What does it mean that the 2nd amendment is “outdated”?

Governance

It seems like people who argue in favor of stricter gun control in the US hinge a lot of their rhetoric on the idea because the constitution was written a long time ago the whole thing most have stayed the same.

As I understand, in addition to the process of actually amending the constitution, the Supreme Court is able to reinterpret it within the current context to keep legislation around it up to date.

As recently as 2008, the Court found that the 2nd amendment guarantees an individuals right to keep and bear arms outside of the context of a militia, doesn’t this show that the constitution and 2nd amendment are being scrutinized/kept up to date?

Other than entirely amending the constitution (which there is a framework for, and is entirely possible) how else should the constitution be modernized?

in ExplainBothSidesby Cold_Piece_5501

116

65%

View all comments

way2funni

Side A would say that (and this is the part that's outdated) a civilian population with firearms is necessary for the national defense as it was in the 1700's when America had no standing army. In our countries infancy we faced invasion from British forces and if it were not for a well armed civilian population, they would have probably walked right up one side of us and down the other because this is what they did when simply asking nicely doesn't work.

We now have the most well funded and equipped standing army / navy and air forces in the world and we can deliver a quick reaction force along with fighter jets to just about any beach in our country to repel invaders in roughly the time it takes for Domino's to deliver a pie.

Side A would also say that having a well armed civilian population means protection from a government that suddenly gets ornery and decides to override the will of the people and become something they don't like and didn't elect but the reality of the logic in having a well armed civilian population for both national defense and prevent a government from getting too ornery are no longer valid. The point is moot, The weaponry and tech of military grade hardware is overwhelming anything civilians are allowed to have.

While civilian firearm tech accuracy and power has advanced, military grade weaponry has increased by leaps and bounds and several orders of magnitude to the point it doesn't matter if every citizen had a long gun, it's useless against something like an A-10 Thunderbolt aka 'The Warthog' with it's 20mm cannon and bombs.

Or a bomber wing dropping it's bomb load on you from 60,000 feet and wiping out half your town and you never even heard their engines.

SURE, you can put a Vietnam War era machine gun like an M-60 on a chopper or Learjet and wire it to the cockpit but it's not going to be very effective when a AIM 260 AMRAAM takes you out from 90 miles away over the horizon before you ever even get a radar blip on the aircraft that killed you.

Side B would say that America has societal issues even today that require it's population be armed not only for home defense (castle docterine) but for personal protection when in public. Every time there is a shooting in public they feel this is an affirmation. They also feel that police can not be relied upon to protect them and prefer to be empowered to take matters into their own hands if threatened with bodily harm.

They also believe that because they are well armed, even though any military grade power would eventually overwhelm them, they believe that the level of resistance they could put up would be sufficient to wear them down / degrade their ability to operate.

They point to guerrilla style wars in other countries in recent decades as proof of that. They cling to the idea that their guns are ensuring their continued freedom and if they are forced to give them up, it means they would be powerless to act against a hostile adversary foreign or domestic.

BetterCranberry7602

High end military tech like jets and drones don’t matter when Johnny the drone pilot lives 2 doors down with his family. Every single soldier and fed would have to keep their identities a complete secret.

way2funni

[eye roll] really? they don't matter? Because you presume they will be next door to where the action is?

They won't be. as I recall, most of the predator and reaper drones raining death from above in Iraq and Afghanistan were being controlled from trailers in Nevada. That was back when the tech was still somewhat new. 20 years on, pretty sure they can run them from just about anywhere now and even if you know where that is, they can be packed and relocated in a couple hours.

Add 'encrypted satellite communications' and ultra hi-res GPS that actually WORKS in combat usage to the list of thing the .gov folks have that the .civ folks do not.

also, in a real civil war scenario, add the internet kill switch to that list. and when things get really dire, all civilian satphones, starlink, all cell phones, al landlines and even ham radio/ CB radios will be inoperable except for a couple things they might leave open 'accidentally' so they can more easily listen in and / or track you. if you lock it all down, you don't get any intel.

High tech absolutely does matter and you are outside of your mind if you honestly think it doesn't

The reason the world is as it is now is because the British Empire and a few other European countries brought cannon and guns to a knife, sword + bow and arrow fight in the Americas. A few hundred men on boats conquered everything from the Caribbean to most of what is now Latin America

A few thousand others took care of what is now USA and Canada.

Flash forward 500 years or so and the disparity in the level of tech that is out there now vs the updated musket civilians are allowed to have is just mind boggling.

Any fantasy that your AR is the great equalizer even if you've got a couple hundred or couple thousand of your clan with you is exactly that - a fantasy. In a real 'gloves off' scenario, they will slaughter anything deemed a threat even if it is uparmored.

Did you see what they did to Saddam's army in the Gulf? Look up 'highway of death' Those are T-55 tanks with their turrents blown sky high.

your homeboy and his Ford Explorer truck? They and everyone for 2 football fields in all directions will get killed by the bomblets dropping from a ATACMS fired from 190 miles away. all dead in the time it took to read this line.

A couple of Bradleys with 20mm chain guns and MK19 40mm grenade launchers from a mile off across the valley and over the next hill will rake you once and that's the ballgame.

They won't even need to send the hogs to mop up.

But you've got a red dot and match grade ammo for your AR. Sure. you'll be fine.

BetterCranberry7602

When you start carpet bombing towns and “raining death from above”, you’re gonna find yourself with a lot of enemies. Including your own people, whose family and friends lived in that town that you wiped out half of. Good luck living your life when half the country wants to kill you or your family.

There’s over 3 million DoD employees required to make the military machine work. Every one would be a target, or a saboteur. And they all are from here. The people you are talking about indiscriminately killing are the ones making your food, weapons, fuel, etc.

way2funni

I didn't say anything about carpet bombing. but if a bunch of yaya's think all they have to do to is pull a Prigozhin, jump on I-95 with a convoy of trucks and small arms and some AR's thinking they can take the capitol and the oval by force because they saw it done in a movie, they are in for a rude awakening.

BetterCranberry7602

Or a bomber wing dropping it’s bomb load on you from 60,000 feet and wiping out half your town and you never even heard their engines.

Kinda sounds like carpet bombing to me.

way2funni

nope. only half the town gets bombed. errybody knows carpet bombing takes the whole town and the town next door.

BetterCranberry7602

My bad lol