News

That will never fly as a "middle ground" because the second amendment was never written as a hunter's law. It's a Revolutionary, shooting-at-people law...

For whoever downvoted the parent poster, he's correct. Let me quote Federalist Paper #46, authored by James Madison, the guy who drafted the US Constitution (written during the public debate for the states to accept the US Constitution). He was specifically arguing that the federal government would remain subordinate to the public because the American public was armed, that you couldn't have an autocrat seize power and end American democracy by force, couldn't have someone take things back to the sort of monarchy that was common in Europe at the time:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._46

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-10-02-0261

The only refuge left for those who prophecy the downfall of the state governments, is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the states should for a sufficient period of time elect an uninterrupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the states should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the state governments with the people on their side would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield in the United States an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the late successful resistance of this country against the British arms will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprizes of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain that with this aid alone, they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will, and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned, in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition, that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures, which must precede and produce it.

The argument under the present head may be put into a very concise form, which appears altogether conclusive. Either the mode in which the federal government is to be constructed will render it sufficiently dependent on the people, or it will not. On the first supposition, it will be restrained by that dependence from forming schemes obnoxious to their constituents. On the other supposition it will not possess the confidence of the people, and its schemes of usurpation will be easily defeated by the state governments; who will be supported by the people.

the 2nd amendment always took into account the advances in weaponry by tying it to state militias. The goal was to keep the feds from disarming the states, not to allow everyone to buy a personal nuke.

Ultimately the second amendment is in fact the problem.

You're right, it was designed as a "Revolutionary, shooting-at-people law", but it's woefully inadequate in that role now. It doesn't allow you to own a tank or an attack drone, and an assault rifle isn't going to be enough to stand up against a modern military force. So basically, as a revolutionary law the 2nd amendment is fucking useless at this point.

I say either double down on the intention of the 2nd amendment, or get rid of it. Either amend the constitution to allow civilian use of destructive devices (including tanks, artillery, missiles, 2000 lb bombs, etc) or kill the second amendment entirely. And hey, just go with whichever seems like a better idea to you, no judgement.

because the rounds aren’t lethal enough?

Because the goal is to kill the animal quickly with limited pain. "not lethal enough" entails every lethal wound that takes minutes and hours to kill instead of seconds. But for killing humans there is a reason why armies prefer 5.56 over .308 in most standard issued weapons.