Does the Second Amendment really have a purpose anymore?

[exploited]

It seems to me that the Second Amendment misses the point. Rather than focusing on the possession of a particular tool, what is needed is an Amendment that lays out when force can be exercised, against whom, and under what circumstances. It should apply to every person, including police officers.

So, for instance, I would envision it to look something like this:

Every person has the right to defend themselves from unlawful physical violence. While engaged in self-defense, that person must respect the principles of proportionality, and exhaust all peaceful means of resolution prior to using force. The use of weapons is prohibited unless to lawfully counter the known existence of equivalent opposing weaponry. Laws regarding possession of weaponry are to apply equally to all civilians, including public servants."

- Makes it so that citizens can possess the same weapons that police can, but no more, without the need for specialized regulations
- Makes it so that all police have to do to get weapons off the street is disarm themselves; provides an incentive to de-escalate the militarization of police
- Recognizes the inherent right to self-defense
- Requires all people to demonstrate a rational, reasonable need to engage in a particular act of violence, including police officers
- Prohibits the sort of excessive police weaponry and tactics that is so troublesome these days
- Allows for gun control, but that gun control must be applied to all civilians

Thoughts?

[Medius]

[exploited]

It doesn't matter what the threat was, or what the particular circumstances of the people writing the law were. What matters is the text and how it is interpreted. Playing ideological dress-up with the Founding Fathers doesn't reflect the reality of the law, which is that the meaning of text is and always will be changed drastically over time.

My proposed Amendment wouldn't apply to just police. Most of it applies to all people, with no distinction between civilian and military. Only the last bit, governing possession, talks about public servants. And what is interesting is that bit doesn't prohibit you from having the same weapons you have now - it merely makes the right to possess them equivalent to how well-armed the police are. At the same time, it doesn't actually establish any laws regulating the possession of firearms - it merely makes those laws apply equally to public servants. So if there are no laws regarding the possession of firearms, than police, military and civilians alike can arm themselves with whatever they want - but they can't use those weapons except to counter known equivalent weaponry.

The beauty of this Amendment is that it provides for pretty much any possible scenario, while prohibiting most of the negative outcomes.

The military can't just start bombing cities, unless of course it is to counter known equivalent weaponry. Civilians can't just shoot cops, unless of course the cop is unlawfully arresting them, and threatens them with a gun or enough force to warrant using a gun. Police can't just break into homes with SWAT teams, unless they are acting lawfully and have reasonable evidence that weapons are in the home and there is evidence of past violent weapon use. Neither can police charge you for resisting arrest in those cases where the officer acts unlawfully - assuming, of course, that the suspect exhausted all peaceful methods and legal obligations.

It really is a much better law.

[eynon81]

[exploited]

[eynon81]

[eynon81]

[exploited]

It does kind of strike me as a Trailer Park Boys scenario. A shootout between Ricky and Farva from Super Troopers.

[The Comrade]

purposes

1. guns are cool
2. protect ya neck
3. it's funny to listen to europeans complaining about american gun violence while they're being beheaded with kitchen knives

[spacemonkey]

My gun is mainly for door kickerinner's and those who would try a car jacking, and anything else that might require its use. Yes, it would make a fine 45.cal credit card, but never had the urge to put it to that particular task.