The Argument to Retire the Second Amendment

My friends and critics might say that I am wasting my time by calling for the Second Amendment's repeal and the Right to Bear Arms. I am not naive and know well that many of my fellow Americans unknowledgeable about this argument's facts. They know little about their democracy and Constitution and lack competence in selecting elected representatives. Democracy is fragile, and some say that government by the people is hyperbole. 

I am forging ahead with my argument because it is one of the issues to be settled to achieve a safe republic. One of the government's principal responsibilities is to ensure citizen safety. If it isn't doing that and is failing, then the nation is on the verge of collapse. That is where America stands today because many of the gun advocates are Republicans who are on the record as being aligned with insurgency and insurrection. That political group and its followers have become the enemy within.

Gun holders and advocates want to stay armed and stocked with ammunition because they fear that their government and many citizens are out to get them. Conspiracy theories and fear of being under siege by a diverse population make many white people vulnerable to political exploitation by the wealthy elite whose numbers can never win a national election. That small sector of the population has exploited bigotry and ignorance to attract a following that harbors domestic terrorists, thugs, and criminals.

Civil society and competent government mitigate criminal and violent behavior through the justice system and homeland security. It is a system that begins with local police, state police, National Guard militias, and then the Federal system. The justice system replaced the need for people to themselves bear arms. Only when the system is deficient might there be a need to augment it with armed and deputized citizens. Invariably, people with guns must be regulated and supervised under the law.

Needed are guns for self-defense in the home is the latest argument used by advocates. That presumes:

1. The threat by home-intruders is imminent and pressing.
2. Police protection is insufficient to prevent and respond to the threat.
3. Criminals are armed, and people are vulnerable without a counterforce.

Otherwise, we must be a nation at war from within. Is that a reasonable argument? Is it one-size-fits-all?

Consider the Second Amendment's history and the context in which it was passed as a part of the Constitution.

"The framers of the U.S. Constitution undoubtedly had in mind the English allowance to "have arms" when drafting the Second Amendment. The constitutional significance of a "well regulated Militia" is well documented in English and American history from the late 17th century through the American Revolution; it was included in the Articles of Confederation (1781), the country's first Constitution, and was even noted at the Constitutional Convention that drafted the new U.S. Constitution in Philadelphia in 1787. 

The right to "keep and bear Arms" was thus included as a means to accomplish the objective of a "well-regulated Militia"—to provide for the defense of the nation, to provide a well-trained and disciplined force to check federal tyranny, and to bring constitutional balance by distributing the power of the sword equally among the people, the states, and the federal government."

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Second-Amendment/Origins-and-historical-antecedents

Children's Defense Fund