If the Second Amendment was Repealed...

[dust1n]

...in a constitutional manner:

Article Five of the United States Constitution describes the process whereby the Constitution may be altered. Such amendments may be proposed by the United States Congress or by a national convention assembled at the request of the legislatures of at least two-thirds of the states. The method of proposal by national convention has been attempted twice, but never succeeded. The method of proposal by Congress requires a supermajority of two-thirds of both houses; this means two-thirds of those members voting in each house—assuming that a quorum exists when the vote is cast—and not necessarily two-thirds of the entire membership. Amendment proposals generally contain a deadline before which the ratification by states must be completed, but the legal status of such a deadline remains unsettled. To become valid, an amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the states—that is, by 38 out of the current 50 US states (by 2013), either by their legislatures or by ratifying conventions. States choosing the convention method usually hold elections specifically for the purpose of choosing delegates to the convention. Once certified by the Archivist of the United States, the amendment takes effect according to its provisions and the other rules of the constitution.

Constitutional amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1.) Would you use your guns to shoot at people coming to get them, and

2.) Would you say it was in the interest of the Constitution, Bill or Rights, Founding Fathers, etc.?

Thanks.

EDIT: By the way, I meant to say repealed. Mod may fix that in the title, please.

 

[Sunstone]

EDIT: By the way, I meant to say repealed. Mod may fix that in the title, please.

Fixed.

 

[Sunstone]

Well, it would be the first time a liberty had been repealed, so I don't think it should be undertaken lightly. But the gun debate has come down to intransigence on both sides, so if even moderate reforms are to be done to curtail gun facilitated violence, then perhaps repeal is the only remaining path.

I prefer replacement though. A new amendment spelling out gun rights, limits on those rights, responsibilities of gun owners, etc.

 

[dust1n]

Well, it would be the first time a liberty had been repealed, so I don't think it should be undertaken lightly. But the gun debate has come down to intransigence on both sides, so if even moderate reforms are to be done to curtail gun facilitated violence, then perhaps repeal is the only remaining path.

I prefer replacement though. A new amendment spelling out gun rights, limits on those rights, responsibilities of gun owners, etc.

Sure, that works. But still assume for the purposes of the conversation that the action was taken through the means granted in the Constitution. It doesn't necessarily mean that guns will be confiscated, or that anyone is coming to get your guns, but do you react violently to the situation.

I think that was a better way to put it.

 

[Sunstone]

Sure, that works. But still assume for the purposes of the conversation that the action was taken through the means granted in the Constitution. It doesn't necessarily mean that guns will be confiscated, or that anyone is coming to get your guns, but do you react violently to the situation.

I think that was a better way to put it.

Violently? I like guns. I've owned guns. Don't own any at the moment, but I've no reason to suppose I absolutely won't again someday. But react violently? Not a chance.

 

[freethinker44]

They wouldn't even need to repeal it. Simply creating a new amendment defining the term 'militia' to mean 'members of the US military' would be sufficient enough to nullify gun rights.

 

[Sunstone]

They wouldn't even need to repeal it. Simply creating a new amendment defining the term 'militia' to mean 'members of the US military' would be sufficient enough to nullify gun rights.

Who wants that, though? I'm for restricting their scope, but not for nullification.

 

[freethinker44]

Who wants that, though? I'm for restricting their scope, but not for nullification.

I was just pointing out a way to effectively repeal the amendment without actually repealing it. I wouldn't vote against a nationwide ban on guns, but I wouldn't push for it. I definitely think we need stricter gun control though, at a minimum it should be harder to buy a gun than it is to vote, that's ridiculous to me that our country is that backwards right now.

 

[BSM1]

Well, it would be the first time a liberty had been repealed, so I don't think it should be undertaken lightly. But the gun debate has come down to intransigence on both sides, so if even moderate reforms are to be done to curtail gun facilitated violence, then perhaps repeal is the only remaining path.

You might want to re-look at the Eighteenth amendment and how that worked out.

I prefer replacement though. A new amendment spelling out gun rights, limits on those rights, responsibilities of gun owners, etc.

You're still in the same process for adding an amendment as changing/repealing one. I don't think the Second amendment is in any danger. However something underhanded concerning things like ammunition is a better bet.

 

[Iti oj]

Is this question even safe to answer?

 

[LuisDantas]

Quite frankly, the Second Ammendment is meaningless in and of itself. I can only assume it was meant to be from the start, in order to create a feeling of agreement, artificial as it is.

After all, who gets to decide what is a "militia", and how it becomes "well-regulated"?

Therefore, either keeping or repealing it is also meaningless in and of itself. But it can be very interesting and revealing indeed to see what kind of justification and atmosphere is involved in any such movement.

 

[Revoltingest]

My prediction:
If the 2nd were repealed, we'd see many states enact amendments to their constitutions to preserve the right.
It would be similar to the result of the USSC's de facto partial repeal of the Fifth's protection against takings,
in Kelo v City of New London. Some of the states stepped up to restore the lost right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

 

[Reverend Rick]

It is never going to happen in my life time, so there is no need to answer the question. I think a better question would be what if we were to repeal the first amendment? Would you be silent?

 

[Revoltingest]

Quite frankly, the Second Ammendment is meaningless in and of itself. I can only assume it was meant to be from the start, in order to create a feeling of agreement, artificial as it is.

Meaning is in the eye of the beholder.
Perhaps you can't see it because you so greatly oppose it.

After all, who gets to decide what is a "militia"...

10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes | LII / Legal Information Institute

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

..., and how it becomes "well-regulated"?

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Iti oj]

It is never going to happen in my life time, so there is no need to answer the question. I think a better question would be what if we were to repeal the first amendment? Would you be silent?

Or any of them really.

 

[dust1n]

It is never going to happen in my life time, so there is no need to answer the question. I think a better question would be what if we were to repeal the first amendment? Would you be silent?

Why would that be a better question if we already established it's not going to happen in our lifetimes and there is no need to answer the question?

 

[Iti oj]

Why would that be a better question if we already established it's not going to happen in our lifetimes and there is no need to answer the question?

because it is not about guns, or at least guns them selves. Also its a safer question to answer.

 

[freethinker44]

It is never going to happen in my life time, so there is no need to answer the question. I think a better question would be what if we were to repeal the first amendment? Would you be silent?

The right to free speech is already restricted, much more so than the right to bear arms.

 

[Iti oj]

The right to free speech is already restricted, much more so than the right to bear arms.

That is a mute point(one i am not conceding too just not going off topic ) That does not measure into the point because were comparing completely removing the rights not restrictions.

 

[LuisDantas]

Meaning is in the eye of the beholder.
Perhaps you can't see it because you so greatly oppose it.

No, not really. I do greatly oppose it, of course. But that makes no difference here, none at all.

Quite on the contrary, even. It is rather far more like people see meaning in what is demonstrably one particularly vague and contradictory piece of legislation (and that is a very high bar indeed) because they want so very badly for it to exist there.

Do you disagree? Then follow with me:

A well regulated,

Regulations are not freedoms. Porn is regulated. War treaties are regulated. Free speech, a freedom, is protected instead of regulated.

Militia,

A particularly vague word, since militias are non-fighters that end up fighting anyway.

In any case, militias are expected to have a goal, a purpose, a political statement at least. The implication is that the second ammendment demands such a political statement from those who expect to benefit from it.

And yet, this word seems to be ignored outright by most people who claim that it is important to "keep" the Second Ammendment. I see people talking about having some sort of right to have weapons for sport, for hunting, for "defense", and for exercising some sort of personal freedom.

How many of those people claim to be or think of themselves as part of some kind of militia, though? And if they do, how can we learn which militia is that and what purpose it serves?

Perhaps that stated just next:

being necessary to the security of a free State,

This clause is a true challenge to understanding if not grammar. To the extent that it clarifies anything, it is that the whole ammendment only applies towards militias understood as being necessary to protect the state. Something like the National Guard, perhaps.

The most natural reading of the text is in fact that at times when the State does not need a militia to be safe (which would be ever since some time around the early 1800s if I am not mistaken) the Second Ammendment does not apply at all.

The USA currently have a far bigger army than the rest of the world combined. To claim that it also needs a "well regulated militia" in order to be "secure" at this point in history is simply ludicrous and impossible to support with facts.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Another very interesting piece of text. It does not even state that such a right exists at all, just that it shall not be infringed - that is, its limits should not be exceeded.

The actual rights and limits are apparently to be defined elsewhere, perhaps in the individual State Constitutions.

They are certainly not defined in this ammendment beyond the ill-defined and restricted group of "members of a well regulated militia during a time when the security of the State demands their existence".

That is about as far non-commited a wording as they come, and as removed from the intent of allowing civilians to arm themselves as one can imagine.

The challenge to me is not to wonder if the Second Ammendment can or should be repealed, but rather why it should make any difference at all. Going by its actual expressed meaning, it is not any help to those who want to have firearms in current day USA.

Except, I suppose, if they want to declare themselves members of a pro-government militia. Then it might be argued to apply.


Edited to add: also, notice that the verb employed here is not "to own", but rather "to bear". If that is supposed to translate into ownership as opposed to (say) taking and using the weapons of others without bothering to legally buy them, then that clarification was made somewhere else, not here.


On second thought, the Second Ammendment is not really as vague as I thought. It is instead the State reserving itself the right to legally empower civilians to fight on its behalf. A very fascist right, and one that empowers the State at the expense of the citizens' rights.

Of course, that is nowhere near the reading that is usually attributed to it. But that is law for you and me. It is not supposed to make sense, nor to be understood or applied logically.