Dare I say it? Repealing the Second Amendment. Is this an idea worth exploring?

Is this an idea whose time has come? Of course, many will say no, I expect that, But, at least consider the argument.

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, which protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms, has been a source of much debate and controversy in recent years. While the right to bear arms is widely supported by many Americans, there are also those who believe that the amendment is outdated and no longer serves the needs of the country. In this thread, I will argue that the repeal of the Second Amendment is necessary in order to address the growing problem of gun violence in the United States.

First and foremost, it is important to note that a repeal of the Second Amendment would not automatically take away anyone's guns. Instead, it would simply allow for states to regulate the ownership and use of firearms in the manner that they see fit. Currently, there is a patchwork of gun laws across the country, with some states having very strict regulations, while others have relatively lax laws. If the Second Amendment were to be repealed, this would allow for the creation of a unified, nationwide system of gun regulation, making it easier for law enforcement to track and regulate firearms.

Furthermore, it is also important to consider the changing nature of society since the ratification of the Second Amendment in 1787. At that time, the primary concern was the threat posed by foreign armies and the need to protect the fledgling country from external aggression. Today, however, the primary threat posed by guns is domestic in nature, with a growing number of mass shootings, homicides, and suicides being committed with firearms. Given this change in the nature of the threat, it makes sense to re-evaluate the necessity of the Second Amendment and its ability to serve the needs of the country.

Another important consideration is the fact that the Second Amendment, as it is currently interpreted, has not served America very well over the long run. Despite the protection afforded by the amendment, the United States has one of the highest rates of gun violence in the world, with over 40,000 deaths and tens of thousands of injuries each year. This is not just a matter of personal safety, but also a significant public health issue that affects the entire country.

While the repeal of the Second Amendment may seem like a difficult and unlikely task, it is important to consider the possibility in order to address the ongoing problem of gun violence. While it is true that there are many states that favor gun ownership, the reality is that the nature of the threat posed by firearms has changed since the amendment was ratified. It is time to re-evaluate the amendment and its ability to serve the needs of the country and its people, with the goal of reducing the levels of gun violence and making America a safer place for all.

In conclusion, while the repeal of the Second Amendment may not be politically feasible in the near term, it is important to consider the possibility as a means of addressing the growing problem of gun violence in the United States. The nature of the threat posed by firearms has changed since the ratification of the amendment, and it is time to re-evaluate its necessity and ability to serve the needs of the country and its people.

 

Do you believe the criminal element will give up their guns at the same time as the law abiding population.

 

I thought the purpose was more to oppose tyranny of their own government, and keep it in check. I don't believe it actually does that, especially today, but I don't think foreign armies were the main reason for a well-regulated militia (as opposed to a professional army).

The benefits seem a bit vague. What specific law would you advocate that could be done without the 2nd amendment but not with it? If you mean a general ban on the personal ownership of firearms, would that really stop the black market? I'm just not so sure America's gun problem is related to laws at all. It seems to be multiple cultural issues.

 

No it's not an idea worth exploring. In fact it's a dumb idea, and a complete waste of time when realistic solutions to other problems deserve far more attention and effort.

 

Let's also repeal the first amendment. Since it's been proven that over-hyping mass shootings creates more shootings, among other things, why wouldn't you limit the people that cause that harm? We've also seen great damage and death due to the right to mostly peacefully assemble.
They've already thrown out the 4th amendment so we might as well get rid of that one too.
It's been a long time since anyone has enjoyed a speedy trial so the 6th can go as well.

 

You take them.

 

Like I said, you might as well throw out the 4th as well.

 

Hard no

 

Screw that. I sure as hell do not trust our government enough to have only government forces armed with an unarmed populace. No thank you. Whether it is liberals or conservatives in charge, **** them both. They are all the same force working for themselves, not the people. I wouldn't even consider turning in my guns until the Democrat and Republican parties have ceased to exist, and probably not after that either, because something worse could fill the vacuum.

 

Personally I don't think that's necessary. We just need a Supreme Court that interprets it as it was originally intended. Which would make it obsolete given that militias are no longer necessary to the security of a free state. But it would save a lot of taxpayer money.

It would be like going through all the trouble and expense of repealing the 3rd A. Not worth the cost.

 

I wrote this in a similar thread and I'll write it again.

Over 50 years ago I took an oath to defend and protect the Constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic.

There was nothing in that oath about defending only the parts of the Constitution that I liked or the parts that were in fashion at the time, it meant the entire Constitution for my entire life.

Our Constitution and its Bill of Rights are timeless documents with Roman law and and the Magna Carta as its foundation.

Finally, it is not a document to tinker with based on the failed assumption that criminals will suddenly start obeying laws.

 

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ~ Benjamin Franklin

The whole anti-gun argument is based on a false premise. That guns are the problem. Correlation =/= causation. I have a better idea on how to fix the "gun violence" problem. FIX THE DAMN CORE ISSUES!!!! Poor education. Poverty. Mental Health issues. Reform our Justice System to one of rehabilitation. Work on all of those and you won't need to ONCE pass any legislation against guns. AND you'll reduce overall crime, not just "gun violence". But ALL.

But I guess all of that is too hard to do so instead just aim for the low hanging fruit and band aides and votes.

 

In 1875 in the case of United States v. Cruikshank SCOTUS held that it was only the Federal Government that could not violate people's Right to Bear Arms. Not States or other people. Meaning that, at least as far as the Federal Government was concerned, The People had a Right to Bear Arms. States and individuals however were not bound by the 2nd Amendment. Due to this the SCOTUS rescinded the guilty convictions of violating the 2nd Amendment against the white people who had brutally murdered over 100 black Republicans. A sad ruling to be sure, but that was still a ruling which shows that The People did indeed have a 2nd Amendment Right to Bear Arms...at least as far as the Federal Government was concerned. The Federal Government just had no power to control what the States did when it came to Rights.

It wasn't until the Incorporation Doctrine that ANY of the Rights listed in the BoR's actually started being applied to the States. Yes, that means that prior to the Incorporation Doctrine NONE of the Rights listed in the BoR's applied to the States. After it, they did, well...at least eventually. Which is why before it you could find State Laws that could infringe on People's Rights. Including Gun Rights. However, you will not find ANY (well, at least any that withstood a SCOTUS challenge) Federal Laws violating any of the Rights in the BoR's prior to the Incorporation Doctrine. Unfortunately, SCOTUS, being as reserved as they generally are, never fully incorporated all the Rights listed in the BoR's in any one case. It took multiple cases, and over 200 years to get most of the Rights listed in the BoR's incorporated. Indeed, they often didn't even do one whole Amendment at a time, but often just ruled on parts of each Amendment. As of right now however there are only 2 Amendments in the BoR's which are not fully incorporated. The 9th, and the 10th. And they may never be as the 10th Amendment interacts with State Law, and the 9th Amendment is rarely used by SCOTUS for pretty much any case.

So, would you like to go back to a time when the BoR's was NOT incorporated? Because only then would the claim that there was no such thing as 2nd Amendment Rights applying to The People in general be applicable...at least not on a State level. It still applied on the Federal level. Of course, if that happened.... A LOT would change in this country. Specific religious doctrine could once again be taught in schools. State Governments could prevent people from protesting at any time for any reason. State governments could have State Run News Media. And a whole bunch of other things. None of which I'm quite sure anyone of today would care for. Including me.

 

Of course. Same goes for the freedom of speech, for example. It's the reason why Facebook banning Donald Trump is not a violation of his constitutional rights. But I see no relevance to what I wrote.

 

Really?? How are they going to do that?

 

Threat and application of force.

 

i can’t wrap my head around giving the government that kind of power over the people. Look at the clowns that are “leading” us. We are really going to let them leave us helpless against their wishes???

 

Why just the Second Amendment? Why not repeal the whole Constitution and have a Twitter poll to decide what our government should look like?

 

We keep guns so that we remain able to threaten and able to apply force to keep the politicians in line, not the other way around.

 

That is not legal unless you have already proved they have them and they will keep them out of sight until they need them.

 

That, among other things. But you're spot on with the idea. I think it was Jefferson that said something to the effect of, "When government fears the people there is freedom; when the people fear the government there is tyranny". It should probably also be noted that "fear", in this context, isn't what we're talking about when you're staring death in the eye but more the kind of fear one might experience when contemplating how your parents might feel about some negative report regarding your performance at school.

 

We may as well toss the 1st to the curb as well. After the government violates everyone's fourth and second, I'd imagine there would be many law abiding gun owners ready to assemble, petitioning the Government for a redress of their grievances. Got to get rid of that one too!

Okay, so let's say, there's no longer a 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendments. Where'd the Constitutional Republic go?

 

Nope, sorry.

 

This stands no chance. First of all it would take 2/3rds of the House to pass the amendment, then 2/3rds of the senate to vote AYE and pass it. Then it would have to be ratified by 3/4ths of the states. It isn’t going to happen.

 

How's that worked so far?