Is The second ammendment null and void because it's based on a lie?

Question

We all know Americans love fake news and propaganda but it isn't a new thing. Evidence has emerged that the second ammendment is null and void because it's based on an English law that doesn't actually exist
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59158248.amp
The second ammendment codified a preexisting law brought over from England. However that law had long been removed by the 1328 Statute of Northampton centuries earlier.

Should American lawyers win their case in could see the end of owning a gun for self defence across America.

N192K001 · Accepted Answer

Nope, and for 2 specific reasons:
① Original Intent
I can understand looking at contemporary sources (as a proponent of the Originalism, the Constitutional-interpretation doctrine prioritizing original intent, as opposed to rival Living Constitution that allows for reading-into things whatever is needed today), but simply acknowledging that the Founding Fathers had a mistaken understanding of U. K. Law is enough. The intent & purpose of the 2nd Amendment is unaffected.

② U. S. Police's NON-EXISTENT Obligation to Protect the Citizenry… Except Those under Custody
In the recent Uvalde shooting, a teacher Eva Morales called for help from her police-husband, officer Ruben Ruiz… who was stopped by fellow-police, disarmed, and escorted out of the site.
https://people.com/crime/eva-mireles-husband-tried-save-her-detained-taken-away-from-scene/
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/05/26/us/texas-elementary-school-shooting

And this is normal!
“U. S. judge says law enforcement officers had no legal duty to protect Parkland students during mass shooting”
21 December 2018
「U. S. District Judge Beth Bloom said neither the school nor sheriff’s deputies had a legal obligation to protect students from the alleged shooter, Nikolas Cruz, who is accused of killing 17 people at the school Feb. 14. Her reasoning? The students were not in state custody, the Sun Sentinel reported.」
https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2018/12/21/us-judge-says-law-enforcement-officers-had-no-legal-duty-protect-parkland-students-during-mass-shooting/

And the U. S. Supreme Court agrees!
“Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone”
28 June 2005
「The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.」
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html

We may fund law-enforcement's militarization with Army weapons & training, but we're not surrendering the ability to protect ourselves when our "protectors" have no obligation to protect us, and are perfectly willing to just stand at a safe distance behind bullet-proof shields, holding military-grade rifles, and wearing Kevlar-vests… and watch us get slaughtered like obedient sheep, while preventing their own from interfering in our massacre.

WindAtMyBack · Accepted Answer

It's not based on a lie, nor is it's origins relevant other than to help understand how those people thought and why.

The history of legal systems goes back centuries, even millennium. It is not a linear progression. It's the entirely of it, with things coming and going. Much of what was going on in England for several centuries was like two steps forward and one step back. But the overall trend was to move away from a powerful monarchy to less centralized rule, and eventually individual rights. It was never a smooth process and it had many setbacks. But the overall movement was still there.

There was always resistance in England, just like there always is when those in power lose some of that power. When the US was formed the same overall trend continued. But without an existing power structure they were able to do a lot all at once. They basically jumped forward.

All the little details from the last several hundred years were not nearly as important as the overall trend. And the final result, for whatever reason, was what matters the most.

KatherineJ · Accepted Answer

The key word here is “codified”, so yes, the Second Amendment is real. Regardless of what the nation the United States broke away from did/does about guns in their own country.

WhitneySnow · Accepted Answer

No cause Americans had the right to make their own laws even if the English laws had been repealed. Remember we had just fought a revolution to get away from English law.

OlderAndWiser · Answer

The merits of the proposal were openly debated and I have ever seen any evidence that it was passed because of a mistaken belief that the English was was still in effect. This argument fails.

TonyV · Answer

Our laws and constitution aren't based on or a carbon copy of England, why do you think we left? Cause we didn't like how they did things. So that "evidence" is false and erelavant.

2a isn't about self defense, it about being able to stand to a tyrannical g I Vermont if need be.

Why is your solution to try to tear down real rights cause abortion was found to be not a constitional right? How does ruining other rights help? That won't get you the change you want, and it won't make people want to help you.

DarkWinterNights · Answer

I’ve never heard of that before. Considering America went to war against England and broke off, why would that even matter?

Regardless America is as divided as ever. There are hundreds of millions, if not exceeding half a billion firearms in the country. We can build guns in our garages, print quality frames and receivers, reload and caste casings and bullets. There are trillions of rounds of ammunition in circulation. Even the gun laws being passed right now in anti-gun states have incredibly low compliance. It’s a losing battle for gun control advocates. Even if they threw the 2nd Amendment out and ordered everyone to turn in their guns tomorrow, it will never happen.

Makeushiver · Answer

It was written during a time when there were plenty of reasons to want to jave defense. It s also a cornerstone against tyranny if the itizenry are armed. No one could have conceived of the rate of fire an automatic weapon could have or the modifications able to shoot 500 rounds per minute. It is inapplicable to the modern world and should be amended. Their is no reason to own an automatic weapon. Classics hunting rifles and shotguns' can be beautifully carvd works of beautiful engineering. Automatics are ugly, plastic military weaponry

AviatorTom · Answer

The case involved doesn't deal with owning a gun, it deals with getting a concealed carry permit.

The 2nd Amendment is still completely valid, which deals with the right "to bear arms", was instituted as a result of British soldiers taking colonists guns during the American Revolution, or as Brits call it, the Colonial Rebellion.

Avicenna · Answer

Leftists will try everything, but no, an amendment has to itself be amended with another one. And the premise is false- the Second Amendment came about due to objections by anti-Federalists that the federal government would abuse the states unless the people were armed.

bean2k21 · Answer

I don't understand why you can joke about making the 2nd amendment bring null and void whereas yes I get accused of trollong when I suggest that the 13th amendment should be repealed. We need to take these unaborted babies and let the mothers turn them over to slaveowners. It's the only way to make peace with these abortion hungry savages.

Anonymous · Answer

Before the 1970s, most Americans read the 2nd amendment as it's written. There isn't even a hint of individual gun rights nor is there anything about self protection. That one sentence is focused on creating a defense force against foreign (British) invaders.

I would be refreshing if the conservative supreme court justices apply the same originalist theory to the second amendment that they used to rationalize overturning Roe vs. Wade.

Snakeyes7 · Answer

They put it in because they just finished fighting a revolution against a tyrannical king who had armed guards terrorize his own people. That amendment is there in case it happens again.

The only way you can justify abolishing it is if you want to do the same thing. Hitler, Pol Pot, Zedong, Musolini and many other dictators did it for that reason.

888theGreat · Answer

We don;t use anything for England or US would have failed 100 years ago. It is our system , the best system ever created on Earth. Liberals are just destroying and if all liberal democrats dropped dead tomorrow , US would thrive another 500 years. We don;t need advice from losers like the English.

BeMuse · Answer

You're retarded. The constitution is a contract that had to be ratified by the states. The amendments are also ratified by the state. You and your laws are irrelevant rainbow poop. You're not part of the compact.

SpaceGalaxy · Answer

What does amendment mean?
An amendment is essentially a correction. It comes in many varieties, up to and including the process of altering something through either parliamentary or constitutional procedure. In the United States, the word is often used specifically of a change to the U. S. Constitution.

Lliam · Answer

It's interesting how badly the British want Americans disarmed. I wonder why?

Dargil · Answer

A lie is a statement made and known to be factually incorrect. Which of the Founders knew that? Provide proof. The founders paid no deference to English Common Law anyway except where they chose to. This may make for good chatting but that's all.

jshm2 · Answer

It's high time America as a country and European experiment was made null and void. Mainly as it was better run, and better behaved when the British Crown ran it.

exitseven · Answer

It is written into the Constitution. It does not matter where the idea came from.

shortster · Answer

Well they codified it into the constitution so you would have to pass an amendment to nullify it. Even if it was written based on an defunct English law.

OddBeMe · Answer

Not being a 2a lover, I will say it doesn't matter. American law doesn't become nonexistent because of some English legal issues. Laws are like religions, they steal and plagiarize from previous ones.

Anonymous · Answer

“We all know that the Brits love to shittalk Americans...” Eat a dick. Hell, eat three. Maybe you’d have something interesting to say for a change. 🤷‍♂️

andreasderjuengere · Answer

It's useless to discuss this issue

SiberFox · Answer

You don't understand the constitution at all do you? You're probably trolling.

TwoToTooTutu2 · Answer

I'm pretty sure the Revolutionary war is a good enough argument to ignore Medieval English Common Law

Bratsondanielle · Answer

The second amendment was just made stronger by the Supreme Court 🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲

IsoUser · Answer

All I have to say is God help any country that tries to invade America, because we have personally more guns than American citizens LMFAO

Anonymous · Answer

Yes. People think that the amendment can't be changed. Apparently, they don't know what the word "amendment" means.

Jerre · Answer

If it is in our Constitution, it can be upheld, regardless of its origins

anylolone · Answer

Nope, not really based on a lie, just recodified into common law. Also, you don't seem to understand the concept of "common law".

noohair · Answer

I don't care what you limey wankers think about anything that has to do with the USA. Piss off, please.

gorydetails · Answer

We stopped giving a fuck what English thought about anything in 1775.

Anonymous · Answer

Lol you limey's get expelled from our country 246 years ago and you're still salty? Let it go.🤣

Anonymous · Answer

come and take, like the red coats tried see what fucking happens

Chazmatazz269 · Answer

Ell oh ell! You’re joking, right?

Anonymous · Answer

Your source is the BBC? Hahaha! HAHAHAHAHAH!

Kingofkings1992 · Answer

No you plunker

eli67 · Answer

Looks that way

jimmy2 · Answer

No it not

Is The second ammendment null and void because it's based on a lie?

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

Can a constitutional amendment be unconstitutional?

Is The second ammendment null and void because it's based on a lie?

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

Can a constitutional amendment be unconstitutional?

We're glad to see you liked this post.