It's time. It's time to repeal the second amendment (revisited)

Compared to the empires of Rome, China, and Egypt, to name a few, America is a baby amongst empires. Now them, when a baby abuses a toy and can't stop doing it, what is the proper course of action?

You take the toy away from the baby.

Now, don't misunderstand me, by 'toy' I mean the second amendment, and NOT 'guns', per se.

therefore, given the fact that in this year, there have been some 351 mass shootings, about 2 per day, clearly, America has lost it's way regarding the second amendment and it is now tantamount to a child abusing a toy.

Therefore, it's time to repeal the second amendment. For the good of the nation and to save lives. yes, I know a year ago or so I started a thread on this very subject. But things are getting out of hand, and I think it's time to take another fresh look.

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution reads: "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." This amendment has been the subject of much debate and controversy, with some arguing that it is essential to the preservation of liberty and others arguing that it is outdated and dangerous.

Those who argue in favor of repealing the Second Amendment point to the high rates of gun violence in the United States. The United States has the highest rate of gun violence among developed countries, with over 30,000 people killed by guns each year. Gun violence is a major public health problem, and it disproportionately affects children, young adults, and people of color.

Repealing the Second Amendment would not eliminate gun violence, but it would make it more difficult for people to obtain guns. This would likely lead to a decrease in gun violence, as fewer people would have access to firearms. In addition, repealing the Second Amendment would send a message that gun violence is a serious problem that needs to be addressed.

Those who argue against repealing the Second Amendment argue that it is necessary to protect the right of individuals to defend themselves against criminals and government tyranny. They point to the fact that the Second Amendment was written in a time when the United States did not have a standing army, and the Founding Fathers believed that it was important for citizens to be able to protect themselves.

However, the argument that the Second Amendment is necessary to protect against government tyranny is outdated. The United States now has a well-funded and well-equipped military, and it is unlikely that the government would be able to be overthrown by a group of armed citizens. In addition, the Second Amendment is not the only way to protect the right of individuals to defend themselves against criminals. There are other laws, such as the Castle Doctrine, that allow people to use deadly force to defend themselves in their homes.

The Second Amendment is a relic of a bygone era. It is no longer necessary to protect the right of individuals to bear arms, and it is a major contributor to gun violence in the United States. Repealing the Second Amendment would be a step towards making the United States a safer place.

In addition to the high rates of gun violence, the Second Amendment also has a number of other negative consequences. For example, the Second Amendment makes it more difficult to enact common-sense gun control measures, such as background checks and bans on assault weapons. The Second Amendment also contributes to a culture of violence in the United States, and it makes it more likely that people will use guns to resolve disputes.

The Second Amendment is a dangerous and outdated amendment that has no place in a modern society. Repealing the Second Amendment would be a step towards making the United States a safer and more just place.

And, let me be clear, a repeal of 2A will not ban guns, nor disallow states to create their own versions of it. All it does is repeal the right. It would still remain as a penumbra right under the 9th amendment and it would fall under states rights and state control. It would, however, give those states who want to regulate firearms more than they are currently allowed, to do so, and I feel they should be allowed to do so, and those states that want less, would be free, as well, to do so. It removes the tyranny of the 2A on states that disagree with Heller, etc. I think that is fair. Something has to be done and Republicans do nothing, can't get there from here attitude is out of touch with the nation, on the whole, in my opinion.

Let's discuss.

And please, I invite thoughtful replies. Lazy, snarky, sophomoric, disingenuous retorts will be ignored.

 

JMHO, but I think our energies would be better spent on passing enhanced gun control measures along with bans on selected firearms and accessories. There are a myriad of them that could have a real impact lowering gun violence, which is the real objective.

 

Instead, why not confront the real problems?

 

Not enough people with guns?

 

If you follow your line of thinking, then we must get rid of practically everything [which is pretty much the only solution the left ever has], even the people.

 

I must agree with this. Even though a misinterpreted version of the 2nd A has been used by SCOTUS and gun advocates to impede the above, repealing the amendment would be a very energy-consuming endeavor. What we need to do is fight for is sensible gun control measures. And we should, at the same time, educate people. But we need to start by educationg some of our politicians that, even though they support sensible gun reform, have fallen (and I think it's on purpose) into the pro-gun narrative surrounding the 2nd A

 

Sorry, I can't follow your line of thinking.

 

I don’t know what the answer is to combat all this crazy gun violence but I do know repealing the 2nd Amendment is NOT the answer.

 

If the 2nd amendment were repealed, congress still would have no legislative authority to enact gun control legislation.

 

How is ending the 2A going to reduce gun violence? If the theory has anything to do with the availability of firearms, it's worth considering that a fully automatic assault rifle is actually cheaper to buy illegally in Europe than its legal 'sporterized'(neutered) counterpart is in the US. This strongly suggests its not the supply or availability of firearms that is different, but rather the demand. Americans have more guns because Americans have more interest in guns. Altering or ending the 2A is not going to make less Americans want guns. And if we learned anything from the failed war on drugs, it should be that you can't squash demand with legislation. So, if you wanna free up the constitution to try and make more gun laws, maybe start by explaining how you intend to use those laws to reduce demand for firearms. Otherwise the demand will just be met illegally, creating more criminals, more lucrative criminal enterprise and more powerful criminal cartels.

 

Ok, let me simplify it for you. There is a problem with people committing crimes with guns, right? Your solution is to get rid of the guns.

If there is a problem with people drunk driving, do we get rid of the cars?

 

A funny side note. I was clicking again and again the underlined words expecting they would take me to a reference. I thought my mouse button had gone bad. But no... I then realized that expecting a right winger from actually showing REFERENCES to their claims was wishful thinking.

Of course, this would depend on the country in Europe. I'm sure there are people in Ukraine who take a military weapon from a dead soldier and might sell it for the cost of that day's lunch.

 

And here, boys and girls, you have yet another example of what we once defined as One Dimensional Reasoning. If you get rid of guns, people are not shot when they get to work. If you get rid of cars people can't GET to work. One dimensional reasoning prevents people from seeing ALL the consequences of what they propose. Only the ONE that they think supports their point.

 

Each of which will be challenged by the NRA. See, repealing it removes the weapon the NRA uses against sensible gun control, even with Heller declaring that reasonable gun control is allowed, NRA types will argue that just about anything you put out there to regulate guns is unreasonable. A repeal would remove the very tool they use against sensible control. Of course, I understand that repealing is never going to happen, anytime soon, but think it is a good idea to start the conversation, as a seed, in the hopes maybe that seed will sprout someday and take hold.

 

Maybe, as an interim step, we could repeal Heller, that is doable with a more liberal court.

 

Again: If the 2nd amendment were repealed, congress still would have no legislative authority to enact gun control legislation.

 

Of course it's true. Congress has limited legislative powers. Gun legislation is not among those small set of powers.

 

would you go for the repeal of heller?

 

Laws making the ownership of fully automatic weapons more difficult reduced the incidents of crimes with those weapons, where they were common in the days of tommy guns, the mob, etc., so I'm not sure your logic works.

If repealing 2A makes it impossible for federal legislation, then maybe we need to repeal heller, and remove the individual right, and make it a right only for cops and military, etc, but not for people. As for people, it would become a privilege, and would be regulated by the states.

 

I think a demand-based approach is a better hope. Many people erroneously believe that owning a gun makes them safer. They need to be educated that the opposite is true. Most regular people who buy guns do it for self-defense. This is illogical. But you don't stop it by banning guns anymore than banning alcohol or cigarettes would work. You educate people.

No, but we do highly regulate it.

 

Definitely! That is going to be repealed as soon as there is a non-activist Supreme Court majority. My hope is that Biden has a large enough majority in 2024 that he uses his political capital to appoint independent justices. And Heller HAS to go, as it was wrongly decided (based on inaccurate linguistic and historical arguments)

 

Repeal and replace. I think that would be the compromise to go for in the end.

 

So, 2 mass shootings per day isn't a real problem?

 

We could start by repealing Heller. That is doable.

 

You missed the point. Owning cars are not in the bill of rights, but we still own cars.

So, banning 2A isn't about banning guns. It's about repealing the right to own guns (thus making ownership a privilege) and granting states more control over their use. There is no right to a lot of things, yet we are not banned from owning them. Owning a go-cart is not in the bill of rights, yet we are allowed to own go-carts.