Repealing the 2nd Amendment

[hso]

If we are fed up with the ratcheting away of our rights as various anti-firearms ownership groups try to "interpret" the 2nd amendment to fit their views why don't we attempt to have the wording changed to the clear statement that no law or regulation infringing upon the individual right of a citizen to keep and bear arms shall be allowed?

If this were proposed and the process started it would bring the question to the nation as a whole and require the American public as a whole to make it's postion clear. It would require 2/3 rds of the states to pass it and would would lay the question to rest once and for all.

 

[Henry Bowman]

Back in the '70s there was a movement to amend the Constitution to add the ERA. The media gave it a LOT of attention. It got nowhere. It would probably fail even today. Today, the media is absolutely anti gun. Today the voting public is either more anti gun, more ignorant of guns, or more "pro safety at the expense of liberty," or all of the above.

Do you seriously believe that an even stronger Second Amendment would be passed by Congress, let alone ratified by the states, today?

 

[Werewolf]

That's a wonderful expression of what would solve all the real and supposed problems caused by the wording of the 2nd Amendment.

But still - I have to ask. What color is the sky in your world?

Fixing the 2nd and making it clear to all that the RKBA is an individual right and not to be infringed is NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN. EVER. AND THAT'S A LONG LONG TIME.

The powers that be don't want the wording fixed. If it was they couldn't take away the instruments from the people that keep them in check.

The people don't want it fixed. Most of them think the 2nd ought to be repealed. That it is obsolete and irrelevant in today's world.

The only folks that want the 2nd fixed are guys like us and though we might imagine our way is the right way we are a small minority in a nation populated by folks afraid of guns.

No my friend. The 2nd is more likely to be repealed than to ever have its wording fixed so that the sanction against infringing the RKBA is clear to all.

 

[hillbilly]

It won't matter what wording the Second Amendment has.

The wording of the First Amendment can't get much more clear and obvious than it already is.

Yet how many "First Amendment" court cases are there evey year?

How many laws get wrangled over depending on if they do or do not violate the First Amendment?

Not even the Supreme Court can agree unanimously if Campaign Finance Reform violates the First Amendment.

This fight will never end, no matter what.

hillbilly

 

[R.H. Lee]

The 2nd already says what it means and means what it says. "......the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be INFRINGED". No amount of torturing and perverting those words changes the meaning.

Period.

End of story.

Come and get them.

 

[boofus]

Even if the grabbers repeal the 2nd amendment it doesn't change a thing. Thomas Jefferson said these unalienable rights are endowed to all people by a power greater than government. Striking words from a document won't unendow those rights.

Molon Labe indeed.

 

[Sistema1927]

Recognize that many of the Founders did not feel that there was a need for a "Bill of Rights", understanding that rights cannot be granted by government, due to the fact that they already exist from the Creator.

The Bill of Rights does not grant us any rights, it simply enumerates those that already exist. Even without a 2nd Amendment, free men would still have the right to take up arms in defense of their lives and property and to overthrow tyranical governments. Even without the 1st Amendment, free men would still have the rights to free speech, free assembly, and reliegious liberty, etc.

The Bill of Rights does not limit free men, it limits government, and exists to demonstrate that no government has the right to trample the rights of its citizens, rights that they already possess.

 

[USAFNoDAk]

Even if the grabbers repeal the 2nd amendment it doesn't change a thing. Thomas Jefferson said these unalienable rights are endowed to all people by a power greater than government. Striking words from a document won't unendow those rights.

This is correct. All it will do is make some of them feel less guilty about trampling on the right to keep and bear arms, because it no longer would say that you can't. That is if the anti's tried to repeal the 2nd.

In regards to changing the wording, that would have to go through the amendment process as well, and I agree with some earlier posters in that we would never get that passed in todays America. Remember, you need a super majority in Congress to pass and amendment, and then ratification by, what, 3/4 of the states? Not likely in todays environment where people are ready and willing to trade liberty for a little peceived and temporary security (safety in todays lingo).

 

[Brett Bellmore]

A few weeks ago a majority of the Senate voted to extend the '94 "assault weapon" ban. You really think we're going to get a 2/3rds vote of the Senate for an amendment to make it clear that what 52% of them voted for is forbidden?

Get serious. This proposal to get a NEW 2nd amendment to make things "clear", as though they weren't already, is just a scheme by the anti-gunners; They'd take it as a tacit admission that the CURRENT 2nd amendment doesn't guarantee a right. And then it would fail to even make it out of Congress.

 

[Sam Adams]

First of all, any amendment requires the approval of 3/4 of the states, not 2/3.

Second, I think that the chance of an ironclad version of the 2nd passing now or in the foreseeable future is substantially less than the chance that: a) Bill Clinton will start telling the truth all the time; b) Bill Clinton will stop looking at pretty women and wondering "Gee, I wonder what she'd be like;" c) Hillary Clinton will publicly state that she never wants to be President; d) Ted Kennedy will stop drinking liquor, lose 75 pounds, admit to murdering Mary Jo Kopechne and sponsor a bill to repeal the '86 machine gun ban, the ''68 GCA and the '34 NFA; AND e) John Kerry will fail to mention that he's a Vietnam Vet for the rest of the 2004 campaign - ALL AT THE SAME TIME!

In other words, it ain't gonna happen.

Third, even if it did, the courts would find a way to ignore it.

Fourth, it wouldn't matter if the 2nd was repealed (another extraordinarily unlikely event), since the Bill of Rights simply enumerates CERTAIN basic rights that the Feds (and now the states, via the 14th Amendment) cannot infringe upon (at least that's the theory)...and, as we all know, in theory there's no difference between theory and practice; in practice, there is.

In short, its a good idea that unfortunately has no chance of ever being adopted.

 

[ctdonath]

Those who wilfully ignore the plain meaning of words will not be persuaded by more words.

 

[Battler]

1800s Civil war war aside, the US constitution truly died back in the 30s.

They got judges to redefine it, and that was that.

The 1st amendment isn't faring any better than the 2nd, both are actually dead. The 2nd amendment actually hasn't protected us from any gun laws, only angry voting rednecks have.

The 1st amendment is kind of kicking, except it doesn't protect political speech, just porn. Ironically, the "others" use it as an excuse to PROHIBIT free speech (see pushes for media control based with Fox not saying what they want them to say as an excuse). Generally, not providing someone a FORUM for their speech is brought up as depriving someone of their first amendment rights: (See Susan Sarandon etc. complaining that people not liking them is depriving them of their right to free speech).

Also, with the first amendment, is the "congress shall make no religion" stuff. Ironically, this is being used to prohibit religion. Despite even religious people being too - stupid - to see, as the US becomes more socialist and more activities are "nationalized", it will become harder and harder to practice religion. It's likely we may see servicing of a church with a public road become a "first amendment violation", although it's just as likely we'll just go the way of communist countries - religion will be tolerated; but nobody of consequence will be involved, as you would lose your position in the party/good job.


The much vaunted US constitution (either the main section, or the bill of rights) ain't what it's cracked up to be. It's too vague to defend itself. Yeah, it's authors didn't understand socialism back in the day; but either way it's not doing us any good.

Heck, the only time something is ruled "constitutional" is when it's NOT listed in the constitution.

 

[Standing Wolf]

The leftist extremists would dearly love to repeal the Second Amendment and rewrite the First so only they would enjoy freedom of speech.