Repeal the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution

[Stuart G]

2nd Amendment "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon"...

analysis by Stuart G. "hogwash, manure, SH*t" cowsh*t, horsesh*t....etct.

The founders of the Constitution were very intelligent. At the time of the writing of this, there were NO police forces,
no standing armies. None, nada, etc......This was meant to replace a standing army. ..If the founders knew what was
coming with mass shootings, etc. this would have been written differently. (and if they knew there would be police
everywhere to deal with violence, then that is another reason this would not have been written at all.

When item after item of mass killing are mentioned: Sandy Hook, Tower Shooting, etc. etc. etc. this weekend, last weekend, all weekends, mass shootings here and there. then it will pass. Yes, it will be tough, but it will pass. Why?........

The U.S. Constitution was imperfect. Slavery is codified in the original Constitution. It was eliminated. Why? Civil War..
Ain't there a Civil War about guns? Here and there and everywhere. What about last weekend? What about next weekend
...wait ....there was a shooting inside a classroom this year...Wasn't there? Maybe it was last year? Maybe next year?
...Wait....Is the U.S. the only country in the world with mass shootings? Is that correct?

Yes, it will be very tough to repeal the 2nd Amendment. But it needs to be at least at least attempted. We need a total
discussion about this mistake in the Constitution. If the founders knew about the mass shootings in our time, this would
not have been written. (and the widespread availability of guns to nut cakes, ) this wouldn't have been written either. It is very simple: this was a mistake in the Constitution. We need to have a discussion about repeal of Amendment 2. ..
It needs to be done in order to "SAVE LIVES. ........................AND IT IS THAT SIMPLE!!!

[LakeArenal]

1. I'd vote for that.

[maxsolomon]

117. It's not a thing you get to vote for.

Unfortunately.

[LakeArenal]

118. It's just a phrase.

[roamer65]

2. 38 states to ratify.

I don’t see it happening as long as the republic is in existence.

The only way to achieve it would be successful secession for any state or region of the country.

In many ways, our aging constitution is becoming a political straight jacket.

We need reform desperately, but are scared to open the document up for changes due to the threat presented by the RW wackos.

[Chainfire]

10. Repeal is the hard way.

We just need a SC that will define 2A as it was intended. A well-regulated militia is an army....We have one of those.

As long as Republicans can stand in the way there will be no meaningful gun controls enacted. Unfettered gun rights is the key issue to the far right; Republicans can't maintain power without the far right. The people who direct the party couldn't give a damn one way or the other, they are perfectly willing to sacrifice as many lives as possible to remain in power; they are just in it for the money.

We don't get anything, guns or otherwise, done until we change the way our political campaigns are bought and sold by big donor money.

[FakeNoose]

38. This! The Supreme Court overstepped wildly on this one

If we ever get them back to where we need them to be - in the sensible zone - a 2nd Amendment repeal would be unnecessary.

[BComplex]

52. Which really goes back to dark money owning our elected officials and now the supreme court.

The gun lobby is only one owner of our country...well, the entire military industrial complex, more broadly.

Until the government decides to regulate corporations, including media propaganda, instead of the media and the corporations regulating our government like it is now, our hands are tied.

[Polybius]

60. I think it depends

The right Supreme Court should allow all common sense gun control to stand. But any Justice that would allow a handgun ban to stand is going too far IMO.

[MichMan]

70. You seriously think any SC would rule for a total ban of all private gun ownership ?

[Chainfire]

81. Of course not. What the court could do is determine that there is not an inviolable right

for all individuals to own any types of weapons, leaving it possible for the normal legislative process to enact laws to restrict types of weapons or types of people who can own weapons. Other nations have figured this all out and have greatly reduced the numbers of firearm deaths, we wouldn't be plowing new ground.

What I do think is that we will never repeal the 2nd amendment.

[Straw Man]

102. The Court has already ruled that.

Of course not. What the court could do is determine that there is not an inviolable right

for all individuals to own any types of weapons, leaving it possible for the normal legislative process to enact laws to restrict types of weapons or types of people who can own weapons.

See DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

[WarGamer]

3. Honestly that's on the same level as "Terraform Mars to a perfect year-round Cali climate in 30 yrs"

Constitutional Convention or through 75% of State legislatures after 2/3 of Congress gives it the thumbs up.

[48656c6c6f20]

4. Why make a siren call to those in the underworld?

I prefer it when they stay there.

[tritsofme]

5. I mean...we can't even get legislation controlling assault weapons through the Senate.

The enormous hurdles involved in amending the Constitution make this discussion seem not particularly realistic/productive to me.

[Stuart G]

9. YES, YOU ARE CORRECT. "We can't even get legislation t control assault weapons through the Senate."

Maybe, I should delete this one. I don't know...

[roamer65]

6. Easier way is to stack the Supreme Court and start reversing past gun rulings.

The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution and thus all we need are different interpretations of the 2nd Anendment.

[Mr.Bill]

7. It would be easier to expand the Supreme Court

and put justices on there that would interpret the 2nd amendment in terms of today's world.

[Zeitghost]

8. Not only is it not feasible

A serious campaign to repeal the 2A would come at a grave cost politically. And then you have to deal with the 400million guns in circulation.

Meaning it's impossible to pass, politically costly even if it doesn't pass and ineffective at solving much of the violent gun crime.

I'll pass.

[Stuart G]

11. We need a discussion about this problem and proposing an amendment is a way to do this.

And, maybe it won't pass, but maybe the "Assault Weapons Ban" will pass after this is proposed.

[Zeitghost]

12. An if that discussion

Is fruitless and only serves to get Dems voted out of office? Then what have we accomplished?

There is public support for gun control. There is not the same level of support for the elimination of the 2A, not by a long shot. Political change takes time and drastic big steps never work and only serve to set back the cause they championed.

[onenote]

63. The opposite is true

Proposing the repeal of the second amendment would make passage of an assault weapon ban harder because it would be campaigned against as the first step towards repeal.

[SYFROYH]

94. You would be fueling the "they are coming for our guns" claim but even more intensely because

...you would fuel "they are coming for our gun rights" claims.


Regulation is still possible with the 2nd Amendment in place.

[sarisataka]

13. The process is simple

Article V:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Enacting it might be more of a challenge. The DU poll of should people be allowed to have handguns for self defense was running over 85% yes.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

14. I wish!

[Stuart G]

15. I wish too. That is the point of this discussion.

[ShazzieB]

37. "I wish" pretty much sums it up.

I really do wish the 2nd amendment could be at least modified, but there are just too many obstacles. We need to focus on what can realistically be done. This is out of reach.

[NickB79]

16. Dozens of State constitutions also have the right be bear arms in them

And most of those are much more clear that it is an individual right, without the confusion of militias being mentioned.

[Stuart G]

20. Let the states decide this..as opposed to the U.S. Constitution..

People can move to states with strong laws, and some will move to the states with weak laws. ...

The strong anti-gun states will have less shootings then the other states. OK, In state "Q" ..."NO ONE
CAN OWN A GUN OF ANY TYPE OR KIND."

....In state "Z" Everyone can own a gun. What do you think would happen then?

[Ocelot II]

40. That would be as useless as the current situation re: abortion.

After Dobbs, some states prohibit it to varying degrees and others allow it with few limitations - so we have a patchwork of laws. The result is that women's reproductive rights are not consistent throughout the country (because Dobbs says there's no constitutional right to privacy), and it's a mess. So let's say SCOTUS overrules Heller and holds that the 2nd Amendment does not confer an individual right to bear arms and that the states can decide the issue. And then one state (say California) outlaws guns altogether while (say Iowa) allows everybody to keep and carry any kind of guns they want without any restrictions. Then what? Will there be constant mass shootings in Iowa's shopping malls and schools that will cause people to move en masse to California? Probably not, just like draconian abortion prohibitions aren't causing people to move en masse from Mississippi to Oregon. Why? In most cases, because they can't. Picking up and moving is often not an option because of jobs and family considerations, or because it's just too expensive. What's the point in having a collection of "united" states anyhow, if their laws are so different that they might as well be foreign countries?

[Polybius]

61. Do you support an assault weapons ban?

Or do you want the states to decide?

[Stuart G]

91. I support a nation-wide assault weapons ban. Everywhere in the U.S.A.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

95. Ok, let's game this out,

an AWB is signed into law, providing the courts don't overturn it before the ink is even dried, what happens when millions just ignore the law and refuse to turn them it?
You expect the local or state police to go door to door and confiscate them?
What happens when they refuse to enforce that law?
What happens when the Feds attempt to confiscate those weapons from relatives of those LEO's?

[MichMan]

71. Criminals in state "Q" would turn in all their guns ?

Any politicians that passed a total gun ban would be swept out of office. Not sarcasm

[Kaleva]

82. Let the states decide like they are doing now with abortion?

[inthewind21]

90. Ummm

The same thing that happens right now. Strict gun restrictions in your state? No worries, just hop on over to the state next door where there aren't any. Your plan also include armed border patrol at every state border?

[Initech]

17. I think we should just get rid of the "shall not be infringed" part.

Too many people use and abuse their gun privileges and they just don't care. The only thing that matters to them is more guns. If you care more about your guns than you do about the victims, then you absolutely 100% should have your guns taken away. There's been way too many mass shootings and we're all numb to them. It's way past time to start infringing.

[Deuxcents]

18. The 2A has been legally misinterpreted. "A well regulated Militia "

Has been omitted when some quote their right to own firearms. In the Founders’ time, we did not have a National Guard or other officials like today. The rights to firearms are embedded n now the AK types are the favorites. In all that is holy, I don’t see an end to what this “right” has become

[Xolodno]

19. No. Absolutely No.

If that is repealed, then free speech, religion, etc. are on the table. And given the electoral map, its a dangerous thing. The current laws are a result of bad interpretations. Once you screw around the main points, then nothing is secure. And I'm a pacifist and know this is the wrong way to go.

[Stuart G]

21. I think you are wrong..Guns have nothing to do with "free speech" "religion" etc.

....There is really limits to "free speech" already. You cannot threaten to kill or hurt...that is against the law. Also, You cannot
yell "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater.

.........And freedom of religion will not go on the table, "EVER"

[Xolodno]

29. You actually made my point.

You can do limits and is constitutional. But when you start messing with the constitution, you open a can of worms. It isn't perfect, but its the governing document that has been the status quo of this country for two centuries, you can't just undo that without repercussions. This is the nation that elected Trump and could do so again. If anything in the first ten amendments becomes repealable, then they all are.

Government enforced religion, speech against the government outlawed, political parties made illegal, etc. Then are all on the table.

On top of that, there are lines neither party will cross, and this is one of them. Mexico has more stringent environmental laws than the USA. But they don't enforce them. Changing a law doesn't fix a problem, changing the mentality is everything.

We can limit, restrict, deny guns with a proper SC, but to just flat out outlaw them, is not going to happen. Particularly with hunters who discharge their fire arm only a couple of times during hunting season for their protein intake. Who also are the first line of finding poachers and reporting them.

[stopdiggin]

39. +1. key phrase here, "given the electoral map"

We are in no way close to the kind of strength we would need to undertake something like a constitutional convention (or repealing amendments). As it is, we can barely claw our way to marginal success in national elections and in our federal elective bodies. (and that with caricatures for opponents like Trump, Walker, Boebert and T.Greene) At such time when that margin has again become a reasonable safe one - we can perhaps talk again. Right now ... We are sailing dangerous waters indeed.

[NewsCenter28]

75. That's a very valid point, Xolodno, but we really need to stop children from dying

And countless families being torn apart because some lunatic in Rural TX is fanatic about his precious 2A.

[TreasonousBastard]

22. Ain't gonna happen. Aside from gun nuts and afeared people...

who can't fight very well, you've got hunters and ranchers who have their own concerns that many see as legitimate.

Boebert is not an exception--she is ground zero for people who grew up in areas where guns are common and cause little trouble.

Fucking 2A and those John Wayne movies are just too much to overcome.

[melm00se]

79. I have a college friend

who is a farmer.

He carries a gun and has a rather large collection.

He says that most gun control folks have no idea what it is like to come face to face with a predator that can damage your likelihood but are a physical danger to humans.

He also says that until you go do bed with a nice clean field of crops and you wake up to a shit ton of damage caused by feral hogs and the resultant financial loss you need to keep your mouth shut on the guns he needs to have to deal with the problem.

[inthewind21]

92. Yeah

Sure thing. So do tell, he sit up all night watching his crops armed with 50 AR's? Unless he is, then maybe he should take his own advise.

[walkingman]

23. Hell, we couldn't even pass the ERA - no chance for 2nd Amendment repeal.

[The Grand Illuminist]

24. Even with a constitutional convention......

Never happen. It will only take guns to get rid of guns.

[Darwins_Retriever]

72. And with a Constitutional Convention

everything in the Constitution is in play. Delete, change, or add anything: voting rights, religious liberty, free speech... There are wealthy, right wing groups that want a convention. I wonder why.

[The Grand Illuminist]

129. Only 2 things the rw have advantage of with a convention...

Are the balanced budget amendment and the line item veto amendment.

[Skittles]

25. rewrite it so even gun humping morons can understand

yup

[IbogaProject]

26. There are reconstructed minutes from the 1st congress

A cornerstone of legal research is to review the debate and statements made when deliberating the leglislation. Also correspondence of the parties about it. We need to review the back and forth over this writing. Well regulated militia is the beginning what did they mean by that.

[EX500rider]

109. Well after the Bill of Rights was passed..

...did the govt make people who were not in the milita turn in their firearms? No, they did not, and I am sure they know what they wrote meant.

If the 1st Adm. was written:
"A well regulated press, being necessary to the freedom of a free state, the right of the people to free speech, shall not be infringed."

Would that mean only the press has free speech?

No it means the people cause it says the people.

[IbogaProject]

112. Bullets didn't exist then

Repeating weapons and modern bullets didn't exist, so comparisons to what they did and didn't do are largely irrelevant.

[EX500rider]

114. That's hardly relevant as to what they meant with the 2nd Adm.

If they meant firearms for Militia members only they would have enforced that right after it passed.
They did not.

[IbogaProject]

115. What did and didn't exist when a law passed is very imporant

The issue with the type of militia equipment that existed at the time is very relevant as for example Pistols with multiple bullets didn't exist. So the right to bear a small hand-held pistol with multiple bullets, which didn't exist then is therefore in no way contemplated by the second amendment. The second amendment was purely about rifles and militia.

I'm actually progun. I just want them to have to carry insurance. There needs to be a pool of money from taxes on the insurance policies, and sales of these weapons so that any injuries can be covered even if a linked insurance policy can't be found. We allow free travel but we require vehicles in public to have liability insurance. I expect the same for weapons which injure and kill even more than motor vehicles do.

Here is an article about that debate
https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2022/09/30/second-amendment-revisiting-the-original-congressional-debates/

And here is the actual reconstructed minutes of the First Congress. The original records were burned in the War of 1812.
https://books.google.com/books?id=Gq8XAQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

[sarisataka]

119. By this logic

The only free press would be printed papers. There was no radio/tv/internet, so they can be censored by the government. Likewise, there would be no need to get a warrant to tap a phone or search your computer.

Since none of these existed at the time they would not be protected by the 1st and 4th Amendments.

[IbogaProject]

126. TV is regularly censored

And all those newer forms of communication aren't materially different. Bullets and handguns are wildly different from muskets. Limits on search and seize are protected under personal property.

[sarisataka]

127. TV is censored?

As in the government tells the networks what stories they can and cannot run?

At that time there was absolutely no concept of being able to immediately communicate over vast distance.

By contrast handguns had been around for over 200 years. A bullet and a musketball are both projectiles and so are just about identically analogous. Rifling had already been invented and was being used to increase range and accuracy of some weapons. There were repeating arms in development although they were air powered not fire arms. The writers of the Constitution would have been much more easily able to understand the concept of a modern handgun compared to radio or computers.

[EX500rider]

123. Except the 2nd mentions neither rifles or pistols

It simply says "arms"
ARMS: a means (such as a weapon) of offense or defense
especially : FIREARM

[EX500rider]

124. As to insurance I don't think it will do what you want..

It will cover accidents but not intentional illegal acts such as murder.

[IbogaProject]

125. Why not?

Last edited Mon Nov 28, 2022, 08:30 PM - Edit history (1)

My car insurance has a state surcharge to cover uninsured drivers. And why shouldn't gun owners and the gun industry bear their own costs?

[EX500rider]

128. Uninsured drivers is one thing

Take your car and use it as a weapon to kill someone and insurance company's not going to pay anything for criminal act

[SYFROYH]

131. So if pistols and rifles that could shoot multiple rounds existed in 1789, modern repeaters would..

...would be protected?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonica_gun

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cookson_repeater

[GreenWave]

27. There were genocidal murders of Native Americans and they did nothing.

[Stuart G]

28. Most people didn't know about that genocide until "Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee" was published by

Dee Brown.

[GreenWave]

78. The US cavalry filed reports. I read some of them.

It was like reading 1884, not 1984.

[barbtries]

30. i am okay with that.

we are in the minority here.

[sarisataka]

33. So what does that tell you? Nt

[barbtries]

35. it ain't gonna happen.

i'd be happy with some decent gun laws. or happier at least. i don't think the 2nd amendment as written precludes that. it's greedy gun manufacturers, the NRA and their propaganda, that have brought us to this point.

I live in Durham NC. A neighbor who is a paramedic was going to work while i was walking my dog, so i asked her, how many shootings are we having in Durham, maybe 1 a day? She thought for a minute and said, yeah, that's about right.

[republianmushroom]

31. never happen in my or your life time

[onenote]

32. There is not a single state that would propose or even ratify repeal

And a majority of Democrats in the House and Snates would come out strongly against repeal.

Even an amendment of the amendment (rather than outright repeal) would struggle to get the requisite support.

[bucolic_frolic]

34. Most people agree with Hobbes, people cannot be compelled to give up the right of self defense

It's the basis for the 5th amendment. You are always justified in defending yourself.

We have no way to repeal 2A. None. We couldn't get half the guns tuned in if they offered $1000 each. If you make them illegal, only crooks will keep theirs. How safe are we then?

Licensing and insurance are the way to go. Until we figure out how to get inside some peoples' heads to see what's going on.

[Orrex]

43. Simple

Define "arms" as "weapons and technology extant at the time of the ratification of the 2nd amendment." All subsequent firearm technologies instantly become subject to local, state, and federal regulation.

Let's ban the manufacture, import, sale and trade of firearms. The "sacrosanct 2nd" says nothing at all about gun-related commerce, only that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Make the sale of firearms a 20 year felony.

And before anyone howls "tHe InTeRnEt DiDn'T eXiSt WhEn ThE 1sT wAs DrAfTeD," I remind that nothing requires all amendments to be treated equally. If we're going to play that game, then let's require a speedy and public trial before allowing handgun purchases; this should only take weeks or months or years for each purchase, no problem! And the purchase itself, along with the necessary background checks, would also be public. Let's do it!

[bucolic_frolic]

49. Hold the strick constructionists to strict construction? Love to see it ... /nt

[kelly1mm]

51. Wow! So if the government does not like a certain newspaper publisher they can just ban

the sale of ink and paper! Shoot, just say they can publish the paper all they want but selling the newspaper is a 20 year felony! No problem with the 1st amendment with that, right?

[Orrex]

53. I love it when people assign opinions to me and then take me to task for those opinions

Must be easy to win arguments when you get to tell your opponent what they think.

[kelly1mm]

55. Its called an analogy - look it up. If the government can ban the sale of guns and not be in

violation of the 2nd amendment, because there is nothing in the 2nd amendment that says you can sell guns then the same logic would say that publishers could print their newspapers but not sell them as there is nothing in the 1st amendment that says publishers can sell their newspapers.

If you disagree with the analogy please point out why.

[Orrex]

56. Well aren't you clever!

I know what an analogy is. Further, I know what a half-assed analogy is, thanks in part to your reply.

As I stated explicitly in my post--in anticipation of some silly hair-trigger jumping in with a bullshit objection--there is no requirement that all amendments must be handled equally.

So unless you're asserting that a publisher must subject itself to a speedy and public trial before going to press, then please explain to me why your analogy isn't a steaming pail of hot garbage.

That's a metaphor, by the way - look it up.

[kelly1mm]

57. Nope. We are done here. It is obvious you are not serious. We both know that there

is zero chance of the USSC seeing the issue as you do but carry on with your bad self .....

[Orrex]

59. We were done here as soon as you replied. Shame on me for humoring you.

As for the USSC seeing the issue as I do? No shit they won't; I didn't suggest otherwise because that wasn't the point, nor was that the original question.

So, to sum up:

1. You fabricate a silly opinion and assign it to me.
2. You craft a goofy analogy in support of #1 above.
3. You incidentally open with a tritely condescending subject line.
4. When I reply to call out your shenanigans, you accuse me of not being serious.

Interesting strategy. Do you persuade a lot of people with those tactics?


My only regret is that I'll never know if you reply to this post.

[kelly1mm]

69. Yes. I look forward to the USSC agreeing with your position. Don't hold your breath .... nt

[NewsCenter28]

74. If House and Senate Dems had reformed SCOTUS while they had the chance

It wouldn't matter what the fascist 6 have to say about anything. Manchin and Sinema should have been brought into a room, told what's up and not have been allowed to leave until they agreed to do what needed to be done. All manners of persuasion should have been brought to bear on them.

[Simeon Salus]

36. It's going to take mass casualties at a gun show to end this terror.

A gun show might as well be a free fire zone.

I keep expecting SNL to do a sketch where reporters are covering a massive gun show shootout, a place where everyone is well armed and armored, where dealers are selling reloads during the incident, the reporters and camera people all get killed and the sketch goes straight to commercials with gunfire still on audio.

[Ocelot II]

41. If murdering five-year-olds at an elementary school wasn't enough,

I can't think what would be.

[SYFROYH]

88. You've never been to a gun show, have you.

All weapons for sale are unloaded and usually tethered to an alarm system or have their actions zip-tied.

All patrons entering a gun show have their personal weapons unloaded and the actions zip-tied.

On the plus side, there is usually law enforcement on hand for security.

[dobleremolque]

42. Nice idea and I would love to see it, but as long as we are writing science fiction here .....

this is how it could actually occur. And it takes off from George Orwell's observation that "All tyrannies rule through fraud and force, but once the fraud is exposed they must rely exclusively on force."

As/when/if the majority of right-wing "own-the libs" fools in our society devolve our government into tyrannical, authoritarian, 2d Amendment-worshiping oligarchy, it is that very tyranny which be the one to eliminate their guns.

After all, once you have a significant portion of the people who put you into office realize they've been had by a fraudulent ideology, you can't have them running around waving AR-15s, armed and dangerous to your grasp of power. That is when government will confiscate guns.

[Whatthe_Firetruck]

44. Not repealed, modified.

Clarify what 'militia' means, and what is it's role in our society. Define what weapons civilians can own, and what constitutes lawful use. And get rid of the notion that civilians need to have guns to defend against government tyranny.

That's what I'd like to see.

[EX500rider]

110. Militia has been defined in the Militia Act of 1903 (per Title 10 of the U.S. Code, Section 311)

It designated the militias two classes: the Reserve Militia, which included all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45, and the Organized Militia, comprising state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903

[brooklynite]

45. Question: and then what?

Eliminating the 2nd Amendment doesn’t eliminate guns. It only takes away a constitutional right. What legislation will be passed that will change the current situation?

[Stuart G]

47. I have thought about this for a while since I posted the original post.

Your question is the best. States have laws too. I must admit this gun shit is part of our culture. I don't think
any form of legislation will change the current situation. If I want a change, I must move out from the U.S.A.

...If Congress cannot make automatics illegal, then nothing is going to change.

Please see post number 5,

Thank You...from Stuart G.

[Polybius]

62. Automatics are already illegal

The 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA) did that. In 1986 the NFA was amended and more restrictions were added. All those AR-15's used in mass shootings are semi-automatics.

[Kaleva]

97. You and I can buy and own automatic guns

The NFA of 1934 did not ban them.

Watch some YouTube vids showing people firing privetly owned machine guns.

[Polybius]

99. You have to get a judge's signature

It's a weird loophole, but it's hard to do it unless you know someone. As for us, I'm in NYC. Not much I could get.

[Kaleva]

100. No you dont

Below article lists the requirements to get an automatic weapon

https://www.ffl123.com/who-can-own-a-full-auto-machine-gun/

[Polybius]

104. Very interesting

Seems easy enough to get one before 1986, providing that you can afford it. I had previously thought that the loophole would require them to be manufactured before 1934.

[Kaleva]

106. NYC itself may have tighter restrictions on automatic weapons

I don't know.

[Polybius]

107. I don't even bother to try and get a handgun here, it's too much work last I checked

It's $350 for the permit application, pass or fail. You also need signatures from two or three neighbors stating that you're a model citizen. One you are approved, you can buy a gun, but it's not over yet. You have to take it to One Police Plaza in Manhattan for them to inspect it and give the approval.

t can also be taken away for stupid reasons, like speeding tickets.

[Smackdown2019]

46. Sorry, BUT I am a gun owner

I am a gun owner and so is atleast 33% of Americans.

No I do believe the AR-15 should be a controlled weapon, as cannons and grenades. The key is automatic firing.

I dont own a AR-15 and never will. My 30-30 is quite alright for deer hunting.

As the issue we all face today, is the wackos...

Solution is not here on that, but the two dont mix well.

Keeping weapons out of wackos hands is the goal.

Noticed i said weapons and not guns?

[NewHendoLib]

48. Something I would love to see.

[reACTIONary]

50. OK, The point has been made that....

... it is infeasible, politically costly, political sci fi, and that only the collapse of civil society could bring it about. I agree.... BUT...

If there was some semi serious effort going on in the background, on the order of referendums and the such, it might be an incentive to be a bit more moderate and accepting of reasonable restrictions. That might be worth some level of effort.

[onenote]

65. Efforts at repeal will make lesser restrictions more difficult to pass

Last edited Mon Nov 28, 2022, 02:05 PM - Edit history (2)

First, no one will take those efforts seriously particularly since any reverenda will fail by enormous margins. Second, opponents of any limits will nonetheless rally opposition to any limits by portraying them as a first step to repeal — and will point to any repeal referenda as evidence

[Straw Man]

105. Yes.

It would essentially confirm the existence of the "slippery slope."

[reACTIONary]

121. Good points. nt

[JackSabbath]

54. Not necessary

Just enforce it as written. You can own any gun you want as long as you are enlisted in a federally regulated militia. Enlisting would require the same background checks, physical and mental health evaluations as joining the army or navy. You would receive all necessary training needed and your weapons would be subject to random mandatory inspections.

[EX500rider]

111. If that what it meant when written..

...why didn't all non-milita members have to turn theirs in after the Bill of Rights was passed?

Just the fact that it is IN the "Bill of Rights" should clue you in to it being a right of the people, not solely the milita.

[SYFROYH]

58. I think not. Im good with the 2nd Amendment.

I suspect polling would show this to be unpopular even among Democrats.

[NewsCenter28]

73. It's sad that Americans value the 2A more than the life of a dead child in Uvalve-n/t

[SYFROYH]

86. I think we can do both - value the lives of all people as well as protect civil liberties

Sadly, criminals will always take advantage of civil liberties.

[Fla_Democrat]

64. Huh, this may work, why as no one thought of it before?

Huh, this may work, why as no one thought of it before?


It should be easy, as I have been told, 90% of the country agrees with "the thing". Surely 67% should be a cakewalk.

[NowsTheTime]

66. Texas Paul has a thought...for now...(not to change the original subject)

[hunter]

67. Drunk driving used to be no big deal. Now it is.

Smoking in public places used to be no big deal. Now it is.

Next stop, gun culture...

Guns are a public health hazard.

Gun fetishes are disgusting.

[MichMan]

76. Yet, prohibition didn't return, and sales of cigarettes are still allowed

The OP is calling for a total repeal of the 2A. Others have suggested states and even the SC should make any and all private ownership of firearms illegal.

Last time I looked, shooting and killing people is already illegal (unless considered self defense) and has always been a big deal

[hunter]

77. Guns are a lot less popular than people living in the gun bubble think.

Social pressure is effective. The law will follow.

People will quit guns just like they quit smoking.

In 1980 there were 52 million adult smokers in the U.S.A., about 22% of the population.. Now there are only 30.8 million, about 14% of the population and smoking is generally considered a bad habit, even by smoker themselves.

Guns are a similar bad habit, a clear public health hazard.

Most U.S. Americans don't care enough about guns to bother owning one, of those that do own guns, a large percentage can't be bothered to regularly play with them.

This leaves the gun fetishists as the largest market for new guns.

[sarisataka]

83. Funny, no one said guns

Are just a bad habit here-
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=17396065

[hunter]

89. Nobody asked my advice.

I don't think guns are an especially useful tool for self defense. In my experience once the guns come out everything is fubar.

In any case the joke in my family is we are pacifists by necessity not by any natural inclination.

I'm not unfamiliar with guns, I'm not intrinsically frightened by them.

Mostly I don't want anyone I'd care to shoot living in my head.

[MichMan]

84. I think you are severely underestimating the popularity of hunting in many states

It is passed down from generation to generation and going out hunting with dad or grandpa is a right of passage for many a young man or woman. Creating family memories for a lifetime.

Not only is deer hunting extremely popular, it has a major impact to the economy. In my part of the state, not only is it a big deal, deer population is out if control. Almost everyone I know has hit one at one time or another.

Maybe you're right and we can get most of the deer hunters to go along. Then the auto parts and collision shops can make a fortune when car/deer collisions skyrocket.

[hunter]

87. I didn't pass it down to my children.

Personally I think we should bring back wolves and grizzly bears.

[EX500rider]

113. Causing a even BIGGER need for firearms while in the wild IMO nt

[Act_of_Reparation]

116. That would be pretty cool.

And probably the right thing to do, as apex predators are really the only way to keep grazers like deer under control.

That being said, if I'm out for a hike in this brave new world of wolves and grizzlies, I would want to be packing heat.

[EnergizedLib]

68. Absolutely

The Constitution is horrendously outdated, with the Second Amendment being one of the reasons why.

[inthewind21]

93. Just wait a bit

The SC will take care of that outdated document for you in short order.

[Kaleva]

80. When the movement to repeal matches the energy of the civil rights movement...

then it will be done. Until people are willing to risk beatings, arrests and even put their lives on the line, the 2nd Amendment will remain

[tritsofme]

96. The Prohibition movement seems a more apt analogy.

[Kaleva]

103. The prohibition movement was an effort to enact sn Amendment

This thread is about repealing one

[tritsofme]

108. Prohibition was a movement to restrict or remove rights/privileges.

Not sure how else to describe a movement to repeal the 2nd Amendment, whether you agree with that outcome or not.

[Kaleva]

120. But there was no Amendment in the Constitution for the Prohibitionists to repeal

The need for the 18th Amendment was that a simple law passed by Congress banning alcohol could be overturned by SCOTUS as being unconstitutional .

But getting back to what I said earlier. There are some who wish to see the 2nd Amendment repealed which would require the passage of another amendment. The prohibitionists never worked in repealing an amendment as there wasn't one to repeal that pertained to them

[tritsofme]

122. Not sure why you find that so important? Both are seeking to change the Constitution.

Similar to Prohibitionists, those who wish to pass strict gun control legislation as you say, “simple laws” would today be overturned by the SCOTUS as unconstitutional. That would be the need for a new amendment to repeal or clarify the 2nd.

Much more similar than your previous example, the Civil Rights Movement, which was about expanding and protecting rights, not restricting them, and was not primarily about changing the Constitution.

[ThoughtCriminal]

101. What would a Founding Father say? Let's ask!

Time Traveler: Hey Hypothetical Founding Father, we're having a lot of gun violence in the 21st Century. What if we repealed the 2nd Amendment?

HFF: Are you nuts? What if there's a Slave Revolt?!!!

[ripcord]

130. I think you will need more support

Between 20-25% of Americans support repealing the Second Amendment.

[SYFROYH]

132. This has been a good and lively debate about guns in GD.

Thank you.