Skip to main content

View Diary: Should the 2nd Amendment Be Repealed? (87 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Repealing the 2nd amendment does absolutely... (6+ / 0-)

    ...nothing to institute the prohibition of firearms.

    Where did you ever get the idea that it did?

    It would allow for the institution of rational public policies and laws reguarding firearms without constitutional interference in exactly the same way as the 21st Amendment allows for the institution of rational policies and laws with respect to alchohol without constitutional interference.

    The 2nd Amendment, like the 19 Amendment, short circuts that process of rational policy making.

    •  Very true. It is not necessary for gun ownership. (4+ / 0-)

      It's bizarre that some think it is. All too many of them have been led like lemmings into fearing that its end would mean the end of guns in America.

      Perish the thought!!

      United States and Yemen are the only two nations with a special right for buying deadly pieces of metal. The rest of the world gets on just fine without a 2nd amendment, and people buy guns just fine virtually everywhere.

      We don't have a special right to buy TVs, smartphones, cars, houses, etc. But we still manage to buy them.

      . . . .

      Ironically, the response to even the idea of getting rid of the 2nd is a great argument in favor of doing just that. Its mere existence has created a hornet's nest and a Frankenstein's monster of entitlement beliefs. It's created the most bizarre of linkages: guns and "freedom". No other inanimate object has quite the same connection. Though, cars come close. Cars, of course, actually make sense, when you think of it. Guns, uh, no. Guns are used more often to kill freedom, to make it bleed out all over the street.

      •  So the best we could expect with repeal (3+ / 0-)

        is a level of firearm violence roughly similar to other industrialized countries (which isn't zero), and a robust black market.

        •  Why the black market? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dream weaver, AdamR510

          I think a repeal would make it easier to pass sensible, common sense legislation.

          The SA doesn't prevent regulation or restriction as is. Not in the slightest. We could do all the regulation and restriction needed without repeal. But too many people think it does. Too many people are afraid to make any moves because of its presence.

           And, as mentioned, it creates false narratives and absurdist cult(ure)s regarding guns, that could be whittled away over time in its absence. It would help an overall evolution away from the glorification of the gun and its (misread) association with our founding.

          That would reduce gun violence, save lives and allow society to decide for itself on guns, instead of letting gun manufacturers and their lemmings decide. That might include stopping the manufacture, import, sale, resale and possession of certain WMD. If they're not even produced, you won't have much of a black market.

          •  Your faith in legislators is touching, but I would (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Victor Ward

            still expect a lot of 10th Amendment and Commerce Clause jurisprudence the Federal Government may not welcome. I could also see successful attempts to incorporate 2nd Amendment-type language a fair number of state Constitutions.

            I don't think guys like these and similar operations world-wide will stop producing firearms.

            In short, be prepared to trade problems, not solve them.

            •  The 10th is overridden by the 14th. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              coquiero

              It's a prewar amendment that was all but negated by the Civil War and subsequent amendments and laws.

              It's a relic, and trotted out these days primarily by neoconfederates.

              Fuck that.

              And the Commerce Clause actually aids in the regulation of firearms. It lends major support to regulation and restriction. It does the opposite of what you say. Throw in the Necessary and Proper clause, the Equal Protection clause and the General Welfare clause, and we have all the ammo needed to regulate ammo and weaponry.

              •  Security in one's assumptions (0+ / 0-)

                can be a great comfort.

                By the by, I have no idea what the outcomes of my speculation would be. Perhaps you are correct. But to pretend it would be a simple, uncontentious process seems naive to me. I wouldn't be shocked to see levels of emotion regarding personal freedom and states rights equal in intensity to slavery.

                •  Who says it would be easy? Not me. (0+ / 0-)

                  I know it will cause a shit storm.

                  But it's needed. We need to end the rule of the gun in America. We need to end the underlying threat of guns that prevents sensible gun safety policy and legislation. We need to take back our society from gun nuts and their ability to suppress gun violence studies, shield gun manufacturers, pimp for gun manufacturers, and prevent policies, regulations and laws that would improve public safety.

                  Public safety should always trump gun profits. Right now, it doesn't. Public safety is tragically a distant concern.

                  That needs to end. Yesterday.

              •  The 10th wasn't overriden. It is a truism. (0+ / 0-)

                United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 124 (1941)
                "The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers."

                It is a superfluous truism, that was used in the Supreme Court in 1997 in a case that ruled against the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.

                Last I checked 1997 was after the passage of the 14th.

                Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                by FrankRose on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 02:58:12 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  And this reduced violence is chopped liver? (0+ / 0-)

          Also, what do you mean by robust? How about a black market roughly similar to other industrialized countries?

          Ceterem censeo, gerrymandra delenda est

          by Mokurai on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 03:49:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  The GOP 2nd Amendment meme is based on racism! (4+ / 0-)

        The GOP uses the racism fears of whites and argue that it is needed to protect us from the blacks!

        GOP: We need our guns to protect us from the N......!

        Make no mistake about the fear that the GOP pushes.

        FEAR
        FEAR
        FEAR

        FEAR = money for GOP and businesses.

    •  What policies do you want installed that is (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      erush1345, andalusi

      unachievable because of the 2nd a?

      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

      by FrankRose on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 08:57:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The 2nd doesn't prevent gun safety legislation, (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dream weaver, Victor Ward, coquiero

        regulations or restrictions. But too many people think it does. So that stifles the enactment of common sense legislation.

        That would be the following:

        Limit guns to those that must be loaded by hand, one bullet at a time.

        License gun owners and register guns. Treat guns like cars.

        Offer voluntary national gun buyback program. Pay good money as incentive to get illegal guns off the streets.

        Get rid of all restrictions on gun violence studies. Hire new workers and fund additional studies at the CDC and the NIH.

        Get rid of all shield laws on the gun industry.

        Override and negate "stand your ground" legislation on a federal level.

        To name a few . . .

        •  So...the second Amendment makes people oppose laws (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Victor Ward

          making said laws too hard to pass.

          Thus you want to take the path of repealing an Amendment in the Bill of Rights.
          Great plan.
          Now if you will excuse me typing on my phone is too hard so I'm going to get a business loan in order to open a telegraph office so I can have a message sent in Morse code to India where someone can type it for me.

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 10:52:44 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It distorts the process and provides a false (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            dream weaver, AdamR510, coquiero

            narrative which stifles common sense reform.

            It helps to glorify the gun, and helps along an absurd linkage between guns and "freedom."

            It turns rational discussion into something akin to religious debate. It alters the dynamic from the scientific to the theological, the metaphysical, even the alchemical.

            In short, it's a major obstacle between us and sanity.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site