "the full force of the American military" in the 1960s and 70s. By that logic, we should have demolished the ill-equipped peasants of Vietnam, right? No, we didn't. We lost that war. Similarly, the Mujahideen did the same thing in Afghanistan against the Soviets. The two groups won those wars because of their firm belief in their ideologies, illustrating how people win wars, not weaponry. As a result, if the government gave a good enough reason to get enough people to revolt, armed citizens would hold their own.
And say the 2nd amendment is repealed. We have "270 million to 310 million guns in the United States — close to one firearm for every man, woman and child," according to Pew Research. How are we going to get rid of all those guns? A gun buyback program? Australia did this and only got "a fifth to a third" of the total amount of guns in Australia, meaning a majority of people who owned guns before the complete ban still own them illegally - even in a country that isn't as crazy for guns as we are. So the only way guns could be collected would be forcible confiscation. Good luck getting people to agree to that. Maybe that would work in Massachusetts or Vermont, but definitely not in Texas. If the second amendment is ever repealed, which I can guarantee it won't, America will have a huge armed uprising or even civil war on her hands.
I completely agree with what Josh is saying on this point, as his historical evidence is incredibly sound and speaks the the issue directly. I would like to add that the North Vietnamese did have the support of foreign governments, but I don't think its such a stretch to say that other countries would have a vested interest in stopping an "America gone tyrannical" and thus support militia groups in a similar fashion to Vietnam.
On another note:
To those saying a semiautomatic weapon is not needed to defend yourself, I strongly urge you to do the research on what semiautomatic means. There are very few classes of non-semiautomatic weapons, including muzzle-loaders, bolt-actions, lever actions, and some revolvers. To this point, a majority of handguns, which are the top choice for self-defense, are semiautomatic. One trigger-pull, one bullet.
Manual reloading, which defines non-semiautomatic weapons listed in that class, is obviously horrible for self defense.
For the record, I do acknowledge the fact that semi-automatic weapons are absolutely possible of being effective at killing when in the wrong hands, as evidenced by the fact that a majority of gun deaths in the US are committed using semiauto handguns. I do still resolve that the idea that semi-autos aren't ideal for self defense is false.
I'm going to have to agree with what Granger, Josh, and Austin have said. Those who say that we as a society could not revolt against a tyrannical government ignore historical precedent and the fact that many members of the military would defect.
In response to Tilman, I'd like to point out that the process to obtain a machine gun is incredibly difficult and lengthy. In order to obtain an automatic weapon (the manufacture of which was banned a while ago) you have to:
1.) Have tens of thousands of dollars in cash in order to buy the weapon
2.) Find a Class 3 FFL Dealer (good luck)
3.) Fill out this form: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/form/form-4-application-tax-paid-transfer-and-registration-firearm-atf-form-53204/download - Pay a $200 tax and register with the federal government for a more extensive background check (essentially, you can only afford to have parking tickets on your record)
4.) Wait 9-12 months before the ATF approves the transaction
This seems reasonable enough to me.
In response to question two, it’s important to consider the fact that we DO have regulations in place. If you buy a gun at a licensed dealer, you have to go through a background check. However, private sellers aren’t allowed to use federal databases. For this reason, some states don’t even allow private sales. Ambiguity like this can and should be patched. At the end of the day though, banning “assault” weapons won’t have any effect on overall violence as the DOJ concluded after the end of the Clinton ban. Those who want to kill will kill. The best way to reduce any violence is better law enforcement. If we’re concerned about mass shootings, consider that the FBI and law enforcement were contacted multiple times about the Parkland shooter and how a school resource officer stopped a would-be deadly shooting in Maryland.
In addition to the sentiments stated above, I'd like to point out that the main point of the government is to protect American freedoms, not take them away. The right to own firearms is a part of those freedoms, and the government's duty is to do everything in their power to maintain as much freedom as possible. No one person or government can discern why someone wants a machine gun or whatever type of firearm they want. It doesn't matter. As long as they are using it safely, there should be no restrictions on what type of firearms can be sold.
I think Justice Stevens call for repealing the Second amendment is an extreme reaction that does not reflect the feelings of the American people. I strongly believe in comprehensive background checks, the banning of semiautomatic weapons, and the preventing of purchasing weapons for people age 18-21 (preferably older given the fact that people can't even rent a car until age 25 but can buy a gun earlier). Though I am very pro gun control, I believe Stevens is asking for an unrealistic leap that would ultimately outrage more people than it would protect.
I echo many of the sentiments of my fellow students. While many are passionate about gun control, I do not think that many seek to totally revoke the second amendment. Personally, I think that more regulation for gun ownership is essential. I think that we should have background checks and a ban of semi automatic weapons. While America is already heavily armed, I do not think it would be impossible to enforce stronger regulations should they be put in place. Licenses are required to own guns and many gun retailers require a lock and receipt.
Max stated that "As long as they are using it safely, there should be no restrictions on what type of firearms can be sold." Normally I would strongly agree with this, that the government should not be able to take something that is mine away from me. It is really easy to use guns safely, and taking away guns from everyone because some people are misusing them kind of sucks. However, I think its something that needs to be done. On such a large scale, it is easier to take away the the ability from everyone. To try and prevent more tragedy, I think it is a necessary evil.
I believe that Justice Stevens is being extremely unrealistic when he calls for a repealing of the Second amendment. However, I do believe that with the current frenzy America is currently in, gun regulation would be the smartest and most logical thing to do. More thorough background checks should be required when purchasing a gun and I do personally believe that no one needs a semiautomatic rifle in their house. People should have the right to own a gun if they want to, however I believe that there should be stricter regulations regarding purchasing a gun.
I don't think there is a need to repeal the second amendment, because of the specific text of the document:"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." The amendment clearly states that the purpose for the right to bear arms is not for hunting, self-defense, or any purpose other than "a well regulate militia". The reason for the founders to include this clause was not, as some have theorized above, to allow for an insurrection, but to allow states to maintain their own armies. I know this because at the time the Bill of Rights was written, the US did not have a standing army (it was disbanded, for the most part, after the war of independence as Americans had a lack of trust in standing armies), instead, each state had it's own militia, and when there was a conflict, the states would provide for the defense of themselves and the new nation. I also know the right to bear arms was not granted for the purpose of supporting a rebellion as the word treason is used seven times in the constitution, and explicitly defined in Section III of Article III. Further proof of this is the use of government authorities to crush rebellions throughout American history, including two before the turn of the nineteenth century.
The amendment also states that militias shall be "well regulated" which in my mind doesn't fit well with the NRA's belief that everyone should be able/required to own every type of firearm.
Another thing worth mentioning is the context under which the amendment was written. The "arms" referred to by the amendment are muzzle-loaded rifles and muskets, not semi-automatic rifles with thirty-round magazines that fire faster than you can pull the trigger.
To answer the questions:
I would not disagree with Stevens, however I see it as unnecessary to repeal the second amendment. I believe that the Supreme Court simply needs to revise its decision that the amendment guarantees the right to own guns and that they look more closely into the fairly explicit language of the amendment.
I do not feel it is necessary for me to express my opinion on specific legislation in this particular post.
I believe that reducing the number of firearms present in our society should absolutely be our goal and that a good place to start would be with optional buybacks in which the government would offer to pay gun-owners, above market value, for them to hand over their weapons. The government could then salvage these weapons for parts and hopefully recycle a good bit of their material. At some later date, it will of course be necessary to take stronger action, but for now we just need to get the ball rolling and see how far we can get.
While this is an extreme action, I would not be against it. Personally, I don't buy that the ability to purchase guns is a necessary freedom that many argue it is. People could say the same things about banning guns and certain types of knives. All of these things can be used to hurt oneself or others and it makes sense for the government to restrict or ban these objects. It does seem to be pretty unrealistic to ban the second amendment all together. I agree with Tilman in that the context the second amendment was created in is important when considering its (very limited) usefulness in modern times.
I think this will be something hard to pass. However, if it does pass I would support the repeal. Making it harder for younger adults to get guns is a good first step to help decrease gun violence. Furthermore, to repeal the second amendment is only right in my opinion. It was created when the most powerful weapon was a musket which shot a bullet every minute, much different then today's deadly weapons.
This is a radical change for a definite problem in the US. Innocent people should not have to die because some mentally unstable people have access to a gun. Therefore, a more refined solution would be promoting stronger background checks. More thorough background checks should be required when purchasing a gun and specific type of guns should be banned. No one needs to have a mass weapon of destruction like a semi-automatic. People should have the right to own whatever property they want, but should not be able to harm the community or environment.
I agree with Josh and Austin in that not only is the total repeal of the Second Amendment not really plausible, but the recapture of guns currently in circulation is essentially impossible. I don't think that a buyback system would be effective at all, as the passion of gun owners in the U.S. would outweigh any potential benefit or monetary gain that turning in their guns could offer them. Additionally, even attempting to try to seize guns out of the hands of current gun owners would not only cause complete outrage and chaos, but it would cost an unbelievable amount of money to conduct. The same outrage would occur if the Second Amendment itself was repealed, and in the case that it was theoretically repealed, you still have all of those guns in circulation that could almost certainly not be removed. At the end of the day, I think the only real options that we have are to make the ownership of automatic and semiautomatic guns illegal, tighten restrictions on gun purchase and ownership, and promote a national change in our mindset on how we view guns. After that, we just have to hope that people realize the danger in using these weapons and that mass shootings will stop happening.
Post a Comment