There was an interesting essay ("Second Thoughts") in the current issue of The New Republic by a fellow at Brookings. It was prompted by the decision, discussed below, invalidating DC's ban on handguns. The author observes that although the Second Amendment's reference to a "militia" make the meaning reasonably clear, as courts have generally held, it no longer makes sense in America, since that reference is to a Revolution-era body that no longer exists. And the interest in gun control, so this argument goes, differs from locality to locality in the U.S. What makes sense in DC or other urban areas (a ban on guns) might not in rural areas (where the population is less dense). If the Second Amendment were repealed, then each jurisdiction could decide for itself what makes sense.
Although I favor gun control (having lived in urban settings most of my adult life), I have to admit there's a certain logic to this argument. I fear, though, that conservative states that are basically held captive by the NRA will actually loosen gun controls if the Second Amendment is repealed, but it's a discussion worth having.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I still need to read the article. I'll look for a link. I'm generaly in favor of gun control, but I can relate to an arguemnet against it. As they say, "it's open to interpretation."
On the first read of your post, and like I said, I still need to read the article, I do question that a "militia" is a term of the past. Maybe in this country they are currently—where of course, the Constitution is the supreme law—but today in Iraq, miliitia's thrive.
Interesting to find your post from three weeks ago, when only 110 miles from you, we have just suffered the greatest gun rampage in the history of our nation.
It's time to repeal the Second Amendment.
Absolutely. Unfortunately, there are too many people who don't see it that way and think MORE guns are the answer.
today's post
Post a Comment