Personally I think that the second amendment needs to be brought into the 21st century. There are good and bad aspects of it, but in general, I don't think it relates to society today.
For the arguments about the 'revolt' and the amendment protecting our rights to guns, I don't think it will help. If there'll be a revolt in a modernized state, it's going to be by an army armed with weapons way more deadly than a handgun. It will have explosives and items not protected by the second amendment.
Then again, it's certainly situational, but police are not a service for preventing crime - they are a service for capturing criminals and providing security in some situations and they certainly cannot be there to protect everyone and everyone has the right to protect themselves. I just don't think guns should be the way they need to protect themselves with.
Another argument is that mere guns are not sufficient. So should citizens be allowed to own tanks? It is essentially equivalent to a rifle in 1776. Or, maybe not a TANK, but perhaps a bomb. Should citizens be allowed to own bombs? For the sole purpose of possibly using it against the US government.
It sounds absurd but that's exactly what the 2nd amendment is. It says: Hey, look US Government. Don't mess up because we've got a whole country of people with guns watching you. But I just don't see how that holds true today. I don't see government legitimately fearing uprising from the citizens if they mess up.
Thoughts?
For the arguments about the 'revolt' and the amendment protecting our rights to guns, I don't think it will help. If there'll be a revolt in a modernized state, it's going to be by an army armed with weapons way more deadly than a handgun. It will have explosives and items not protected by the second amendment.
Then again, it's certainly situational, but police are not a service for preventing crime - they are a service for capturing criminals and providing security in some situations and they certainly cannot be there to protect everyone and everyone has the right to protect themselves. I just don't think guns should be the way they need to protect themselves with.
Another argument is that mere guns are not sufficient. So should citizens be allowed to own tanks? It is essentially equivalent to a rifle in 1776. Or, maybe not a TANK, but perhaps a bomb. Should citizens be allowed to own bombs? For the sole purpose of possibly using it against the US government.
It sounds absurd but that's exactly what the 2nd amendment is. It says: Hey, look US Government. Don't mess up because we've got a whole country of people with guns watching you. But I just don't see how that holds true today. I don't see government legitimately fearing uprising from the citizens if they mess up.
Thoughts?