An Argument for Repealing or Clarifying the Second Amendment

My Monday column begins the week with some fireworks:

Before I begin, I hasten to underline that the chances of this happening are pretty much zero: there’s simply no way the Second Amendment will be repealed or clarified. But it should be, and I’m open to either possibility. But I think it makes sense, in the broader gun debate, to debate the validity and applicability of the Second Amendment in our modern context. What’s its purpose? Why is it still necessary? Why acquiesce the points of its loudest supporters?

The only legitimate reason it exists in 2013 is to provide a disproportionately sacrosanct, nearly biblical cover for the corporate, for-profit gun manufacturing industry. There’s simply no other use for it, especially within a document filled with timeless and fully legitimate human rights.

Put another way: the Second Amendment is no longer a necessary means of self-preservation, as perhaps it might’ve been in a rural, agrarian, semi-hostile, slave-holding, post-colonial America. Absent the hazards of the late 18th Century, it’s strictly become a means of protecting the availability of a retail product. Hardware. A hobby. Guns are a product which we don’t really need, and which is statistically bad for you, that is unless you’re a beneficiary of the corporate success of the businesses marketing and selling these products.

Therefore, I have no hesitation declaring the original intention of the Second Amendment to be dead. [continue reading here]

  • GrafZeppelin127

    Guns Are Property, Not Liberty

    Someone in the comment thread there asked whether, since guns are property, if health care ever became a right, do doctors and hospitals then “become our property” when we get sick?

    I can’t describe how much it infuriates me whenever someone immediately goes for (1) the stupidest possible analogy, one which (2) automatically makes a victim out of someone so they can feel like a victim by proxy.

    Right to counsel is already a civil right. Do attorneys “become our property” when we are accused of a crime? No.

    • muselet

      There you go again, using facts and logic when everyone knows the issue requires shouting and arm-waving.


  • Username1016

    You do know that Hartmann stuff has been debunked, don’t you?

    Other than that, agree.

    • Bob Cesca

      One guy disagreed with Hartmann. That’s not a debunking.