Skip to main content

View Diary: Should the 2nd Amendment Be Repealed?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

Comment Preferences

  •  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 ]

          •  Read Article 6. The Supremacy Clause. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            coquiero
            This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
            Two good articles on the lunacy of tentherism here:

            http://www.alternet.org/...
            and

            here:

            Rally Round the True Constitution

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (145)
  • Community (68)
  • Elections (34)
  • Media (33)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (31)
  • Environment (30)
  • 2016 (29)
  • Law (28)
  • Culture (27)
  • Civil Rights (26)
  • Barack Obama (24)
  • Hillary Clinton (24)
  • Science (23)
  • Climate Change (23)
  • Republicans (23)
  • Labor (21)
  • Economy (19)
  • Marriage Equality (19)
  • Jeb Bush (18)
  • Josh Duggar (18)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site