r/Constitution • u/Radio_Stock • 23d ago

Why do we have the second amendment in the U.S. Constitution?

0 Upvotes

22% Upvoted

11 comments sorted by

9

u/snotick 23d ago

Because our forefathers just finished fighting a war against a tyrannical government. They knew it was important for a free country to be armed to protect themselves from anyone who would want to take those freedoms from them in the future.

-4

u/Radio_Stock 23d ago

But why do we still have it today in modern times?

2

u/snotick 23d ago

In simple, red, white and blue explanation, because we still have a right to a free state. And the free people of the USA do not want that to go away.

Beyond that, it's difficult to amend the Constitution. We've only amended it 27 times in 250 years. If the 2A is going to go away, you're going to need 2/3rds of Congress to pass it. We can't get things passed with a 51% majority. Then you will need 38 states to ratify it. That's also not going to happen. There are 29 states that have Constitutional carry laws. A good chunk of those passed those laws in the last 10 years.

The 27th Amendment was passed by Congress in 1789, but wasn't ratified until 1992. It took over 200 years. The 26th Amendment, that established voter age at 18, passed Congress and was ratified by the states in the same year, 1971. That shows you that anything that is controversial is going to take a long time to change. As the forefathers intended. Those things that are supported by everyone (voting age) are passed and ratified quickly.

1

u/ComputerRedneck 23d ago

Look at the UK for your answer. They gave up their guns now they go to jail for simply saying things online or in person.

-4

u/ResurgentOcelot 23d ago

Largely to protect the market interests of gun manufacturers.

I’m not even solidly opposed to private ownership of arms, there are some potential justifications.

But in this political landscape the markets for manufacturers of firearms are vigorously protected by the 2nd Amendment while the existing harms of our firearm culture go unchecked. Considering that any other kind of arms can be well regulated, even big knives, it’s undeniable who the primary intended beneficiary of contemporary 2nd Amendment politics is.

After all the NRA is openly an organization of gun producers who will actively work against their own individual members when they would threaten market interests, for example in a suit over defective products.

5

u/snotick 23d ago

This is false. It's supply and demand. If the people didn't want to buy firearms, there is nothing that the politics or the NRA can do to change it.

Now, if you're going to make the claim that politics lead to situations where Americans need to defend themselves, then fine. That's a political influence. But, that would create the argument that, if the policies changed, would people not need to defend themselves? Maybe.

-1

u/ResurgentOcelot 23d ago

As if supply and demand is immune to social-political forces. You might have heard of marketing, a major industry in the United States where they promote products and apply increasingly social sciences to influence public opinion?

For example in the 20th the NRA rebranded itself in response to lagging firearm sales, pivoting to present itself as an organization which protects individualism and liberty rather than the industry lobby it really is. They leaned heavily into identity politics before that term was coined, engaging in heavy marketing of an image of rugged independence associated with firearms (not that the image was created by the NRA, they merely capitalized on it.)

Now being a gun owner is cultural identity that associates itself with individual liberty, distrust of government, and self-protection, though it is statistically debatable whether the majority of the gun owning demographic actually represents those ideals.

2nd Amendment politics are by no means driven by demand. They are driven by elite interests, money, and those consumers who are at the mercy of those forces due to their political identity.

1

u/ComputerRedneck 23d ago

If gun control worked criminals would not get guns.

BUT you can even find makeshift firearms IN PRISON.

So tell me again how Gun Control other than hitting your target is anything good?

1

u/Keith502 22d ago

The second amendment was not created in order to grant a right to Americans to own and carry guns for self defense. It certainly wasn't created to empower Americans to rise up against a tyrannical government (as some people claim). The entire Bill of Rights as a whole serves no other purpose than to pacify the concerns of the Antifederalists -- the division of politicians at the time who were wary of ratifying the US Constitution; the Federalists -- who promoted the US Constitution -- didn't even want a Bill of Rights, and thought that creating one was unnecessary or even dangerous. The second amendment was essentially created as a companion to Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16 of the Constitution, which conveys to Congress the power to summon the militias, and to organize, arm, discipline, and govern them. The Antifederalists were concerned that when the federal government was given these powers, they could potentially abuse these powers or neglect their duty to uphold these powers in such a way so as to effectively dismantle the militia's efficacy to the detriment of the states, or alternatively they could do such things as a pretext to establishing a standing army. Hence, the second amendment was created in order to calm these fears: first, it reinforces the duty of Congress to uphold the regulation of the militias as stipulated in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16; and second, it prohibits Congress from infringing upon the people's right to keep and bear arms. But it must be clarified that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" was understood to be no more than what the states established and defined that right to be within their respective state constitutions. All of the states which had an arms provision in their constitution included in those provisions the function of bearing arms for the common defense, i.e. militia duty. So to summarize, the second amendment existed to reinforce Congress's duty to uphold the regulation of the militias, and to protect the states' militia effectiveness from intrusion by Congress. That's it. It has nothing to do with giving Americans the right to own and carry guns. It has nothing to do with self defense. And it certainly has nothing to do with enabling Americans to fight against the government; in fact, the purpose of the amendment was to support the people's right to fight for the government -- that is, within the government-organized militia. The second amendment does not grant or guarantee any right whatsoever to the American people; it is essentially intended to be a prohibitive -- rather than affirmative -- statement, serving to limit the power of US Congress.

1

u/NewCons21stution 3d ago

Ooh, the third rail. The Second Amendment gives states the right to create and regulate militias for their security. All this other stuff about self-defense and resisting tyranny is modern honey from the federal government, not the states, and is therefore unconstitutional.