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

I"ll file that in the wishful thinking file. Also, in the fallacious application of fallacy logic file.

 

Please reread my comment. Your point is refuted and You are repeating yourself, i.e., not adding anything to the subject, not moving the conversion forward, let alone address the counter point raised. .

 

No, it's possible to discuss the pros and cons not respective of it's chances of being repealed. If you prefer the idealistic language, that's fine.

 

There can be no meaningful measure against gun violence without addressing the 2A directly. I doubt very much, however, that repeal is within the realm of the politically possible. An amendment to the amendment seems more reasonable to me. The exact wording? Someone smarter than me would need to figure that out.

 

I repeat, the premise of the OP is not about 'banning guns' per se. It's about strengthening the state's right to regulate gun ownership. I would support rewording the amendment to prevent gun banning at the federal level, but not gun regulation. I would only allow the reworded amendment to state:

1. Gun regulation is largely the province of the states
2. Guns cannot be banned across all nor any state.
3. Only hand guns can be banned at the municipal level, if a township or city so chooses, and if such legislation is passed at the municipal level, it must be followed up, i.e, upheld or repealed by public referendum vote in that municipality. However, banning guns of any type in specified areas, such as City Hall, public houses, theatres, schools, etc., is allowed at the municipal level without referendum.

The 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution states that powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people.

While the 10th Amendment does reserve certain powers to the states, it does not limit the federal government's authority to regulate rights. The federal government has the power to regulate rights under the Commerce Clause, which grants Congress the authority to regulate interstate commerce. The federal government also has the power to regulate rights under the Necessary and Proper Clause, which grants Congress the authority to pass laws necessary and proper for carrying out its enumerated powers.

Therefore, the 10th Amendment does not necessarily affect the federal government's right to regulate rights, as long as such regulation is within the scope of the federal government's enumerated powers.

 

If, in a revised 2nd Amendment the right of individuals to own, keep and lawfully use firearms could NOT be infringed.<-period But was worded such that their could be no confusion about it, “that” would be a good thing.

But, that HAS been clarified by “Heller”, so this kind of discussion is only academic because, the problems with the Second’s wording have been resolved.

 

That's an argument, debating the pros and cons of repealing the second as written, and rewriting it as described herein.

If you are against it, that's fine.

 

-Unnecessary
-Ineffective
-Implausible
/ thread

 

I'm "AGAINST" it because of your apparent desire to dilute the 2nd Amendment, not clarify it.

 

That's just it, the OP's premise is repeal and replace with something better.

The OP acknowledges the improbability of repealing 2A, it's just an a debate of the merits of the proposal given in the OP.

My suggestion was, and I've added some stuff, to replace 2A with some language that goes something like:

the premise of the OP is not about 'banning guns' per se. It's about strengthening the state's right to regulate gun ownership. I would support rewording the amendment to prevent gun banning at the federal level, but not gun regulation or I might favor relegating gun regulation to states, entirely.

However, I would only allow the new amendment to replace teh second, to state:

1. Gun regulation is largely the province of the states.
2. Guns cannot be banned across all nor any state.
3. Only hand guns can be banned at the municipal level, if a township or city so chooses, and if such legislation is passed at the municipal level, it must be followed up, i.e, upheld or repealed by public referendum vote in that municipality. However, banning guns of any type in specified areas, such as City Hall, public houses, theatres, schools, etc., is allowed at the municipal level without referendum.

It should also specify what can be regulated, and what cannot be regulated, such, I suggest, are 'long guns common to self defense and hunting for food' cannot be regulated. Quantities, calibers, types, magazines, etc., *beyond the common use" ability to conceal and carry, etc., registration, licensing training, etc., can be regulated.

 

YOu do realize that your wording is pretty much what is written, that 'shall not be infringed' goes ONLY to the 'right', and nothing more. NO right of type, caliber, quantity, right to conceal and carry, etc., is specified in 2A nor does 'right shall not be infringed' imply all the other items. .

 

Yes, my wording is NOT complete. But, "Heller" (as I pointed out), further clarifies that the 2nd Amendment applies to arms that are "those in common use for lawful purposes."; which would include those based on the AR 15 receiver THE most commonly used firearm in history. And, IMHO, SBR's and Pistols based on the AR 15 receiver, because they are very much in common use because of ATF rules that were recently rescinded, in violation of "Heller". Hopefully as the law suits against the ATF over this ruling will eliminate the need to register SBR's and AR based pistols and the need to buy a $200 tax stamp.

 

thank you for your opinion. I disagree.

 

Yes, and I explained that gun ownership should not be a right. I will accept it's 'right' as a right addressed by the 9th amendment, but not to have it's own specific amendment. Given the 9th amendment, I suggest that gun ownership rights should be the province of state constitutions and state legislation.

ANd the reason for it is to give states more power to regulate guns without being sued every time they desire to do it by the NRA, gun lobbies, etc.

 

Which is, of course, irrelevant.to what I said.

 

But, it is.
Your opinion to the contrary is irrelevant.

 

Thankfully, that ship sailed with the "Heller" decision. The founders never meant for States to have power to control the ownership of firearms. That right is the peoples, ensured by the 2nd Amendment and clarified by "Heller".

 

Thank you for your opinion. We disagree.

Thank you for your opinion. We disagree.

 

"Arms"
What limit on the type, caliber and quantity of weapon is inherent to that term?
"Keep and hear"
What limit on where, when, and how we can own and use 'arms" is inherent to that term?

 

pursuant to Heller and McDonald, banning handguns is unconstitutional at any level and any municipal politicians who do so should be tried for criminal civil rights violations and stripped of any powers at an official level as well as being sued under 42 USC 1983 for violating civil rights under the color of state law which is both a civil violation which allows punitive damages and a criminal violation that merits jail time, The Tenth and Second amendments if properly interpreted, completely prevent federal gun control and the Commerce Clause bullshit is just that -something a corrupt FDR administration was able to get away with because FDR appointed every federal judge for almost 20 years

 

Nor does your "how many people were killed by full automatic machine guns" red herring.

 

that is because hard core leftists hate that pro rights voters have opposed Democrats and liberals since the time the left pretended that gun control was crime control because the left has a soft spot for violent criminals and doesn't want to actually harm them

 

It will never be time to abolish freedom in the US.

And just to be clear what I mean by this, the right to keep and bear arms is a key pillar of freedom.

Anyone who lacks the right to keep and bear arms, is not free.

Only in the sense that progressives throw temper tantrums when they are prevented from violating everyone's civil liberties.

These people need to be reeducated.

Our freedom will always be more important than any problem allegedly caused by that freedom.

You are in error here. The Second Amendment is not what stands in the way of uniform federal gun laws. Repealing the Second Amendment will not do anything to create uniform federal gun laws.

It is the Tenth Amendment that stands in the way of uniform federal gun laws. If you want to have federal federal gun laws and have them be constitutional, what you need is a Constitutional amendment granting Congress the power to pass federal gun laws.

That is incorrect. The primary concern was federal tyranny.

As previously noted, our freedom will always be more important than any harm allegedly caused by that freedom.

That is incorrect. The Second Amendment is doing a great job of preventing the left from violating our civil liberties.

This doesn't matter. Freedom will always be more important.

 

That is incorrect in at least two ways.

First, since the Second Amendment mandates the existence of a well-regulated militia, interpreting it as intended means that the militia is entirely necessary.

Second, the importance of the right to keep and bear arms does not depend on the necessity of the militia.

Anyway, the Heller ruling actually comes pretty close to interpreting the Second Amendment as it was originally intended.

The only place where Heller missed the mark is in not saying that everyone has the right to have weapons like grenades, bazookas, and full-auto weapons, as those are clearly the sorts of weapons that would be used to repel a foreign invasion.

 

That is incorrect. The original intent of the Second Amendment is to protect the individual right to keep and bear arms.

That is incorrect. The Supreme Court has always interpreted the Second Amendment as protecting the individual right to keep and bear arms.

No precedents or documentation say any such thing.

That is incorrect. The Miller Ruling made it clear that people have an individual right to have such weapons.

She argues that it is an individual right in the US.

History shows that it clearly was an individual right in the UK as well.

I've never heard of him or his article, but he is clearly wrong.

The Federal Convention of 1787 was not about the Second Amendment.

That came later, proposed by the Anti-Federalists.

The fact that they provided their own firearms supports the view that the right to keep and bear arms remains an individual right, just as it has always been.

Again, no precedents or documentation say any such thing.