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

Except for the misinterpretation of the last 13 words of the second amendment.

 

that's true, same with free speech, the right of assembly, the right of the people to be free of unreasonable searches and cruel and unusual punishment, self incrimination etc. AND GUESS WHAT, the STATES ENACTED THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT and voluntarily stripped the states of being able to prevent the citizens from exercising fundamental rights at a state level

 

Dude, the courts which ultimately strike down state statutes on arms usage are always federal courts.

 

you continually prove you haven't a clue what that means. why don't you humor me and most of us who actually have law degrees and academic credentials in constitutional theory and research, and tell us what you think the 2nd amendment means. and don't forget how that changed with incorporation

 

of course because of the fourteenth amendment. You really are playing on a field where you don't understand the rules

 

The federal enacted the 14 amendment to strip states of the right of preventing citizens from exercising fundamental rights...An egregious increase of federal power over states.

 

I understand that the federal is usurping the laws of states. I understand this is an increase of federal power over the states.

 

well the states enacted that amendment. who are you to whine about it? and why are you so upset that individual freedom has increased? I have never seen this sort of peculiar hatred of individual rights and a sick love affair with state power

 

wrong again-it was the states that enacted the fourteenth amendment-which is exactly how the constitution intended such things be done

 

The last 13 words as written and spoken of by the passers of the second amendment subsequent to its passing indicated the second amendment was a state militia regulation amendment and the last 13 words was a restriction of federal power meaning that if the federal state militia regulation second amendment infringed on the arms regulations of states, for example, said state constitution arms provisions would remain in force above the federal second amendment. What is the second amendment attempting to prevent the infringement of? Arms legislation by states. If, for example, the second amendment infringed on the pronouncements of a state's legislation on arms, the state's arms legislation would take precedence over the federal, er, that state's arms legislation wouldn't be infringed by the federal second amendment.

 

But individual freedom hasn't increased since the federal decided which freedoms to extend and which not to extend.

 

nonsense, it was to guarantee that a federal government that was never given any proper power to interfere with whatever arms a private citizen wanted to own in his/her own private capacity, could not so act.

 

not relevant and not true. the crap that southern states threw at freed blacks was legion. incorporation started to end or at least reduce lots of those oppression.

 

That wasn't the intention by the passers of the second amendment.

 

I'm saying there's precedent for gun ownership in America but that precedent doesn't reside in the 2ND amendment. Just like the precedent for gun ownership also doesn't reside in the 13th amendment (or any other incorporation, er, in layman's terms any macro view of The Constitution).

 

it was one of several. that they didn't give the government any such power in Article One Section Eight is a rather strong bit of proof concerning that

 

Senile Joe was yapping about banning "Assault weapons" yesterday. Probably caused another 100,000 to be sold

 

That's what amendments do. They change The Constitution, er, specifically, Article 1 Section 8.

 

what the bill of rights did was to negatively restrict the new government from doing things it was never given any power to do in the first place

 

Except if one takes your or SCOTUS' interpretation of the second amendment which said interpretation gives the federal government increasing power over states concerning arms legalization.

EDIT: Why do you suppose the passers of the second amendment decided that arms ownership for all Americans be included in the last 13 words of the second?
Why didn't Senators also propose legislation for eating, sleeping, ******** and procreation???Oh, there was a faulty precedent involving procreation (Roe V. Wade) which was struck down by the current SCOTUS...The reason why Senators also didn't provide amendments for eating, sleeping ******** and procreation is because those things were commonplace in 1791 (as well as gun ownership) and there was no need to ensure those rights existed, so, they didn't address them...Just like they didn't address arms ownership for all Americans in the last 13 words of the second amendment.

 

this is getting really stupid. all the second amendment's incorporation did was to prevent the states from interfering on the important right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms. Why do you get so upset with this? because you obviously value the power of states to strip individuals of important rights over the power of the federal courts to protect those rights. Your silly analogy about eating and sleeping etc is just plain stupid

 

Unsurprisingly, I say no. I will listen, and respond to your arguments, but I very seriously doubt you have a good case to make. So, here we go... (And no, I have not yet read the rest of your post, but will as I go, and will give it due consideration, if it deserves it.)

Then those dumbasses should try to get an Amendment, which I believe will prove an impossible hurdle. But I expect you'll get to that, if not, your whole post is just bloviating.

This may well prove to be the fatal flaw in your entire argument. There has been no growing problem of gun violence in the US, starting in the late 80s, and up until the year 2000, which has so many asterisks, you'll need a new kind of punctuation to avoid putting so many in a row... Do I need to list those for you? I'll start with the pandemic, and if it becomes necessary later, we can speak of the others.

What we have is an increasing availability of information, and the speed at which it disseminates. When we were kids, and crime, violence, and murder was about 3x what it has been in recent years (even after the pandemic spike), a story about some kid shooting up a mall in Palo Alto, CA was news in Palo Alto, and at best got some minor story on the bottom of the front page ("below the fold" as the old saying went), if that.

Maybe it would get 20 seconds on the 6pm evening news. What did not happen was for it to become the top topic of conversation throughout the entire country even before it was over.

This has created a false impression that crime is getting worse, as stated in your opening statement, and which is demonstrably false.

During this time, more and more people have been buying more and more guns, and being durable products, the old ones, mostly, don't wear out or go away, so every year sets a new record.

Before even discussing that, it becomes necessary to chat about is such a thing even possible. If you paid attention in civics class, and you seem like you did, you would know it requires a 2/3rds vote of both the House and Senate, plus 38 States must also approve.

Controversial topics just do not get 2/3rds votes in Congress (which is one reason the Founders in their wisdom put it in there) and 38 States I think is an absolute impossibility. Sure, you'll get NY, NJ, CA, IL, maybe PA, possibly WA and OR (despite being deep blue, there are a lot of hunters out there, who will revolt before giving up not just their guns, but their right to own one, starting with many of the elected Sheriffs), and a handful of others.

But, there is no road to 38. The whole south is a hard no, all the way from AZ to FL, and then north from Georgia, both Carolinas, both Virginias, Tennessee, both Dakotas, Wyoming, and that right there is that's more than enough. Just the south, the 2 Dakodas, and Wyoming is more than enough, and I forgot Idaho, which is a hard no, Vermont probably is, despite being the home to America's openly socialist Senator, I think the same is true of Maine, and by now, the game is so over, there's really no point in going any further.

We only have to get 13, and any question of the 2nd being abolished goes away. 13 out of 50, given the attitudes of so many States is easier than getting out of bed in the morning.

Odd that you didn't say the same thing about Dobbs, eh?

Which completely nullifies your 'then the States would do as they like' argument. There are many people, MANY, myself included, who don't wany anyone, not even Uncle, knowing what hardware we have. I sort of got there by accident, when I realized after my dad died and left me his collection (which in Florida is amateur level, but California would label as an 'arsenal', with several THOUSAND ROUNDS (gasp!!.. but mostly just .22s)), it hit me that officially, all of my guns save one came off the secondary market.

Now, I have a carry permit, and it's reasonable to think I may own something, but I've known people with carry permits who didn't own a single firearm at all for various reasons, so that's not universally true.

Yeah. Times have changed. I can go online and post videos of myself reporting the news, giving a podcast (formerly known as a radio show), or selling my own personal porn to subscribers, something that when I was a kid the only people rich enough or skilled enough to do that were ABC, CBS, and NBC, do you really think the Founders anticipated that the riffraff like me would be able to broadcast to the whole country just because I wanted to??? No, that must be stopped!

Cut me a break, times change, principals do not, and the Founders believed that humans had a right, given by their Creator (a carefully chosen term, because they very much did not want to make the USA into a religious country arguing about exactly which Creator they meant), which means no matter who or what you think that Creator might be, we are born with those rights, and government can only protect them, or violate them. They don't grant them, and a just government doesn't take them away. But your team doesn't seem all that interest in that kind of justness.

FALSE!!! Which I already discussed above, since before I turned 20 (and I'm 53 now) crime of all kinds has been decreasing by such large amounts, we were in 2016 or 17 within 0.1/100,000 homicides of the lowest ever recorded, I think back in 1964. Your claim of increasing risk, and increasing crime is an illusion caused by increasing speed and availability of information, nothing more.

Sorry.

I'm getting repetitive, but then again so are you. Repealing the 2nd is not difficult, it's literally impossible. I defy you to give me a list of states that total 38 where you can even make a weak case they might go along. Pretty sure you can't do it.

And once again, we have no 'ongoing problem of gun violence', except the past few years that are probably an anomaly for obvious reasons. The pandemic I listed, but the defund the police movement, the summer of riots, and the continuing divide between Americans, done on purpose mostly, I offer, due to the left. All this I deserve this, systemic racism that, reparations the other. You know they're seriously considering giving blacks in San Francisco $5,000,000 per person, selling them a home for $1, and promising them $90k/year for life!

In a city that never had slavery that's part of a State that didn't either. They'll be bankrupt within months, and the place would be a post-apocalyptic ghost waste town within six.

Back to crime, it's much lower than it was when I was in high school, which feels like just a week ago, but was actually 30+ years now.

If the pandemic spike turns into a 3-decade long trend where it not only goes back to the levels of the late 80s, but then some then maybe, but even then, if all or most of the blame can fall at the doorstep of firearms. But 3 decades is a long time, and while I may still be drawing breath (in this life, anyway), given my overall health and the fact that an average couch potato looks like an Olympic athlete compared to me, I'm not holding my breath. No pun intended.

I do hope I do, however, if for no other reason than because my poor wife has been through enough, and to leave her alone like that would crush her, which is something I'm not willing to do, to whatever extent my unwillingness may play a role.

 

You can't use the second amendment to justify universal arms for all Americans 'cause it didn't exist in the 2ND amendment until SCOTUS screwed up the interpretation of the 2ND amendment. There have been basic rights violated by states which the 13th amendment, for example, corrected...The 13th amendment corrected the unjust charging of former slaves for using arms, for example...Not the 2ND amendment