Dare I say it? Repealing the Second Amendment. Is this an idea worth exploring?

Oh I respect that this is a serious issue. My opinion is that you certainly don't, hence the post, and the thread. I suspect that the only goal here is to wax poetically about how cool a disarmed civilian population is, and how effective then, government abuse of citizens could then be accomplished.

I will point out that your theory that the states would then regulate has a flaw. The federal government, in the absence of a restriction to do so, would most certainly then create law which would then bind the states. I suspect that you may have considered this, and just assumed no one else would notice.. So, in your rash effort to push yet another erosion of personal liberty on the people in some ridiculous notion that somehow this will stop or abate gun crime is sophomoric at best. I suggest that before you try trotting this dribble out again that you more fully educate yourself on the law in the US if you insist on continuing to post about it.

My second thought here is that you have repeatedly suggested that all of our rights could be removed. Again, to what point? Are you really so angry that suddenly, the right to kill your unborn child means that folks shouldn't have any rights at all? Because that seriously looks like your intent here.

 

You asked for it.

"Necessary" - akin to "need" - is an exceptionally strong word.

Demonstrate the "necessity" for this.
Be sure to explain how the people in states with "lax" gun laws and have little to no gun-related crime should be regulated to the same standard as those with strong gun laws an higher rates of gun-related crime

Demonstrate the "necessity" for this.
Be sure to include the include the proportion of firearms that are, and then are not, used illegally.

Demonstrate this to be true
Specifically, show that the 2nd amendment - which, as a prohibition on government action can only have an effect when a court rules a government action violates the constitution - has had any negative effect on anything.

When you look at the numbers it takes about 14.5 million "no" votes across 13 states to prevent the repeal.
It also takes 2/3 of both houses of Congress - people willing to put their seats on the line.
So....The word you're looking for is "impossible"

Let's quantify this problem:
~1100 firearms were used in a violent crime yesterday
How may were not?
How does this demonstrate we need to repeal the 2nd?

 

-After- they commit a crime?
What keeps them from getting another one?

 

Really.
Tell us about he recent mass shootings in the state of CA, with its draconian gun laws.
is issue.

 

This statement is false, and has no rational or factual basis.

The "interpretation" that the "Second Amendment was to protect the right of the militia, not the individual right to bear arms" has NEVER been held by the USSC.

 

This statement is false and has no rational or factual basis.

 

The counter-counter argument:
-You cannot demonstrate the repeal of the 2nd would limit access by criminals to those weapons
-You cannot demonstrate the level of firearms -related violent crime in the US creates the necessity to limit access to those weapons.

Case in point:
We have ~20,000,000 AR15s in the US.
In 2022, they were used to murder 54 people in mass shootings.
Ho does this demonstrate the necessity of "limiting access" by the law abiding to AR-15s?

 

Specious argument, as there are any number of traditionally lawful uses for a firearm that do not involve killing .
That said:
Sometimes, people need to kill people; this is the entire reason for the 2nd Amendment.

 

gun banners constantly make false statements. IT goes back to the fact that their entire arguments are built on the lie that crime control is their main motivation

 

45 million is a more accurate number I believe. but your valid point remains valid

 

Otherwise, the banners/gun controllers would be all in, and motivated to target the largest US demographic that is primarily doing all the killing, but they never do.
With many, it's all about getting the law-abiding gun owner to give up their guns instead of targeting and going after the real culprits, violent offenders.

 

It's hard to herd an armed populace into boxcars.

 

as you are aware of-Democrats started gun control for racist reasons and then to pretend they were doing something about crime without actually doing anything that harmed those who already were banned from possessing firearms.

 

I am talking about confiscating ALL guns.

 

Do you plan to lead the charge or just send people out to die in your stead?

 

Send people.

 

110% agree with you on this one, but I'm a little bit biased in that I've liked guns ever since I found out about them as a little kid. And motorcycles. Both of these involve speed, which I also like, and have been surprised to learn that I like commuting on Houston's very own NASCAR highway: 225. I don't get nearly as cray on it as some folks I've seen weave in between lanes with little more than a single car width of space to change - but, give me a line of sight and an opportunity to weave 2oo3 lanes to the right and then back to the left or other 3 or four car length variations and usually I'm on it. And yes, I'm one of the people that believe tickets should be issued more for not passing when in the left lane than speeding in it. Ah, but I digress....

Horrific stuff makes the news far too frequently involving gun murders. Not because the news is "controlled" by left wing media, imo. But because news loves drama and even more so since the big three Ike era machines have lost all control of the situation. And certainly the news is not the spot to look for developing my political priority list. Nope that would be my wallet. And my number one beef there is obviously the lack of western civilized style health care in the US.

Patricio, nope, love you man, but no, no, no.... Even though I agree that the US 2A and the NRA's lobbying efforts have resulted in what has become a bit of shitshow. The 2A literally as Golem has pointed out only allows guns in the context of a well regulated militia. Like Switzerland does it.

 

Heller v US established that the "militia" wording in the 2A in no way limits the rights of a citizen to own and bear arms. That's the LAW.

 

good luck with that.

 

not true-no supreme court case has ever held that-and btw-there is nothing in the constitution that ever gave the federal government any proper power to regulate firearms-that came from the FDR administration pretending the commerce clause allows that. but if you like that-you must accept the holding of the supreme court that ruled that the second protects an individual right

 

the OP isn't about banning guns.

 

The OP isn't about banning guns, per se. It removes the sancitmonious crap in the cult of guns since 2A says 'shall not infringe' and it gives 2a nutters an argument that any reg 'infringes'. Well, it doesn't, and so says the court, but I'm tired of fighting with those people, and repealing 2a would pull the rug from under the nutters and allow states to regulate guns without crap from the NRA and the gun nutters. No one is suggesting banning guns. As for the bit about well regulated militia, that was true before Heller, but not after. If we can't repeal 2a, we can reverse Heller. Heller is based on false interpretations of history, anyway, it's rather recent in terms of history and it was voted on a party line vote, hardly the stuff of strong president. Moreover, the OP is just a conversation starter.

 

SCOTUS has interpreted 2A allowing for regulation. SCOTUS tells us what the constitution says.

 

Guns good. Tyranny bad.