JIMMY12345
Active Member
Ukraine!
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What if the Second Amendment Were Repealed?
- Thread starter Debater Slayer
- Start date
The blowback from such a thing would be unmanageable. If any of the Bill of Rights were to be repealed, then it would make the rest of the Bill of Rights vulnerable in the eyes of the people. There would be a massive run to buy guns and people would start producing their own ammunition. It would be viewed as the government turning against the people, even by liberal-minded folk like me. If the government can't be trusted to keep rights secure, then the people will seek to secure their own rights themselves, with weapons if necessary.
Well said. And the Founders would be right with those people, in spirit.
There are many liberals against the Second Amendment, though, so I do wonder what the overall reaction would be among more liberal parts of the population.
The idea that some people would be willing to kill law enforcement officials over a repeal of the Second Amendment sounds both alien and disturbing to me, but I suppose every culture has something it would be especially touchy about losing. I think legalizing "blasphemy" could elicit a similarly violent reaction in some parts of the Muslim world, for instance.
I think there's evidence that many wouldn't be so ready to engage in violence over the loss of a perceived right, though. The reversal of Roe v. Wade and consequent abortion bans in about half of the US seem to me an example of this.
Some of the Founding Fathers also owned slaves, so I'm not sure their sentiments necessarily map properly to today's circumstances or should be assumed in that manner. They were people of their time, after all.
I had a Federal Firearms License for 9 years back in the late 90's into 2000's. This is a license issued by the BATF that allows me to buy guns wholesale and sell them to the public. I got a license to buy old military rifles cheaper, most all relics which is part of my interest in military history. I had to have people fill out the paperwork. This was when the Brady Bill passed and I had to call in background checks on buyers.
The way background checks works is this: you call the number and tell the person (or leave the info on a recording) the data about the buyer of a gun. If they didn't get back to me within 3 days the buyer gets the gun even though the background check wasn't conducted in time. Usually they got back to me within a day. But they were understaffed and many people got guns without a check. Not a good system. I'm not sure how it is today.
One of the hand guns I sold ended up being used in a robbery. The police came in and asked for the paperwork of the buyer. He checked out. He later sold the gun to someone else. That guy sold it to the criminal who used it in a crime. There is no law that prevents a gun owner to sell a gun they legally bought to a criminal. There is no background check.
The really bad story was about the guy who bought five AR15s.
He was the coworker of a friend. He came in and bought two in one purchase and three a week later in another purchase. He did this for a reason. He knew if a person buys 5 or more guns at once I had to fill out a separate form and send it to the BATF. He'd be on their radar, and he didn't want that.
He passed the background check. About a month later he came with my buddy and me to shoot on the Kansas river between KC and Lawrence. We did this near a shooting range club, maybe 1/4 mile away.
We set up targets on sand bars on the river. After about five minutes we had things set up and Tim opens up with his AR15 fully automatic. I asked him if I could see his gun and shoot it and he said yes. I confirmed it was fully automatic. This is a serious federal crime. I said we all need to leave right now. Get your stuff and let's go. If the sheriff catch us with a full auto gun we are all going to jail. I was hoping there wasn't a cop at the shooting range who heard it.
It turned out Tim had sold three of the guns to friends. That is three counts of the federal crime of a "strawman purchase"
It also turned out Tim and his friends were these sovereign citizens who don't recognize the authority of federal government or even any governments. Why didn't I call the BATF about this? Well how can you trust guys who have no problem converting guns to full auto? Who have disdain for the rule of law?
After that I can't see how we can trust ordinary citizens to get these military guns. They may pass background checks but that doesn't imply they are mentally sound and responsible. Even if a person is good, there is no system that regulates who can buy a gun second hand.
I think there needs to be a set of laws that heavily regulate guns. The modern military-based guns need to be very, very hard to get. I think requiring licenses for gun owners and training and requiring sales between citizens need to go through a dealer and the buyer have a background check.
I can't see guns being outlawed so we need to be very specific about how people can get access to them. It's easier to make it harder to get certain guns than making them illegal. States can outlaw assault-style rifles. So there could be a market for them being sold to citizens of states where they are legal. It would come down to states and the fedrral government buying back these rifles so citizens aren't out the money.
The way background checks works is this: you call the number and tell the person (or leave the info on a recording) the data about the buyer of a gun. If they didn't get back to me within 3 days the buyer gets the gun even though the background check wasn't conducted in time. Usually they got back to me within a day. But they were understaffed and many people got guns without a check. Not a good system. I'm not sure how it is today.
One of the hand guns I sold ended up being used in a robbery. The police came in and asked for the paperwork of the buyer. He checked out. He later sold the gun to someone else. That guy sold it to the criminal who used it in a crime. There is no law that prevents a gun owner to sell a gun they legally bought to a criminal. There is no background check.
The really bad story was about the guy who bought five AR15s.
He was the coworker of a friend. He came in and bought two in one purchase and three a week later in another purchase. He did this for a reason. He knew if a person buys 5 or more guns at once I had to fill out a separate form and send it to the BATF. He'd be on their radar, and he didn't want that.
He passed the background check. About a month later he came with my buddy and me to shoot on the Kansas river between KC and Lawrence. We did this near a shooting range club, maybe 1/4 mile away.
We set up targets on sand bars on the river. After about five minutes we had things set up and Tim opens up with his AR15 fully automatic. I asked him if I could see his gun and shoot it and he said yes. I confirmed it was fully automatic. This is a serious federal crime. I said we all need to leave right now. Get your stuff and let's go. If the sheriff catch us with a full auto gun we are all going to jail. I was hoping there wasn't a cop at the shooting range who heard it.
It turned out Tim had sold three of the guns to friends. That is three counts of the federal crime of a "strawman purchase"
It also turned out Tim and his friends were these sovereign citizens who don't recognize the authority of federal government or even any governments. Why didn't I call the BATF about this? Well how can you trust guys who have no problem converting guns to full auto? Who have disdain for the rule of law?
After that I can't see how we can trust ordinary citizens to get these military guns. They may pass background checks but that doesn't imply they are mentally sound and responsible. Even if a person is good, there is no system that regulates who can buy a gun second hand.
I think there needs to be a set of laws that heavily regulate guns. The modern military-based guns need to be very, very hard to get. I think requiring licenses for gun owners and training and requiring sales between citizens need to go through a dealer and the buyer have a background check.
I can't see guns being outlawed so we need to be very specific about how people can get access to them. It's easier to make it harder to get certain guns than making them illegal. States can outlaw assault-style rifles. So there could be a market for them being sold to citizens of states where they are legal. It would come down to states and the fedrral government buying back these rifles so citizens aren't out the money.
There's my "properly", & then there is the wrong "properly".
Some having owned slaves is immaterial regarding
the issue of voiding one of the rights in the Bill Of
Rights.
It should be about 3 main things...
- What rights were originally conferred by
the Amendment.
- What are the potential benefits & deleterious
consequences of repealing the Amendment.
- What is the method of repealing the Amendment.
If not done by fiat (either legislative or judicial)
instead formal constitutional process, there
would be grave consequences, ie, making it
too easy for government to delete rights.
Um, it's in the Declaration of Independence that we have the right to remove a government that no longer upholds our rights or serves the interests of the people, and to replace it. This has nothing to do with shifting social trends. This is in the DNA of the US.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Well, the premise in the OP is that all branches of the US government somehow agree to repeal the Second Amendment. I don't think that would be practical, and I doubt it will ever happen, but I sought to explore that scenario in this thread.
Eschewing the formal constitutional amendment
process by such a power grab would lead to
widespread violent resistance.
I didn't read the OP as intentionally proposing
unconstitutional means.
I assume there are specific mechanisms in place to alter or abolish a government, because otherwise any group of people deeming the government to be against their rights would just try to undermine it through vigilantism or illegal means (e.g., the January 6 insurrectionists).
The US legal system has been increasingly looking tenuous and flawed in the last several years, though, and this is something many analysts both from the US and elsewhere have commented on. I have to wonder how well the Founding Fathers' vision of protecting rights would even work out in practice should it need to be implemented today.
That implies those likely to engage in violent resistance would be well-versed in the constitutional nuances of such a process. I don't share that level of optimism after following American politics since 2012 or so.
There is no "constitutional nuance" that would
allow the 3 branches to repeal an amendment
from the Bill Of Rights (or any other right) by fiat.
The year 2012 (& any other year) is irrelevant
to the consequences of government illegally
seizing such power.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Oaths requires protection of the Constitution and rights associated with the Constitution.
I mean that I don't know whether people would engage in violent resistance specifically due to awareness of due process for repealing a constitutional amendment.
The last several years are relevant because they have demonstrated the extent to which misinformation and conspiracy theories—rather than constitutional or legal knowledge—can influence the stances of a considerable portion of the population.
Oath or no oath, politicians who'd dare to
wrongfully seize such power should woe.
How likely do you think evangelical theocrats snd their supporters in general would be to strongly object if the First Amendment were modified to remove separation of religion and state law?
If what you propose were to occur, the
unaware would soon be made aware.
Virulence of conspiracy theories doesn't mean
that an illegal repeal of a constitutional right
would be lost in that fog.
By asking the question about "theocrats", I'd
expect little objection to removing separation.
Your question is rather tautological.
Why ask it?