It is hard to argue for a full repeal. But there should definitely exist more limitations than what's currently imposed. As I write this, please note that these views are colored by my experience growing up in Venezuela under Chavez and Maduro.
The best way to answer your question is to ask ourselves what the raison d'etre for the amendme…
It is hard to argue for a full repeal. But there should definitely exist more limitations than what's currently imposed. As I write this, please note that these views are colored by my experience growing up in Venezuela under Chavez and Maduro.
The best way to answer your question is to ask ourselves what the raison d'etre for the amendment is; the point on which your third argument seems to focus. From the post, the comments below and much of the debate over the years, the locus for this amendment seems to be grassroots national defense (militias) and/or the threat of violent revolution in the face of tyranny being ever present in a tyrant-to-be's mind (deterrence). Let me throw the zombie apocalypse in to for the sake of popular culture justifications!
The first argument comparing rights seems more subjective than the other two (this is less important than that) and it could be subject to co-causalities. It could be argued that the other rights are not guaranteed without the ultimate threat of force in defense of them. This puts us back at deterrence (cf. your third argument). The second argument on Federalism does not convince me because it is bound to generate ample heterogeneity in gun laws among neighboring states. What could happen in the many cities that sit upon state borders? Isn't the whole point of the constitution and federal laws to bring an acceptable degree of homogeneity to what started as a confederation? Also, guns are a two equilibrium game in game theory: either everyone has them or nobody has them in order to get to a good outcome. Could the same be true at the level of state relationships? Not sure. We can't know counterfactuals and one should always be wary of assuming them.
As you argue, we do not know whether weaker gun laws would have led to more deaths in some cities. You also argue that "we have been able to address [problems] through the normal political processes" but we also don't know whether the political solutions would have been, on average, less successful over time without this deterrent. The counterfactual is, as all are, unknowable.
So, what do we know? That the most proffered reason for the 2nd amendment's existence is to protect the people from tyranny and to protect themselves. I'm amenable to this argument and I don't find it to be a relic. That it hasn't been necessary to use weapons in resolving political disputes in the U.S. for so many years could as easily be attributed to the existence of the amendment itself. One need only look at other nation-states to notice this reason is as old as humanity and just as fecund. On the individual protection front, it is highly unlikely that bad actors would turn their weapons in, which leaves the situation even more unbalanced.
But how much deterrence do we need for a potential tyrant? Could we really not do away with mentally unstable patriots-to-be? How about known criminals? Even in zombie-apocalypse shows these are the peeps that end up killing their fellow humans with guns! This is supposedly a system of "ordered liberties." Put some order.
It is hard to argue for a full repeal. But there should definitely exist more limitations than what's currently imposed. As I write this, please note that these views are colored by my experience growing up in Venezuela under Chavez and Maduro.
The best way to answer your question is to ask ourselves what the raison d'etre for the amendment is; the point on which your third argument seems to focus. From the post, the comments below and much of the debate over the years, the locus for this amendment seems to be grassroots national defense (militias) and/or the threat of violent revolution in the face of tyranny being ever present in a tyrant-to-be's mind (deterrence). Let me throw the zombie apocalypse in to for the sake of popular culture justifications!
The first argument comparing rights seems more subjective than the other two (this is less important than that) and it could be subject to co-causalities. It could be argued that the other rights are not guaranteed without the ultimate threat of force in defense of them. This puts us back at deterrence (cf. your third argument). The second argument on Federalism does not convince me because it is bound to generate ample heterogeneity in gun laws among neighboring states. What could happen in the many cities that sit upon state borders? Isn't the whole point of the constitution and federal laws to bring an acceptable degree of homogeneity to what started as a confederation? Also, guns are a two equilibrium game in game theory: either everyone has them or nobody has them in order to get to a good outcome. Could the same be true at the level of state relationships? Not sure. We can't know counterfactuals and one should always be wary of assuming them.
As you argue, we do not know whether weaker gun laws would have led to more deaths in some cities. You also argue that "we have been able to address [problems] through the normal political processes" but we also don't know whether the political solutions would have been, on average, less successful over time without this deterrent. The counterfactual is, as all are, unknowable.
So, what do we know? That the most proffered reason for the 2nd amendment's existence is to protect the people from tyranny and to protect themselves. I'm amenable to this argument and I don't find it to be a relic. That it hasn't been necessary to use weapons in resolving political disputes in the U.S. for so many years could as easily be attributed to the existence of the amendment itself. One need only look at other nation-states to notice this reason is as old as humanity and just as fecund. On the individual protection front, it is highly unlikely that bad actors would turn their weapons in, which leaves the situation even more unbalanced.
But how much deterrence do we need for a potential tyrant? Could we really not do away with mentally unstable patriots-to-be? How about known criminals? Even in zombie-apocalypse shows these are the peeps that end up killing their fellow humans with guns! This is supposedly a system of "ordered liberties." Put some order.