Watch What You Say About the Second Amendment Being a ‘Historical Antique’ – Last month, Kirk Swearingen, writing for Salon.com, argued that the Second Amendment is “a ludicrous historical antique: time for it to go.”
He took the argument that the framers of the constitution meant that it was speaking about a well-regulated “militia,” and called the Second Amendment conditional.
Numerous constitutional experts over the decades have disagreed with that sentiment, however.
Yet it is really only half the debate.
Swearingen also suggested that the Founding Fathers could have had no idea of the technological leaps forward in firearms.
“If we could somehow summon up Franklin or Madison or Hamilton to speak to us on the gun issue, I imagine they’d have a lot to say. One suspects the founders would take a look at modern handguns and assault weapons, learn how they operate and tell us a bit more about the intent of the Second Amendment. They would say, I think, that the citizens’ right to safety and the pursuit of happiness far outweighs any imagined individual right to own a weapon of war or carry any kind of gun in public,” Swearingen wrote.
It is a compelling argument to make – albeit a completely flaws one.
Is the First Amendment a ‘Historical Antique’ as Well?
Countless times the argument has been made that the Founding Fathers couldn’t have seen today’s modern sporting rifles.
However, repeating firearms did in fact exist at the time the Constitution was drafted.
Likewise, this argument of “weapons of war” fails to appreciate that military and civilian firearms were typically one and the same.
In fact, some civilian firearms were superior to what the common soldier was issued. That fact remained true for much of the 19th century as well. Today, the U.S. military has weapons that no civilian can own. That fact was never true when the Second Amendment was written – despite what President Joe Biden said about cannons. Such weapons and virtually any small arms were legal to own.
But let’s play the game. Opponents of the Second Amendment like to look at the exact wording. Let’s do the same with the First Amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
It actually says nothing about books or newspapers; we have to assume it is meant by the press. Likewise, does it say anything about radio, TV, or the Internet? It does not, yet today we accept that those are protected by the First Amendment.
We already see that the spread of “misinformation” is a problem in this country on radio, TV, and certainly the Internet. Even though there is a threat, most would not seek to ban the Internet because it might spread some misinformation.
The counterargument would be that millions of people use the Internet responsibly, but the same can be said about firearms.
There is in how also Swearingen (and others – he certainly isn’t alone in this argument) suggested that the Founding Fathers would not have wanted to allow ownership of such weapons based on their capabilities. Yet, couldn’t we make the same case that it is doubtful too that those Founding Fathers would have found our modern music, video games, TV shows, or other entertainment acceptable in the least?
Freedom and Liberty
Now, let’s look at this from the viewpoint of freedom and liberty.
Even suggesting that the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to modern firearms could open a legal loophole that would allow the government to shut down any website, and block any radio or TV station it sees fit.
That is a can of worms we don’t want to open, but repelling the Second Amendment could set a precedent for such an action to repel the First Amendment as well.
Therefore, we should be cautious of any calls to repeal an amendment.
In fact, repealing a Constitution Amendment has only happened one time in our nation’s nearly 250-year history – when the Eighteenth Amendment, which established the prohibition of alcohol, was repealed by the Twenty-first Amendment. That is actually a notable point as the Eighteenth Amendment wasn’t simply rewritten; it required the passage of an additional Amendment to “undo” what in 100 years of hindsight was badly conceived in the first place.
It further needs to be noted that the Eighteenth Amendment was the product of decades of efforts by the temperance movement, and it held that a ban on the sale of alcohol would ameliorate poverty and other societal problems. It declared that the production, transport, and sale of intoxicating liquors was illegal, but never actually outlawed the consumption of alcohol.
As numerous gangster films and TV shows remind us, though the result did lead to a decline in alcohol consumption, it was difficult to enforce. It also gave rise to criminal syndicates that likely would never have gained as much power had it not been for prohibition.
Repealing the Second Amendment would likely have similar results – criminals would be emboldened, enforcement would be expensive and time-consuming and it would no more solve the issue of violence in the United States than prohibition solved societal woes in the 1920s.
In other words, we need to be careful to describe any part of the Constitution as a “Historical Antique” as it could result in the end of our democracy as we know it.
MORE: Kamala Harris Is a Disaster
MORE: Joe Biden – Headed For Impeachment?
Author Experience and Expertise
A Senior Editor for 19FortyFive, Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer. He has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers, and websites with over 3,200 published pieces over a twenty-year career in journalism. He regularly writes about military hardware, firearms history, cybersecurity, politics, and international affairs. Peter is also a Contributing Writer for Forbes and Clearance Jobs. You can follow him on Twitter: @PeterSuciu.
