General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRepeal the second amendment
This "right" carries too high a price with too little benefit.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
jody
(26,624 posts)paper.
Our Constitution requires our government to protect rights both enumerated and unenumerated.
ItsTheMediaStupid
(2,800 posts)It's just damned difficult to remove.
I agree with the OP. Repeal it and replace it with a clear statment of the basic right and a clear statement that laws controling sales and concealed carry are legal.
jody
(26,624 posts)granted by the state.
That includes freedom of speech, religion, etc in the BOR.
You might support that but I hope the overwhelming number of citizens would oppose it.
thucythucy
(8,132 posts)That "right" was also enshrined in the Constitution.
Anyway, we don't need to repeal the 2nd Amendment, just appoint one or two Supreme Court justices who will return some semblance of sanity to how it is interpreted.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)It's pretty fucking obvious what was intended.
If Washington, Madison, Jefferson, etc... ever thought there would be a day that the Supreme Court would OK the government to become so powerful they can take your guns away....they'd be demanding a revolution right now.
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)davidn3600
(6,342 posts)Use it!
If a repeal fails to get the majority required, then it fails! That's the way the country is set up.
That doesn't mean it's OK to find ways to circumvent it or twist the law because you can't get a repeal passed the correct way.
Slavery was repealed through the democratic process. We passed the 13th amendment.
This is a nation of laws!
thucythucy
(8,132 posts)to attempt to regulate guns. It's the NRA, through right wing subversion of the US Supreme Court, that has subverted "the democratic process" by ruling that legislatures cannot legislate effectively around this isue.
As for ways to "twist the law," as recently as 1939 the Supreme Court unanimously agreed with the statement of US Soliciter General Robert H. Jackson who, arguing for the constitutionality of federal gun laws passed in 1939, stated that the 2nd Amendment grants a right that "is not one which may be utilized for private purposes but only one which exists where the arms are borne in the militia or some other military organization provided by law and intended for the protection of the state."
It's only been since the 1970s, with USSC appointments by Nixon, Reagan, and Bushes I and II, that the Court has swung so far to the right on this issue. A change of one or two justices could swing it back to some semblance of sanity.
So I agree, we are a nation of laws, as interpreted by the courts. Hopefully, President Obama will have the opportunity to shift the Supreme Court back into the mainstream of historic, constitutional thought.
TheKentuckian
(25,035 posts)They are direct restrictions on the government for the purpose of guaranteeing those rights.
Your basic concept of our form of governance is distorted. I see no actual path to the replace segment, at best it would go to the states. Repeal is also structurally unlikely, but the scope is huge on the other piece. Affirmative is tough today.
I also have to point out slavery also took a very bloody war in addition to legislation. Far more people over a far more diverse cross segment own guns than ever owned slaves.
You also didn't ban slavery but asserted protection from it as a universal franchise, you are seeking to remove one. Different ballgame.
ItsTheMediaStupid
(2,800 posts)That is what was written first in this amendment, outlining the reason for it.
Keep and bear are what a citizen soldier would have to do while serving in the well regulated militia, under the control of local government.
The word own is nowhere to be found in this amendment.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
-James Madison
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
-George Mason
"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
-Samuel Adams
"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
-George Washington
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
-Richard Henry Lee
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … "
-Thomas Jefferson
Where is your proof that backs up your interpretation?
ItsTheMediaStupid
(2,800 posts)Former Conservative Chief Justice Warren Burger on the Second Amendment
In 1991, Warren E. Burger, the conservative chief justice of the Supreme Court, was interviewed on the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour about the meaning of the Second Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms." Burger answered that the Second Amendment "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud—I repeat the word 'fraud'—on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime." In a speech in 1992, Burger declared that "the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to have firearms at all." In his view, the purpose of the Second Amendment was "to ensure that the 'state armies'—'the militia'—would be maintained for the defense of the state."
Codeine
(25,586 posts)robinlynne
(15,481 posts)not to let killers shoot up churches and schools.
the well regulated militia is to protect freedoms, not to shoot for sport or murder.
The freedom is not having a gun.. the freedom is having a democracy.
which current lack of gun control threatens. Not just democracy, It threatens our very right to live, the first of all rights.
thucythucy
(8,132 posts)NRA talking points, as was illustrated by another post in this thread.
ItsTheMediaStupid
(2,800 posts)The GOP and Federalist Society have made sure the courts will not interfere with the right of the gun industry to make obscene profits, while enabling the murdering of hundreds of Americans every year.
ItsTheMediaStupid
(2,800 posts)About life, liberty and the pursuit of AR-15's.
Clarifying gun rights is hardly totalitarian.
In fact, if not for the federalist society and a Federal judiciary chock full of GOP appointees, we would never have the ridiculous interpretation that the second amendment guarantee an absolute right to own weapons.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
There is the first clause, "In order to maintain a well regulated militia." It speaks to the security of a free state a time when militias were local military organizations made up of citizen soldiers under the control of local governments.
It doesn't say in order for every potential murdering psychopath to be able to easily and quickly acquire a gun and sufficient ammo to kill 20 school children, the right of the people to buy unlimited quantities of military style weapons shall not be infringed.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)If we were to repeal and replace (where have I heard that argument before? Oh yeah, repubs said that with Obamacare...) one Constitutional right, it can be done to all of them. Then what?
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)The Bill of Rights are generally considered untouchable, though clearly interpretations have changed over time.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,483 posts)BTW, can I interest you in a "Bang Head Here" sign or maybe a nice looking bridge?
morningfog
(18,115 posts)For example, see the Second Amendment.
Care Acutely
(1,370 posts)Codeine
(25,586 posts)Repealing one of the original amendments laid out in the Bill of Rights is just not going to happen in our lifetimes.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)letemrot
(184 posts)Because prohibition worked so well. And illegal drugs aren't an issue.
Response to letemrot (Reply #4)
Post removed
Response to Post removed (Reply #6)
Post removed
Response to Post removed (Reply #6)
cleanhippie This message was self-deleted by its author.
ItsTheMediaStupid
(2,800 posts)And the right for the authorities to judge who is fit to get an ABC permit
Freddie Stubbs
(29,853 posts)Those opposing the 2nd Amendment couldn't get anything passed during the four years that Nancy Pelosi was Speaker.
Kingofalldems
(38,508 posts)Oh I get it, after Democrats again, this time with a totally false allegation.
derby378
(30,252 posts)I'm thinking long-term. I'm thinking of getting Democrats elected and keeping them elected. You sink the Second Amendment, you sink the Democratic Party.
SoonerPride
(12,286 posts)Fuck your concern for politics.
I am sick of this shit of living in a gun crazed insane asylum.
Repeal the fucking second amendment.
It's anachronistic.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)We will not repeal any part of the original Bill of Rights. You'd have as much luck arguing to repeal the right to free speech.
SoonerPride
(12,286 posts)We live in a nation o laws.
And laws can change.
We outlawed slavery.
We can outlaw guns.
RB TexLa
(17,003 posts)
SoonerPride
(12,286 posts)I'd be ok with that.
RB TexLa
(17,003 posts)
and-justice-for-all
(14,765 posts)They say however that if guns were taken away that only criminals would have guns. Which is partially correct, people abuse or just ignore laws all the time with consequences if they are caught and the law enforced. It would take time but the societal shift on this matter is going to come at some point, this can not be allowed to continue.
Other countries where firearms are highly regulated and the general population if fine with it have extremely low crime rate and homicide rates.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/12/gun-laws-around-the-world_n_807700.html#s222572&title=Australia_
I can not be told that strict gun control does not work, because it does. The first amendment was served it purpose, that was then and I feel that there is not need for the continuation for an amendment that has worn out it welcome.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Let's say you actually repealed the second amendment. What would happen? Absolutely nothing. The right would go from being an enumerated right (explicitly protected) to an unenumerated right under the ninth amendment (implicitly protected).
US v Cruikshank
"This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."
The right is also protected by various state constitutions- you'd have to roll those back as well. Then you'd have to argue (in every circuit court in every state) that such a right doesn't exist.
No, I don't think you'd get the result you imagine.
