Repeal the 2nd?
I’ve heard it said a number of times that guns should be outlawed. I have to wonder why.
It’s perfectly true that urban crime often times utilizes firearms in the perpetration of said crime. It’s also true that areas with the highest legal firearm ownership have extremely low rates of crime. Look at Maine as an example. Most crimes are a classic exercise in cost/benefit analysis, for example:
If you were going to mug someone, you don’t pick the 6′ 6″ guy with “mom” tattooed on his arm who look like he could pull your arms off. You pick the young woman walking alone or her effeminate boyfriend wearing his sisters jeans. There’s the possibility that either of them could know how to kill you with their thumb, but the potential risk of that and thus the potential cost is very low.
Likewise if you are walking through “downtown” Machias, Maine, you may not find it a good idea to try and mug someone in a state where 40% of the resident own firearms. The cost is much more likely to be your life or serious injury without regard to the physical impressiveness of the person. It’s only their ability to point and “click” that matters here.
If shooting people is a felony, what is the sense of making ‘gun free’ zones? In which the punishment for possession of a firearm is much less than the act of shooting someone! if you are willing to risk life in prison, what does 2 years added on to your sentence matter for having a gun in a gun free zone? Cost/benefit.
On a different note, assume for a moment that the supreme court had ruled the second amendment pertained only to the militia. Few people know what the militia is in this country. To quote Title 10, Subtitle A, Part I, Chapter 13, § 311 of the United States Code:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.(b) The classes of the militia are—(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
That basically means that any person who can be drafted, pressed into military service, is a part of the militia. The 2nd amendment clearly refers in some sense to the militia, if they had decided it only meant the militia, women (not in the guard) and those older than 45 could not own firearms if the government chose to say so. Thankfully they did not, they held that the right to bear arms is an individual right extended to every person that shall not be infringed except under certain circumstances as with all the other rights. They can be reasonably regulated.
Lastly if an amendment should be repealed to “improve” public safety it is almost certainly the 1st amendment. The power to share thoughts and ideas and to assemble is far more dangerous than the mere right to own weapons. What danger would the second amendment be if people could not speak freely and organize? A very minor danger in comparison.
Its obvious that if there was ever a revolution the impetus would not be firearms but the ability for people to express their displeasure and formulate plans to affect a revolution, that’s where it would come form. there can be no victory or conquest without planning and the development of ideas.
The pen, most obviously, is mightier than the sword.