Scan barcode
A review by becks29
The Second Amendment by Michael Waldman
4.0
A fascinating look back through the history of the second amendment and the strange way the Supreme Court's biggest fan of "originalist" interpretation somehow read a personal right to own guns into the language for the first time in history in 2008, despite it only applying to militias before that. On the other hand, the damn amendment is written so stupidly, even the Founding Fathers barely knew what they meant by it, other than they wanted the states to be able to keep their own militias in fear of a federal "free standing Army".
I mean, it should be pretty obvious that they never intended to memorialize ownership of something as stupid as a gun as a constitutional right. Nowhere else in the Constitution does it mention chattel, and there are many such personal items that would be considered more important than a gun when it comes to "rights" - clothes, food, water, air shelter. (Basic necessities covered under the welfare clause - and I might add, highly regulated and restricted.) But yeah, your gun is more important than coffee. Lord help us all.
Don't get me wrong - I think there is a time and place for guns (hunting, target practice, etc.), just like there is a time and place for other things like cars. But I also think that like a car, using a gun should be a well-regulated privilege. Age limits, education, registration/licensing, and storage/usage rules seem reasonable - there is no need for a gun in a grocery store; the animals are already dead. Restrictions from ownership/usage for those who have lost that privilege also seem reasonable. This isn't going to stop anyone from hunting or safely owning a gun. Maybe it won't stop the criminal contingency either, but then again, seatbelt laws and drunk driving laws saved lives. Yeah, people still drive drunk without a seatbelt on, but most people on the road are fairly safe.
But meh. This will continue to be a major area of contention as long as both the Constitution and guns still exist, which hopefully is a long, long time. So, uh, praise the lord and pass the ammunition.
I mean, it should be pretty obvious that they never intended to memorialize ownership of something as stupid as a gun as a constitutional right. Nowhere else in the Constitution does it mention chattel, and there are many such personal items that would be considered more important than a gun when it comes to "rights" - clothes, food, water, air shelter. (Basic necessities covered under the welfare clause - and I might add, highly regulated and restricted.) But yeah, your gun is more important than coffee. Lord help us all.
Don't get me wrong - I think there is a time and place for guns (hunting, target practice, etc.), just like there is a time and place for other things like cars. But I also think that like a car, using a gun should be a well-regulated privilege. Age limits, education, registration/licensing, and storage/usage rules seem reasonable - there is no need for a gun in a grocery store; the animals are already dead. Restrictions from ownership/usage for those who have lost that privilege also seem reasonable. This isn't going to stop anyone from hunting or safely owning a gun. Maybe it won't stop the criminal contingency either, but then again, seatbelt laws and drunk driving laws saved lives. Yeah, people still drive drunk without a seatbelt on, but most people on the road are fairly safe.
But meh. This will continue to be a major area of contention as long as both the Constitution and guns still exist, which hopefully is a long, long time. So, uh, praise the lord and pass the ammunition.