TED Conversations

peter lindsay

Physics Teacher,

TEDCRED 50+

This conversation is closed.

100 years from now, what weapons will be covered by the 2nd ammendmant?

Given that personal weapons have progressed from muzzle loaders to fully automatic assault rifles with laser sights in the last 200 or so years, what will a hand gun look like in 100 years? Will a back-pack laser capable of killing dozens with a single discharge still be covered by the 2nd ammendment? Or one that's capable of bringing down an airliner?

Topics: gun control
Share:
  • thumb
    Jan 29 2013: Considering the 2nd amendment was added so citizens could protect themselves from the government, it would have to cover weapons that could shoot down government drones. I’m sure just like today they the government will be doing anther fake fight to band something, possibly weapons on drones.
    (Although at the current rate we are losing freedoms, in 100years the fight will be to band anti-government thoughts or not.)
    • thumb
      Jan 29 2013: Here we protect ourselves from the government by not re=electing them. Our federal government has much less direct control over the defence force than in the US. Plus our defence force is quite small by comparison so I guess we don't see it as a realistic threat to our freedom.
  • thumb
    Feb 2 2013: Ooh, scary thought & great question.... well, we all know the real question is "when will the madness end?"

    Given every year the rural & small town republican population is being slowly outnumbered by city dwelling democratics then I imagine, and hope, that 100 years from now sanity will have prevailed and only the lowest level firearms will be owned by the average citizen, if not none at all.
  • Jan 30 2013: I hope that by 2113 some very wise person will provide us with a new philosophical basis for civilization. Human rights are a myth, and as the world continues to get smaller, that myth is becoming less and less adequate to bring people together into stable communities. I hope that by 2113 the entire bill of rights is replaced by a much simpler document that provides our courts with much better guidance for delivering just decisions.
  • thumb
    Jan 29 2013: Don't know. Given that we're looking at banning assault rifles now, it seems doubtful that even more lethal weapons will be allowed. But I'm no constitutional scholar.

    If you want more time on your conversation, edit it to give yourself more time. It looks like they didn't give you much.
  • thumb
    Jan 29 2013: Since current logic seems to be that more laws and government control will solve the problem of violence it seems logical that in 2113 the 2nd Amendment will read: "It shall be unlawful to commit any act of violence, by any person or any employed agent whether biological or mechanical, at any time, in any location, for any purpose." That should establish unbroken and perpetual peace and harmony throughout America.
    • Feb 4 2013: So if someone is beating my head in, and I hit him back to stop him from killling me, I am committing a crime? That can't be right.
      • thumb
        Feb 4 2013: No, no, no. I am saying that current logic seems to dictate that violence can be done away with by passing more laws against weapons and the violence they are used to cause. IF, by 2113 the laws have eliminated violence (which, of course, they could never do) then no one would be beating your head in because that is violence. A violence-free world is more about dealing with the depraved human heart than about guns and laws. The reality is you will always require protection from evil doers, whether you defend yourself, or rely on paid professionals.
  • Jan 29 2013: Peter I am not sure thatAmericans are as inflexible or flexible as you give us credit for with this. Maybe we are more like the Swiss, Germans, or French than the old English system than you realize. Of course, population density is a great deal less than the European examples. The American political parties have seem to have divided the Dumb and Good issues between each other equally. One party chooses then the other then the first then..... This may not irratate anyone too much, but it seems realistic.