Thom Hartmann : It Is Time To Repeal The Second Amendment

[liberalnarb]

[tonyt53]

1. Nope. But sure is time to understand the basics of it, like "well regulated militia".

Over the years, the courts have ruled time and time again that limits can be put on gun ownership.

[markpkessinger]

10. Yes, but in DC v. Heller . . .

. . . the majority effectively discounted the "well-regulated militia" clause, affirming a nearly unfettered individual right to own guns, and even handguns. So where does that leave us?

[Just reading posts]

3. How hard could it be?

[LongtimeAZDem]

4. Well, that's an issue that would keep Arizona from going blue this time (nt)

[passiveporcupine]

5. Yes, thank you Thom

I've been saying this for weeks and I am so glad to hear someone back me up.

I didn't know the history (thanks for providing that)...just that it's usefulness is over and it serves no purpose now except to let people keep guns they don't need.

[mwrguy]

6. Yes it is!

Way past time to drive a stake through this nonsensical relic.

[guillaumeb]

7. Repeal is unnecessary. Simply a return to the original intent.

A return to the meaning that the SCOTUS recognized until the Robert's SCOTUS bit of judicial fiat.

[markpkessinger]

11. But the Roberts Court refuses to do that . . .

. . . so again I ask, where does that leave us?

[guillaumeb]

14. With a Congress that, thanks to the Citizens United decision,

can be bought by the NRA. And an activist SCOTUS that in the Heller v DC decision decided to reinterpret the Second Amendment to reflect Justice Scalia's peculiar version of what he called original intent. And to arrive at his version of intent, one must dismiss the first half of the Second Amendment as "merely prefatory".

But this bit of judicial legislating could be undone by the next full Court.

The amending process could take years, and it also depends on convincing a majority of state legislatures to ratify.

[63splitwindow]

8. Once again, the "simple" solution is not the right one...

A balance should be struck via Supreme Court interpretation of the meaning of the Amendment.

[markpkessinger]

9. But the Court refused to strike such a "balance" . . .

. . . when it had the chance to do so in DC v. Heller, so where does that leave us? The Court can't act unless and until a relevant case wends it way through the appeals process, and even then only if it chooses to hear it.

[63splitwindow]

12. The current court just let stand...

two state ban on assault style weapons:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2016/0620/Supreme-Court-lets-stand-state-assault-weapon-bans-continuing-trend

To favor abolishment of the 2nd Amendment is to play directly into the hand of the gun nuts.

[zebonaut]

13. Surprise; it can actually be repealed; it's not written in Stone from the Heavens