Repeal the 2nd Amendent

[NPolitics1979]

Last edited Sat Dec 15, 2012, 03:31 PM - Edit history (1)

The Amendment was written over 200 years ago by privileged white guys that owned slaves who were unwilling to foresee the number of gun violence tragedies our country is facing.

[Recursion]

1. They had a higher murder rate back then than we do now

Significantly higher.

I don't think they were unaccustomed to gun violence.

[CTyankee]

10. Why don't we look to other modern constitutional democracies to see how they

handle gun ownership/rights and model ours accordingly? Our second amendment is incredibly anachronistic and inconsistent with our modern society's needs in order to function properly. Obvously something is terribly wrong when you have a society that has to put up with mass murders of its citizens in the name of a "right" of the "people." Plus, it doesn't make sense.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

17. I'm calling bullshit. Back up your assertion.

[Recursion]

22. You seriously didn't know that?

http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/06/long-term-trend-in-homicide-rates.html

It's pretty widely studied. Murder rates have been dropping steadily worldwide since the 1600s

[ancianita]

2. Repealing the 2nd would mean gun ownership's still a property right, but gun use is now a privilege.

Background checked, trained, and tested, would produce licensed gun users, with the same procedure repeated for license renewal every four years, as is done with cars. Instead of the DMV, states could use add-on software databases in a different office, and call the overall facility the DGMV, Department of Guns and Motor Vehicles.

A dramatic re-regulation of gun USE is required as much as the background check enforcement.

[rock]

3. Repealing an Amendment is fraught with political peril

I would trust no modern Congress to change the Constitution in any way.

[Hoyt]

4. Agree. Tough restrictions need to be imposed through Courts and Congress. More importantly

we need to change our view of guns and those who love/abuse them.

[jody]

5. SCOTUS says preexisting rights do not depend upon words on paper to create. It follows

that words on paper can not repeal a preexisting right.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

18. There is no universal right to own weapons to kill.

I cannot believe you are saying that.

[jody]

19. PA & VT said individuals have "natural, inherent and inalienable rights, amongst which are,

the enjoying and defending life and liberty".

What you and I are discussing is what is the most effective tool to use to exercise that right.

810,000 LEOs choose handguns for self-defense so it should not surprise you that handguns are also the choice by law-abiding citizens to exercise their right to self-defense.

[Codeine]

6. Not going to happen.

That is as politically impossible as repealing the right of women to vote or reinstating Prohibition would be, probably significantly more so, actually.

Regulations? Of course. Repealing one of the dearest-held portions of the Bill of Rights? Nope.

[davidpdx]

24. You hit the nail on the head

That is why an amendment (either adding or repealing one) hasn't been done in a long time. I would bet it won't happen (on any issue) before I leave this earth. It would take a pretty good public outcry for it to happen (and I'm not saying there should be one).

[jimmy the one]

7. militia based RKBA (right to keep/bear arms)

There's some misinformation floating about on this thread, be more careful of what you contend.
The 2ndAmendment was written in 1791 which is about 221 years ago, altho you might be thinking of previous colonial 'have arms' decrees which it was based upon. There were relatively few murders in the rev-war era, sometimes cities having none for years then a couple etc.

2ndA was originally meant as a militia based right to keep/bear arms (RKBA) for collective defense against rebellion & foreign invasion.
There was no comparable modern dichotomy between 'militia based' vs 'individual RKBA' theories when it was written, for muskets were not plentiful & were single shot & risky for self defense when a long knife, sword, or club was more desirable. The prevailing thought was you could own a firearm if you could afford it, and use it for whatever justifiable reason came up, but the constitutional 2ndA RKBA was meant to put you armed in the citizens militia.

.. 2ndA was written in 1791 as I said, & the next year 1792 the 'Militia Act of 1792' was written, which made law that every white male between 17 & 45 was to serve in his state militia once a year for duty, & was to provide his own musket (if he had one). So this was no coincidence, 2ndA written in 1791 & the militia act in 1792, the latter spelled out the rules for what the 2ndA had written.
.. the militia did not turn out as the founding fathers intended, people started to shirk their duty, sometimes pay others to do it for them, or not show up at all. By 1830 the term 'unorganized militia' came about (apart from the well regulated one), and by then there indeed had risen the dichotomy, to a lesser extent, that americans had an individual RKBA aside from the militia, largely brought upon by those who wanted all their so called rights but with no obligation to do much to preserve them.

[whistler162]

8. No it wasn't written over 300 years ago.

and yes it is important if you are making a argument for or against something to get the information you are using correct!

[NPolitics1979]

9. Repeal the 2nd Amendment.

For those who argue that taking away individuals right to carry a gun unless the individual purchases a gun licenses, which results in a background check is similar to prohibition of drugs or alchohol or denying people the right to vote are a bunch of fools.

There is limitations to the 1st Amendment- cannot yell "Fire" in the Movie Theater.
I oppose prohibition of drugs and alchohol- Drugs and Alchohol does not result in 20 people getting killed at the same time. A drunk addict would pose less of a threat to society if he was not possess a gun.
Taking away an individual(women or minorities) right to vote is foolish because no one got hurt for expressing views that one may not agree with.

What is wrong with having gun laws that prevents guns being in the hand of criminals or people who have serious mental problems.

[RudynJack]

11. 300 years?

Check your math.

[Marcia Brady]

12. Repealing the 2nd Amendment

would do nothing to change the culture of violence. I think banning violent video games, movies, and TV shows would have a lot more positive effect.

[Midwestern Democrat]

16. I agree that increased permissiveness in our cultural standards is probably the major culprit for

increase in the occurence of these mass killings. There was significantly less gun control 50 years ago and we didn't have this kind of mass murder sadism on a regular basis - the difference is obviously the culture. Before 1968, films were highly censored - there was no "R" rating option - a film was either Approved or Not Approved for general distribution. I'm uneasy about the concept of censorship, but I do suspect that images of graphic violence in our films and especially the violent video games (which permits people to kill virtual images of human beings) have strongly contributed to inspiring many of these murderers.

[Kurska]

21. Never understood how a progressive could call for government censorship of private expression.

Which seems to be exactly what you are doing.

[Zoeisright]

25. Marcia, Marcia, Marcia.

You are so completely fucking wrong it would be hilarious if it wasn't so sick.

[Doodler71]

27. Japan has violent games, movies, tv show but no

Assault weapons and amazingly they aren't reporting mass shooting nearly every 4 months.

[ancianita]

46. Representations of violence are not violence. This sounds just like the calls to ban books in the

last century. Come ON. People have to live with the difference between violent thoughts and violent deeds. That's what freedom affords them. If you want to take away violent culture, you also want to take away the freedom to exercise one's imagination -- violent or beautiful -- just because some people decide to treat life as if it's a game. Eliminating the 2nd Amendment would definitely change their behavior, but you don't have to drag down the 1st Amendment with it.

[Sunlei]

14. That will never happen. A good start would be demand Congress bring back the 2004 assault weap. ban.

right away!

[trueblue2007]

15. I AGREE

[Ter]

20. If that ever happened Civil War would erupt

And this time the Rebels would win, and rightfully so.

[Shrek]

23. Most states have similar provisions

http://www.trolp.org/main_pgs/issues/v11n1/Volokh.pdf

So repealing the second amendment might have only a limited effect.

[yellowcanine]

26. No need for outright repeal. Just add an amendment saying:

"Congress, the States and local jurisdictions have the right to pass laws regulating and restricting the possession, sale and carrying of firearms and ammunition for the purposes of public safety."

[kwolf68]

28. My wife

And I don't agree on gun control. She is pretty much for a ban and I (until recently) was not opposed to gun control.

Her statement was that if we want to strictly enforce the constitution to the words written 200+ years ago then the environment should be applicable as well.

Thus, my wife is in favor in the right to bear arms of the EXACT guns protected by the 2nd amendment in 1791, but in none other. Part of me appreciates that view.

[Bake]

49. You're married to Antonin Scalia???

A literalist. Hmmm.



Bake

[NPolitics1979]

29. 2nd Amendment needs to be amended so

Adults with no criminal records or history of mental illness will be allowed to go shopping for firearms but he will have to be issued a firearm permit/license-(take a gun safety course, be subjected to background checks). He must purchase the firearms from a licensed gun dealer from his state- (he must present his firearm permit/license to the gun dealer, the gun dealer conducts a background check) Once the background check is complete - the gun purchaser and only the gun purchaser picks up the guns he bought from the gun dealer.

[Kuhbner]

30. Get Rid Of The Guns

[ellie]

31. Yes, please.

[Kath1]

32. Should have been done long ago.

No more of this insanity.

[SouthernDonkey]

33. Its asinine

and really ignorant to think you are going to get rid of guns by outlawing them. It's against the law right now for a felon to possess a gun. Does that stop them? Absolutely not. The only people who won't have guns are law abiding people. The 2nd amendment will never be repealed. Your time would be better spent trying to come up with a more workable solution.
I think violent video games and movies probably contribute to these mentally unstable kids going on rampages as much, if not more than anything as well. How can anyone not see a correlation?

[Tmloft]

34. I agree.

I agree, murder, theft, and rape are already felonies. Why would a felon care if he broke another law? In a perfect world guns wouldn't exist. But I can assure everyone, my family will not be a victim without a word in the matter. Why should America outlaw guns? IMO if there's a debate about it err on the side of freedom should apply to everything.

[Sedona]

35. Video games and movies don't shoot 3 inch bullets into six year olds

[Tmloft]

36. You're right they don't.

Not sure the meaning of a 3 inch bullet. anything over .5" has been banned already. Why don't we just outlaw murder?

[Sedona]

39. 3 inches long.......

[SouthernDonkey]

37. No they don't.

But they further warp the minds of someone who isn't stable enough to handle reality to begin with. If you don't realize that you haven't spent any time with someone suffering from a mental illness. Don't get me wrong. I'm for banning assault weapons. I don't have a problem in the world with that. I'm for more stringent gun registrations, and legislations. Limiting clip sizes and possibly other measures. We need some serious debate on this though. But we need to focus on the other causitive factors in this as well.

We need to increase funding for mental health issues, and definitely work to remove the stigma involved with mental illness. There should be help readily available for families who have members suffering from mental illness. This is the kind of things that happen when it is ignored for too long.

[Sedona]

41. I raised a child with mental illness to adulthood

I also know that she wasn't well enough to drive or even handle certain kitchen utensils at times.

Are we going to outlaw cars and knives too? Then take the fucking guns too.

I call bullshit on the video games and Hollywood excuse. The SCIENCE and the ARITHMETIC agree with me.

You NRA types keep blaming everything EXCEPT the GUNS.

Good to know we have NRA folks who agree with Limbaugh and Lieberman here on DU.

[SouthernDonkey]

50. Your post has bothered me since I first read it.

Let me set the record straight for you. I'm not one of those "NRA types" anymore than, I imagine, you are one of those "Communist types". Perhaps you are. More power to you. But lets dispense with the accusatory labels please. You don't know me at all!

Also for the record, Im for a total ban on assault rifles. I'm for stronger legislation and requirements for gun ownership. I'm for limiting the amount of ammunition one is able to load into a gun. What I'm against is you "communist types" who want to totally strip me of my constitutional rights. You are as bad as the people you rail against for limiting your freedom, or suppressing other peoples rights to live there life as they see fit.

For your information, I've raised an austistic child to adulthood. He still lives at home with us at age 22, and probably will for the rest of his life so spare me your "voice of experience".

When they start outlawing cars and knives, ask me again about outlawing guns. Until then, I'll hang on to mine. Supporting the rights given to me by the United States Constitution is not a Limbaugh, Lieberman, Reid, Pelosi, Obama, Democrat or Republican thing. It's an AMERICAN thing. So spare me your opinion about what YOU THINK is an approprate DU thing. If I find that DU is not about being a Democrat in America, then I wouldn't choose to be here anyway. But I don't need you telling me that, or how I need to think and I certainly don't need you deciding that for me. Thank you very much.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

43. Right

Right, let's bring down the First Amendment when the Second is being attacked.

Good grief.

[ancianita]

47. I'm totally with you on this. The notion is ridiculous.

[LeftInTX]

38. We need to repeal the Firearm Owner Protection Act of 1986

And go back to the Gun Control Act of 1968.


From what I understand that 1986 was when states began all of these Right to Carry laws.

I don't think we need to get rid of the 2nd amendment to eliminate all of these guns.

Right to carry laws 1986-2011

Green: No restrictions
Blue: Shall Issue
Yellow: May Issue
Red: No issue

[SouthernDonkey]

40. How many

of the past public executioners actually held concealed carry permits? I fail to see your connection.

edited to add: not trying to be a smartass, as I understand it's really not relevant to your overal point, but a .223 is actualy 57mm or 2.26 inches long.

[Sedona]

42. not trying to be a smart ass....

but how much less damage TO A SIX YEAR OLD HUMAN BODY do ELEVEN 2.26 inch bullets do than 3 inch bullets?

[hack89]

44. That law has nothing to do with concealed carry

Concealed carry is a purely state issue - there are no federal issues involved with states licensing concealed carry.

What you are seeing is the results of the first AWB - notice how the big changes happen after 1994? The AWB taught the gun rights movement that guns rights had to be protected at the local level - you saw an explosion of activity at the state legislatures which resulted in many pro-gun laws.

The irony of gun control in America was that their biggest victory sowed the seeds for their ultimate defeat.

[budkin]

45. There would be revolution if that happened. No thanks.

[ancianita]

48. AHAHAHAHAHAH... I've never seen ONE gun owner protest publicly to protect their own constitutional

rights, nor anyone else's public protests against injustice. They help no one, and protect no one. Gun owners only want the illusion of power by owning guns. Period.

Conceal and carry advocates? They are cowards. If they were manly men in the way of men of the wild west, even, they'd publicly stand up for what the constitutional amendment they say they believe in, and open carry their weapons. Everyone would be safer for the heads up of seeing an open carry gun toter.

[aquart]

51. Ridiculous. Also impossible. Also lousy trend.

How about just reading it correctly with the words "well-regulated" included?

[totodeinhere]

52. The Constitution was written over 200 years ago by privileged white guys that owned slaves.

If you are going to use that as a reason to repeal the Second Amendment you may as well repeal the entire constitution.