Thread by @SlavaMalamud

So, guys, let's have a conversation about #2A. We are way, way, way overdue to take an honest, harsh look at it. And since y'all native-borns are unwilling to, let me, a naturalized American, with a wider perspective and a harsher life experience do it for you.
🧵

https://twitter.com/JoyAnnReid/status/1467012843576909832

To be sure, there are many parts of the Constitution that are obsolete, dumb, unfair and/or dangerous. For example, the provision that limits presidency eligibility only to those who exited the birth canal within America's borders fit neatly into the middle two categories...

Let's face it, nobody is quartering soldiers in your house either, though I have a feeling that if they wanted to, they would, amendments be damned.
In short, shockingly, folks in periwigs and "small clothes" writing shit with quills in the XVIII c. didn't anticipate many things.

We know this because we had to amend the damn thing so many times, including the 70+ years it took us to finally enshrine the radical notion that owning human beings is not okay into it.
But not a single part of the Constitution is as dumb, obsolete and dangerous as #2A.
Not one.

And it's so obvious, it almost physically hurts.
Let's start with the very first words of the text! The 2A's entire reason for existing presupposes the necessity for a "well-regulated militia" in order to ensure the security of the state.
You know, I assume, what this means...

But for those who don't, this means armed citizenry, organized into military units, well-equipped, regularly drilled and with a clear command structure.
You know, the things THAT DON'T EXIST ANYMORE IN AMERICA!

Militias were indeed necessary during the Revolutionary War, though if you asked George Washington, they'd be better classified as "necessary evil." They went on to prove their total obsolescence during the War of 1812 (see, for example, the aborted invasion of Canada)...

... before gloriously running the gamut between useless and disgraceful during the Civil War.
As America's influence and economic might increased, so did its standing army, eventually making militias unnecessary, redundant and, finally, extinct.

The National Guard, into which they have evolved, are reserve troops, absorbed into the structure of the standing army and the air force. These are not farmers with well-oiled muskets in their barns who drill once a month on the town common, which 2A refers to.

The necessity to quickly raise a paramilitary force of free citizens in order to stave off a foreign invasion or an insurrection is more than a century past its sell-by date. The entire existence of #2A is thus predicated on something that is no longer a part of reality.

In today's America, people who harbor large amounts of firearms, are far more likely to install a tyrannical autocracy than defend against it, as, I hope, has been abundantly clear for at least 11 months now.
I know your next argument: the Supreme Court precedent.

First of all, as we are already seeing with Roe v. Wade, SCOTUS precedents don't mean anything and carry only as much weight as the next majority of justices is able to lift.
Secondly, I am not debating the legal meaning of 2A. I am debating the entire need for it.

And it's absolutely indisputable that the state of affairs that drove the Founders to craft #2A (and we don't have to guess what that state was, since Hamilton was nice enough to spell it out comprehensively in Federalist No. 29), does not exist anymore.
Like, at all.

Once we have established that #2A is predicated on an obsolete premise, we have to confront with those who consider gun ownership an important human right.
This is, of course, utter and complete bullshit.
The rights to free speech and equal protection under the law are basic...

They are timeless, they are universal, they conform to every facet of morality, striving for them is a part of our nature as humans.
A firearm is a machine invented relatively recently. It's an ever-changing piece of technology. It has a narrowly defined purpose: to kill...

Anyone who argues that the right to own a murder machine is as fundamental to the human endeavor as the right to free speech and a fair trial is full of the exact type of horse shit that led folks 200 years ago to argue that owning slaves is a sacrosanct, God-awarded right.

Anyone with a modicum of sanity must admit that, while free speech and equal protection are absolute needs for EVERY member of a free society, ownership of murder machines is predicated on specific needs and absolutely cannot be extended to everyone...

Some people in some areas need to hunt to survive. Some have jobs that require the use of firearms. Ownership of a gun for personal safety is predicated on our society's being lawless and armed to the teeth, in other words, it's a solution that is itself a problem.

And we have already established that owning the gun to protect this country's democracy is not a thing
Most gun-hoarders are either criminals or afraid or obsessive or have lunatic fantasies about being a suburban Rambo and winning a shootout against Bodie Broadus's gang...

In all cases, having these folks well armed with extremely efficient murder machines is not a good idea. As is self-evident. Abundantly, clearly, comprehensively self-evident to every single person on Earth who is not an American.

To be sure, at this point we are not even arguing with the Constitution (which, as I have already proven, addresses a long gone-by reality). We are arguing with people whose entire philosophical stance can be easily reduced to "BUT I LIKE MY GUNS!"
We are arguing with emotions.

We are arguing with someone who feels that their entitlement to emotional satisfaction is more important than America's need to make itself a safer place to live in. We are arguing with extremely selfish and hopelessly childish people who will gladly accept your child's death...

... as an acceptable tradeoff to the emotional high they get from caressing and shooting their murder machines.
We are dealing with people who are not serious, not grown-up, not responsible and not, for lack of a better word, moral.
We are dealing with irrational lunatics.

In a sane country, where sane people have majorities in the government and have mechanisms for enacting reform, the gravity of the situation would have been recognized long ago. It would have been regarded as self-evident that strict limits on gun ownership must be enacted...

That people with a legitimate need to hunt could own a strictly regulated and registered hunting weapon. That most other forms of gun ownership must be severely restricted or outright eliminated. That buybacks must be followed by confiscation. That 2A must go.

But, unfortunately, we live in a country where interests of dangerous lunatics are securely guarded by heartless corporations who make good money off them and blithe politicians who love milking them for donations and votes.
In a country where a radical minority rules supreme...

I can only hope your children stay alive long enough to develop into a better, saner generation. As a school teacher, in other words a person in the second most dangerous job on American soil, I honestly, sincerely hope for this.
But I am afraid that we are fucked.
That's it.

PS.
Pictured: people who love their toys.
Not pictured: people who have legitimate needs to hunt, are in imminent danger or will ever, under any circumstances, defend this country from tyranny.

https://twitter.com/RepThomasMassie/status/1467197523127422979?s=20