Information icon.svg Nominations and Campaigning for the 2022 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now closed.

The election booth is now open!

Talk:Second Amendment

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archives for this talk page: , (new)


Commentary taken out of article....just getting stupid. I will participate in a debate on Gun Control if one is started[edit]

RationalWiki commentary[edit]

The Historical Significance of the Second Amendment.[edit]

It is obvious (to some individuals) that the second amendment refers to

  • The need for a regulated militia which is (this is a parenthetical clause that provides a rational basis for the right).
  • necessary for the security of the state (again, rational basis for the right)
  • and to maintain this militia an armed citizenry is needed and
  • consequently the citizens need to bear arms. (DING DING DING <---the right)

The amendment is frequently quote mined to only include the part which says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". (this is in fact the enumerated right.)

The need for an armed militia today.[edit]

With the existence of the heavily-armed National Guard, it is not clear that citizens' militias are still necessary to deter attacks form Mexico and Canada. (Drug running illegal immigrants Don't read this)

The need for a well armed citizenry today[edit]

Revolution is not necessary in a nation that fears its citizens.

Other Commentary[edit]

Of course, in order for this argument to carry any weight, the citizenry must be as well- or better-armed than the government.

'Cos it won't get you anywhere / Fooling with your guns / The British Army is waiting out there / An' it weighs fifteen hundred tons
— Strummer/Jones, "White Man in Hammersmith Palais"

(Last I checked, we won the revolutionary and subsequent wars with the British.)

(Last I checked, Strummer was singing to British kids, not Americans. Substitute "U.S." for British if you're having trouble following along)

(Okay, in the context of the second amendment to the, and here's a clue, the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, which was part of the aftermath of a revolutionary war against the British.....nevermind, suffice it to say your quote is out of place and subject to misinterpretation.)

Repeal rinse[edit]

Maybe we need to scrap it altogether and begin again? Make it a right to bear arms but specify that reasonable regulations are going to be instituted. C®ackeЯ 11:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Heh, good luck with that. It was a nightmare to repeal the 18th, and that wasn't part of the original bill of rights, banned the consumption of something the vast majority of the population wanted, had very high support politically, and was the father of American Organized Crime. --108.180.91.182 (talk) 11:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Maybe they'll do it the other way for this amendment? C®ackeЯ 00:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

"Oldest continuous democracy"[edit]

I've modified the wording at the end of one of the sections. The reference to Britain not being truly democratic until the 1880s is true (sort of), but confusing when compared to the claim that the US is the oldest continuously existing democracy in the world. I would argue that Britain wasn't a true democracy until 1918 when women were allowed to vote, the same for the US when it happened there in 1920. The US didn't fully abolish the property requirement until the 1860s and didn't let blacks vote until 1970, whilst Britain only achieved full male suffrage in 1918. I mean, if we're going by "oldest country where you could vote" then Britain would win by miles - it goes all the way back to the 1400s. I should stress, this isn't a "Britain is a better democracy" thing, just wanted to clear up the misleading language. Then it turned into a political history essay. I apologise. Pascal yuiop (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The debate isn't really relevant to the article, and isn't clearly answerable without further criteria. San Marino and the Isle of Man both have claims to be older democracies than England/the UK. But do you count where woman couldn't vote? Property requirements? What about minimum age requirements? Is it enough to have any kind of franchise defined by rules? --Gospatric (talk) 10:18, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Conflation[edit]

Why does this topic seem to be consistently treated here as if it added a right sewn out of whole cloth rather than enumerating an existing human right and singling it out for protection? Frostbyte (talk) 17:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand your question (or perhaps your assumptions).Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)