Circum Spective

the 2nd Amendment should be repealed

or, maybe, its time to ratify a 28th Amendment

"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."

This unending debate is not about "resisting government tyranny" or about "militias" or the erosion of "civil liberties". It is not about the law or the Constitution or about "patriotism" or right and wrong.

This is about the NRA valuing dollars more than lives,
and buying votes on the floor of Congress. Period.

And if you believe this is about anything more noble than that, then you are naive at best.

There are no valid reasons (at least none grounded in wisdom) why ANYONE -- other than law enforcement or military personnel -- should own an automatic weapon or a handgun. You want to go shoot wildlife for recreation? Fine. We'll allow shotguns and rifles -- along with some very strict registration laws -- and VERY strict enforcement of those laws. But no more automatic weapons and no handguns. What game is it legal to hunt with an automatic weapon? And who needs a handgun other than a criminal?

The narrow-minded refusal of some people to distinguish between long guns and handguns is keeping all those criminals well stocked with easy to conceal weapons. Just in case you haven't noticed, those are the only private citizens who seem to need handguns to conduct their daily affairs. There is only one reason handguns have ever existed: to provide people with a convenient way to kill other people. So why in God's name does a modern, civilized society continue to allow its citizens to own, carry, buy and sell handguns?! It makes no sense.

The law should provide for:
No private ownership of handguns, and no private ownership of automatic weapons.
Anything else is just terrible, terrible public policy. The murder rate in this country (and the rate of other felonies involving the use of a handgun) is through the roof. Our prisons are so crowded that we're letting inmates go free early. And yet, we have seemingly intelligent people relying on an all but meaningless provision in the Constitution to argue that the government does not have the authority to prohibit the purchase, sale, ownership and/or possession of certain kinds of guns. What a bunch of misguided NRA hogwash!

I'm sorry if it offends your ego to be told that you're wrong, but if you believe the federal government does not have full constitutional authority to regulate your guns, then you are just plain wrong. ...You're just wrong.

To anyone who has studied constitutional law in the 21st century -- (and I have studied it and taught it) -- the next two statements seem almost self-evident, but they are central to this essay and to someday ending the debate about federal gun control laws, so read them carefully:

• The states would have the same degree of authority to legislate their own gun laws without the 2nd Amendment;
  

• and, the federal government's power to dictate to the states regarding gun laws is not diminished in the least by the existence of the 2nd Amendment.

The federal government's (and Supreme Court's) power over state gun laws has been long settled, not by interpretation or enforcement of the 2nd Amendment, but by interpretation of the all-encompassing and all-consuming Commerce Clause (as incorporated through the 14th Amendment). Over the years, activist/revisionist Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court have used the Commerce Clause (or misused and exploited the Commerce Clause) to make anything and everything the business of the federal government. There is so much precedent piled on top of precedent at this point regarding the Commerce Clause that it simply doesn't matter what the 2nd Amendment states, or what the intent of the framers was, or what "clever" law some state legislature passes. Two things are clear to any unbiased and honest constitutional scholar: 1) The 2nd Amendment no longer has any real meaning; and 2) the federal government has the legal authority to regulate whatever it chooses to regulate (including our guns).

A little historical context: The second Amendment only exists at all because in 1787 Anti-Federalists feared that the creation of a standing (federal) army not under civilian control might eventually endanger democracy and civil liberties as had happened in the American colonies and in Europe at that time. So ... is that why you are in favor of private ownership of guns?
Come on. Be honest. Your "support of the 2nd Amendment" has nothing to do with the U.S. military threatening democracy and civil liberties. Its waaaay too late for that worn out argument. What are you gonna do, Bubba? You gonna take on a tank with a Beretta? I don't think your "well regulated militia" would be very effective against the tanks and rocket-launchers and helicopter gunships of the oppressive government if handguns were your weapon of choice anyway. I suspect the only reason you "support the 2nd Amendment" is because you enjoy hunting, and because you mistakenly believe that somehow, if the "liberals" have their way, you won't have "the right" to go hunting any more. But that is not true.

...

More detailed context:
In 1786, a decade after the Declaration of Independence was signed, the United States existed as a close alliance of sovereign states under the Articles of Confederation. This confederation was perceived to have several weaknesses, among which was the inability to mount a federal military response to an armed uprising in western Massachusetts known as Shay's Rebellion.

In 1787, to address these weaknesses, the Constitutional Convention was convened with the charter of amending the Articles. When the convention concluded with a proposed Constitution, those who debated the ratification of the Constitution divided into two camps; the Federalists (who supported ratification of the Constitution) and the Anti-Federalists (who opposed it).
Among their objections to the Constitution, Anti-Federalists feared creation of a standing army not under civilian control that could eventually endanger democracy and civil liberties as had happened recently in the American colonies and Europe. Although the Anti-Federalists were ultimately unsuccessful at blocking ratification of the Constitution, through the Massachusetts Compromise they laid the groundwork to ensure that a Bill of Rights would be drafted, which would provide constitutional guarantees against encroachment by the government of certain rights.

Interesting Note: Federalists such as James Madison on the other hand held that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary, arguing that the federal government could never raise a standing army powerful enough to overcome a militia. Similarly, Federalist Noah Webster argued that an armed populace would have no trouble resisting the potential threat to liberty of a standing army. I guess Mr. Madison and Mr. Webster weren't quite as smart as they thought they were.
[Oooo! I may have just lost the JMU alumni ... and the Noah Webster ... dictionary reader/fans?]

The 2nd Amendment is an archaic and meaningless relic of colonial days.
As a matter of public policy, the gun laws in this country are asinine. We don't need to carry guns to defend ourselves against the "tyranny of the government". We need to defend ourselves against criminals by outlawing the private ownership of handguns and automatic weapons.

And don't try to argue that there would be just as many guns and murders if the law prohibited private ownership of handguns, because that tired assertion has been proven to be categorically untrue by the dramatically lower incidence of murder and other gun-related violent crimes in countries where private ownership of handguns is prohibited.

To all the thinking people out there: We can not afford to allow the NRA to continue to prevent us from taking handguns and automatic weapons out of the hands of criminals.

Owning a gun will neither change the nature of the government, nor save you from its "tyranny". But there is something that might just do both: Inundate your congressional representatives with voice-mail and e-mail messages demanding that campaign finance laws and related political rules be changed to allow for more than two political parties to share the political pie (the public money). Better still, here is a concept that would actually level the playing field: enact a law that caps the number of dollars a candidate for political office can spend in direct support of any given political campaign. The emphasis would not be on the contributions, but rather on the expenditures.

Imagine five (or seven, or ten) candidates from five or seven or ten different political parties, all offering different philosophies of how to govern. Imagine that during the four years prior to the election (or six years, in the case of U.S. Senators), each candidate was permitted to spend no more than a pre-determined number of dollars -- a moderate amount of money (waaaay fewer dollars than folks have been spending in recent years). The candidate could spend his share any way he wanted to spend it, but when the maximum amount was reached, no more. No exceptions.

Do you think that might change the nature of elections in this country a little? Do you think maybe that kind of reform would allow our elections to be about more than which candidate has a bigger pile of money at his or her disposal. Maybe a few non-career politicians would actually have a fighting chance? Maybe another Abraham Lincoln could get elected some day. I'm sure the politicians can rattle off a dozen reasons, right off the tops of their heads, why that idea would never work. Fine. Then maybe we should start organizing constitutional conventions in each state so we can enact the necessary campaign finance reforms as the 28th Amendment to the Constitution!

Or maybe I should stop bothering you with all this common sense and rational thinking and let you continue to exercise your constitutional right to just sit there on your f....

After all, you need to conserve your energy so you can go out and gun down that giant three-point buck with your fully automatic rifle.
I'm sure Navy Seals are shaking in their boots at your skill and bravery.