A Reddit post recently caught my attention where a user, Schmurby, made this straightforward and interesting declaration:
“Change My View: The 2nd Amendment is IRRELEVANT.”
Now before you dismiss Schmurby as just another internet user trying to say that the 2nd Amendment is archaic and no longer needed in today’s world like we relentlessly hear from gun control advocates, let’s listen to what he has to say for just a second.
Here are the main takeaways I had from the post and the resulting debate that ignited in the comments:
1 – The 2nd Amendment is Short….Very Short
Schmurby starts his post by pasting the entirety of the 2nd Amendment and reminding us about how short and concise it is:
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
And there’s the problem, Schmurby argues. As it is written, the 2nd Amendment is about as succinct, condensed, and clear as you can get. But despite that…
2 – There Are Lots of Restrictions on Firearms and Weaponry in the United States
Even so, he points out, the right of the American people to keep and bear arms has been under infringement for at least the last 150+ years.
According to Schmurby: “There are so many arms which are not legal anywhere in the U.S.: M1A Abrams Tanks, A-10 Warthogs, Howitzer cannons, any kind of fully automatic machine gun, the list goes on and on.”
So that naturally begs the question…
3 – Are We Ignoring the 2nd Amendment?
In other words, Schmurby is arguing that we’ve unofficially agreed to ignore the 2nd Amendment ever since the introduction of more modern weapons that are ‘a significant force multiplier’ that did not exist when the Bill of Rights was written, and that are not available for use by private citizens today.
Hence, he suggests, the 2nd Amendment is really irrelevant and we should start from scratch with new laws that concern weapons and firearms.
Now at this point, you’re probably wondering…
4 – What About The Other Amendments in the Bill of Rights?
Schmurby also addresses the implications that his statement naturally has for the other amendments in the Bill of Rights.
“But, there are restrictions on speech, so should we just forget about the 1st Amendment?” he asks.
Good question, but Schmurby suggests there’s a difference…
5 – The U.S. May Be The Best Country at Protecting Freedom of Speech
The difference, Schmurby then argues, is that almost all speech is legal in the United States to the point that it’s still probably the best country at protecting freedom of speech in the world.
However, since almost all weapons are illegal and not permitted for civilian use, this would make the 2nd Amendment irrelevant in contrast to at least most of the other amendments…or does it?
6 – So Does That Truly Make the 2nd Amendment Irrelevant?
Another Reddit user, Grunt08, disagreed with Schmurby’s assertion that this means we should abandon the 2nd Amendment and start from scratch in regards to creating new gun laws, even if we’re effectively ignoring the 2nd Amendment already.
Grunt08 suggested that just because there are restrictions on firearms and weapons doesn’t mean that the 2nd Amendment is automatically irrelevant.
7 – If the Government Bans Certain Weapons, Can They Ban Certain Religions?
To make his point, Grunt08 posited the comparison that if the U.S. government were to ban Judaism, it wouldn’t mean that we should abandon the 1st Amendment overall. Instead, it would mean that we should simply unban Judaism in this scenario.
Therefore, Grunt08’s implication in response to Schmurby’s point is that we should consider getting rid of existing, certain laws that restrict firearms rather than abandon the 2nd Amendment as a whole.
8 – Is Civilian Ownership of ‘Force Multiplier’ Weapons Like Tanks or Fighter Jets Protected Under the 2nd Amendment?
Fighter jets, tanks, cannons, and most fully-automatic machine guns are not legal for U.S. civilians, as Schmurby asserted…or are they?
Grunt08 pointed out that while tanks like the M1A Abrams are not permitted for sale to civilians, it’s not for reasons one may think. The reason civilians can’t own an Abrams tank is because the right to produce and distribute the Abrams specifically is retained by the government. Therefore, there is no private entity that is capable of selling the Abrams tank to civilians due to what amounts to little more than IP protection.
9 – But That Doesn’t Mean That Tanks Are Illegal
In theory, however, any company could manufacture another kind of tank and sell it to civilians or security forces for private use. The reason this usually doesn’t happen, Grunt08 highlights, is because tanks are incredibly expensive to produce.
For example, a single modern day tank costs around $10 million or more for a basic model, and there’s no demand to justify a company investing in the production of hundreds or thousands of units for private use.
10 – Besides…Tanks Are Almost Useless Anyway
Furthermore, most civilians and private security forces have no use for a tank in the first place. Not only are tanks very cumbersome and expensive to shoot and maintain, they’re borderline useless for private use because they are vulnerable to modern day weapons and are often exposed in combat situations without sufficient support from infantry.
Look no further than the Ukraine War where both sides have lost literally thousands of tanks due to advances in anti-tank weaponry. This has led some to even question the validity of tanks on the modern day battlefield.
In short, there aren’t any Federal laws forbidding the use of civilians owning tanks, but it’s just so impractical that the issue never even arises.
11 – Are Rights in the Constitution Limitless?
Another user, Ansuz07, also disagreed with Schmurby’s assertion that the 2nd Amendment is irrelevant.
Ansuz07 pointed out that it’s been long understood that rights in the Constitution are not limitless. As an example, the 1st Amendment guarantees freedom of speech for every American, but the United States still has slander and defamation laws in place to also protect people against false statements.
12 – The 2nd Amendment Is Therefore Relevant Even with Restrictions
All the same, Ansuz07 argues that the 2nd Amendment is still in place and relevant despite there being certain restrictions imposed on it just as there have been the other amendments.
“You may not have the right to all arms, but you still have the right to some, just as you may not have the right to all speech, but still have the right to some,” Ansuz07 says.
13 – Handgun Ownership is a Right Under the U.S. Constitution
As another example, Ansuz07 brought up the 2008 District of Colombia v. Heller decision in which the Supreme Court of the United States struck down the D.C. band on all handguns and ruled that private handgun ownership is a right under the Constitution.
So, if the 2nd Amendment really isn’t relevant, then it’s only logical to conclude that D.C.’s previous ban on all handguns would have still been allowed…but the Supreme Court has clearly indicated otherwise.
14 – The Ownership and Use of Certain Weapons Can Potentially Break Other Laws
Another Reddit user, Sawdeanz, responded with a good point that I had never even thought of before in regards to why certain weapons may be restricted:
“Eventually the ownership of a class of weapon runs into other rights and laws. Consider something like a grenade or a napalm bomb… even if you used it in self defense you would still be breaking other laws with regards to reckless endangerment of bystanders, etc.”
Sawdeanz goes on to point out that American private companies do already own most of the force multiplier weapons that Schmurby was saying are banned, as every fighter jet, tank, and bomb produced comes from a private corporation in the first place.
15 – The 2nd Amendment Has To Be Relevant Simply Because It Exists
At the end of the day, however, I think Reddit user Scott10orman hit the nail on the coffin with: “Quite simply, The Second Amendment exists, that’s what makes it relevant. For better or worse, it acts as a standard. The standard may be vague and open to interpretation, but it is still there. Any potential legislation faces the burden of the fact that the Second Amendment exists.”
In other words, all new firearms laws (regardless of whether you agree or disagree with them) may have to be scrutinized against the 2nd Amendment in the courts in regards to whether they are Constitutional or not…which alone makes the 2A relevant.
Where Do You Stand?
So with all that being said, where do you stand?
Is Schmurby right in his assertion that current restrictions on the 2nd Amendment make it irrelevant, or is the 2nd Amendment just as relevant today as it was when was written? Or do you have a different view entirely?
Feel free to let us know what you think in the comments!
Source – Change My Mind: The 2nd Amendment is Irrelevant
