I have seen a lot of gun control proponents claim that the 2nd amendment is antiquated and that it doesn’t apply in modern society. Claiming that the founding fathers didn’t envision the type of modern firearms that we have today, and that they wouldn’t agree. They misunderstand the meaning, failing to grasp the grammatical structure of the text, and so on.
“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.”
Seems simple enough right? I won’t break it down. There are thousands of articles and videos all across the internet that explain this in more detail than I possibly could, from people such as Penn & Teller to Ted Nugent. No point in me rehashing it.
But what happens if the 2nd amendment is repealed? If it is suddenly decided that “yep, those anti-gun loons are right. It’s time for it to go.”
In short, nothing. At least not right away. In the immediate aftermath of the 2nd amendment being repealed, absolutely nothing changes. Here in Texas, those who carry concealed, will continue to do so, as they would in many other states. People would still own guns, and buy guns, and sell guns, and collect guns. People would still hunt ducks, and deer, and doves, and geese, and elk. Many state laws governing guns would remain exactly the same. The other laws and restrictions would still be in place, such as the NFA, the GCA, etc.
I’m sure some of the gun grabber types that might be reading this are flummoxed. “Wait, what? How?” Very simply, if you read the text of the 2nd very specifically, it says that the government cannot take away a right, it does not say “the people will be allowed to keep guns.” It says “the right of the people to keep guns won’t be taken away.” There is a HUGE difference between those two statements. One says that the government gives the right, and the other says that we have the right, and the government can’t take it away.
So what does repealing the 2nd amendment do? In an of itself, nothing. A second law would then have to be constructed by our government that specifically says “you aren’t allowed to have guns,” (you know, like the NFA of ’34, the GCA of ’68, the Hughes Amendment to the FOPA of ’86 already do to some people). Now there are going to be problems. Now the government would be affecting the lives and livelihood of its citizens, and leaving them to be slaughtered by others who are ill-intentioned, whether they are criminals, or the government itself.
So for those who claim that the 2nd amendment is antiquated and needs to be repealed, carefully consider what that entails. The 2nd doesn’t allow citizens the right to own guns, but rather it prevents the government from being able to take that right away. It was worded the way it was, for a very specific reason. Are you sure you want to take that away? It has proven very costly for other countries when they took away the rights of their citizens.
So before you go claiming that the founding fathers only had muskets in mind when they wrote the 2nd, it might help to remember not what they wrote, but why they wrote it, and why it was worded the way it was.
It wouldn’t bother me if the 2nd was repealed. What would bother me immensely is the aftermath of that decision, which is why I think it should stay right where it is. Unfortunately anti-gun zealots usually can’t see past the most recent media event and see what the cost of losing the 2nd would actually be.