DBWI: An Enduring Second Amendment

In 1879 after the infamous uprising of 1878, in which a group of racist ex-confederates launched a series of brutal attacks against federal employees, black people, people sympathetic to the plight of ex-slaves and northerners, leaving 22,000 dead (as well as over two thousand army soldiers) congress narrowly passed the 16th amendment, which repealed the previous Second Amendment to the US constitution and allowed government the authority to regulate weaponry.

It was strange to the modern day American to consider that once the United States had a constitutional clause which said that the government could not put limits on people arming themselves. Indeed, often times there were US Citizens who owned weapons more advanced than the army did such as Henry Rifles while the US army used single shot Trapdoor Springfield Rifles! But imagine what the US would be like if people could go down to a gun store and buy not just a .22 sporting revolver or varmit rifle, but a fully automatic Springfield 1956 or SR-76 without so much as a background check!

Zor
 
I suscept that such a retraction of the Second amendment would happen sooner or later ... just imagen how a election not going the way of those having the weapons would go ... armed civil war is probably merely going to be a starter, with protential police state and outright dictatorship
 
ASB. I suppose if you butterfly the US into a secondary power or weaker you could, but what kind of great power in the modern age would have such lax gun control?
 
There are a number of hardcore radicals on the far right of the Libertarian Party pushing to restore the 2nd amendment. If the second amendment still existed, Libertarianism as a political ideology in America would be almost unrecognisable. Would the Libertarian party even still be one of the USA's big five political parties anymore? After all, it's hard to see anyone coming out in favor of such an ideology in a world that would have significantly higher levels of gun violence.
 

Nilesap

Banned
There would be a civil war every five years. You can't trust the common man with guns after all.
 
There would be a civil war every five years. You can't trust the common man with guns after all.

Not necessarily, it didn't happen as a rule in places where guns are easily founs and laxly controlled if at all (ok, there are countries where gun control is lax BECAUSE of civil war, but that's another matter).
However a lot more of crime, as in, lethally violent crime, is likely. Guns ARE meant to be dangerous things after all.
 
I suscept that such a retraction of the Second amendment would happen sooner or later ... just imagen how a election not going the way of those having the weapons would go ... armed civil war is probably merely going to be a starter, with protential police state and outright dictatorship

Yeah, the police state had to wait a few years until the Feds deleted the 1st, 4th and 6th Amendments as well. Aren't you happier and safer now?
 
Yeah, the police state had to wait a few years until the Feds deleted the 1st, 4th and 6th Amendments as well. Aren't you happier and safer now?

Given that i'm not in USA ... ehh ... tough question ... I'm merely an outsider view and the retraction of second amendment was arguebly the single best thing happening in US in that century
 
Yeah, the police state had to wait a few years until the Feds deleted the 1st, 4th and 6th Amendments as well. Aren't you happier and safer now?
Yes? The 17th amendment clearly does a better job of protecting citizens' rights, in every conceivable way. What, were you a fan of the archaic language of those amendments being exploited for stupid & dangerous reinterpretations? Did you enjoy half of Chicago burning down because a church decided the First and Fourteenth Amendments meant that the city government couldn't make them obey the fire wardens?

Heck, the Second Amendment probably lent itself better to that than the three you're talking about. Just imagine the kind of tricks Chief Justice Little could have pulled with that one: "There's a Constitutional right to serve under arms; therefore, the Army can't exclude gays."
 
I suspect that as civilian and military weapons increasingly diverged, the Feds would find ways to restrict the military ones. It wasn't really an issue before the 1900's, as the two types weren't all that different. But with the advent of machine guns, tanks, fighter planes, etc., the Feds would have to act. Not sure how, maybe deny the patent rights to any civilian manufacturer? Or just 'imperial decree'? I don't think the Supreme Court would challenge that, it's not as if any of the other amendments are absolutely unrestricted...
 
I suspect that as civilian and military weapons increasingly diverged, the Feds would find ways to restrict the military ones. It wasn't really an issue before the 1900's, as the two types weren't all that different. But with the advent of machine guns, tanks, fighter planes, etc., the Feds would have to act. Not sure how, maybe deny the patent rights to any civilian manufacturer? Or just 'imperial decree'? I don't think the Supreme Court would challenge that, it's not as if any of the other amendments are absolutely unrestricted...

However, the idea of ordinary US people keeping a functioning tank their garage, which is of course protected by a machine gun nest, is disturbingly hilarious.
- Excuse me, ser, do you really have to point all these anti-aircraft missiles pointed on the local airport? That may prove a hindrance to civilian traffic. :D
 
Top