America, wake up: It's time to repeal the Second Amendment

218 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport
America, wake up: It's time to repeal the Second Amendment

----

Issues Pages: 
NorthReport

See the excellent article today by Constitutional Law Professor Cohen in Rolling Stone

josh

Yeah, right.  Like that'll ever happen.  What we need are judges who will interpret it as it was intended.

NorthReport

Cohen says the US Constitution is outdated, a threat to liberty, a suicide pact, a flawed document written by deeply flawed sexist and racist men

josh

I don't think freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right of due process, equal protection of the law, the right of trial by jury, the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, etc. are particularly outdated.

quizzical

it was a good article

ygtbk

josh wrote:

I don't think freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right of due process, equal protection of the law, the right of trial by jury, the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, etc. are particularly outdated.

Josh, I agree with you.

NorthReport

It is flawed Cohen didn't say it was all bad but there were and are obviously some problems such as the 2nd amendment

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

So basically Josh's suggestion in #2 is insufficient?  If the bathwater goes, the baby may as well too?

NorthReport

What would be required legally to repeal the 2nd amendment?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

An actual desire to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

NorthReport

The 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution reads as follows:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

In today's polarized world chances of repealing the 2nd Amendment are next to nil however there are some things that can done to improve the situation without an actual amendment.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
In today's polarized world chances of repealing the 2nd Amendment are next to nil however there are some things that can done to improve the situation without an actual amendment.

Here's one person's idea.

NorthReport

Jeffrey Toobin in the New Yorker just wrote an article explaining how to win on gun control

It's about political will

Don't like to speak ill of the dead but Scalia's death should hasten changes in the USA to help create some meaningful gunl control

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Jeffrey Toobin in the New Yorker just wrote an article explaining how to win on gun control It's about political will

Like that clever fellow suggested in post #10!

I get the sense that you certainly aren't reading anything anyone else has posted, and I'm becoming unsure that you're reading what you've posted yourself.

NorthReport

The second amendment does not give an absolute right to carry concealed weapons

NorthReport

Like smokers who have now been ostracized and banished from buildings Americans need to start ostracizing those who support the 2nd amendment

NorthReport

Mateen's worked for a security company whose coworker reported his sickness to G4S

G4S who obviously did nothing with evidence staring them right in the face should be charged as complicit in the Orlando shooting, and everyone who supports the 2nd amendment should be questioning their own stupidity

josh

NorthReport wrote:
What would be required legally to repeal the 2nd amendment?

2/3 of congress and 3/4 of the state legislatures.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Like smokers who have now been ostracized and banished from buildings Americans need to start ostracizing those who support the 2nd amendment

Exactly.  The next time you drive past a bunch of gun addicts huddling in a doorway, supporting the 2nd Amendment, roll down your window and shout "Hey, you fucking assholes!!"

Quote:
G4S who obviously did nothing with evidence staring them right in the face should be charged as complicit in the Orlando shooting

So if one of my co-workers tells my employer that I'm a total jerk, my employer must either terminate me, or be legally and morally  complicit in anything I do, no matter how extreme?

Ya, I'm sure that'll weed out mass murderers and no one else.

josh
Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

A very interesting article. Thanks, josh.

Unionist

I'm no lawyer nor U.S. constitutional geek.

But it seems to me that some amendments (e.g. 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th) confer certain rights and protections on "persons", or individuals of various kinds.

Others (like the 2nd) do not - they confer a right on "the people", especially in the context of a "well-regulated Militia". I see no right for any individual, other than in that context, to keep or bear arms.

So the U.S. murderers (I'm talking about the state) do what they like, while the masses debate the wording of amendments to the Constitution. How convenient.

jjuares

Never going to happen. Way more gun stores than grocery stores in USA.
http://www.businessinsider.com/more-gun-stores-in-america-than-grocery-s...

NorthReport

  WHAT’S REALLY STANDING IN THE WAY OF GUN CONTROL

After the Supreme Court decided District of Columbia v. Heller, in 2008, it appeared that all attempts at gun control might be doomed, as a matter of constitutional law, for the foreseeable future. In an opinion by Antonin Scalia, writing for a five-Justice majority, the Court reversed decades of precedent and asserted that the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual the right to possess firearms (discounting the amendment’s reference to “a well regulated militia”). So, in light of monstrosities like the massacre in Orlando, are the state, local, and federal governments powerless to pass laws that restrict the purchase, possession, and use of guns?

As it turns out, no. Major Supreme Court decisions often raise as many questions as they settle, and that was certainly true of Heller. That decision rejected a District of Columbia ban on the possession of handguns that extended to weapons kept in the home, but it did not resolve many other issues regarding the regulation of firearms. Several recent lower-court decisions have narrowly interpreted the words of Heller in upholding important local rules about guns.

Last week, for example, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruledthat the Second Amendment does not give individuals an absolute right to carry concealed weapons. The case involved a challenge to a California law that bans possession of concealed weapons unless the owner of the weapon has a permit from the local police, which could be obtained for “good cause,” as defined by each locality. San Diego had said an applicant could obtain a permit under any set of circumstances that “causes him or her to be placed in harm’s way.” The city listed a few acceptable grounds for granting a permit—having a job that involved carrying large amounts of cash, for example—but it also stated, “Simply fearing for one’s personal safety alone is not considered good cause.” In an opinion by Judge William A. Fletcher, a Bill Clinton appointee, the court said that the San Diego rule was permissible under the Second Amendment. As Fletcher wrote, “Based on the overwhelming consensus of historical sources, we conclude that the protection of the Second Amendment—whatever the scope of that protection may be—simply does not extend to the carrying of concealed firearms in public by members of the general public.”

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/whats-really-standing-in-the...

NorthReport

Why Do We Have the Second Amendment?

As Voice of America reports, the framers of the Constitution wanted to ensure the protected basic rights, including the right to bear arms, that they enjoyed as Englishmen. In fact, English laws even required that men practice using their firearms should they ever be called to defend the nation.

When the colonists began to rise up against British authority, early American revolutionaries were denied these basic rights, including that to carry firearms. As Aaron Burger writes for the Christian Science Monitor, the Founding Fathers recognized through the success of their Revolution the potential benefits of an armed citizenry in dispelling a distant government.

Guns also were common; every adult male was expected to know how to use one, even if they didn't own one. Furthermore, firearms available at the time were primitive, with a limited range of only about 50 yards, Lynchburg College history professor Clifton Potter told WSET-TV.

Guns could also only fire a single shot before requiring a reload. (The repeating rifle and the revolver wouldn't be invented until the 19th century.)


http://www.seeker.com/why-do-we-have-the-second-amendment-1766326654.html

6079_Smith_W

America doesn't have a problem with guns; it has several:

http://www.vox.com/2015/10/3/9444417/gun-violence-united-states-america

 

quizzical

Michael Moriarity wrote:
A very interesting article. Thanks, josh.

yup.

Hurtin Albertan

I have always found it interesting that just about everybody seems to believe that NOBODY in the 1700's had thought of the concept of a firearm that held more than 1 shot and could be reloaded quickly.  As if everybody back in ye olden days that had seen a single shot musket had gone and said "yep, no one will ever be able to build a better gun than this one right here".

Kalthoff repeating firearms were around back in the 1600's.  The Puckle gun was patented in 1718.  Double barrelled guns were the most common way to solve the firepower problem, and there were even multiple barrelled firearms around called volley guns.

The basic concepts had been thought of long ago, the only thing holding the idea back were the materials technology of the day, a lack of advanced chemistry, cost of production, or some technical issue of some sort or another.

There is a reason why the 2nd refers to "arms" and not "single shot flintlock muskets".

6079_Smith_W

Actually the real stupidity was Mr Gatling thinking  that a machine gun would in any way make things safer.

Quote:

It occurred to me that if I could invent a machine – a gun – which could by its rapidity of fire, enable one man to do as much battle duty as a hundred, that it would, to a large extent supersede the necessity of large armies, and consequently, exposure to battle and disease [would] be greatly diminished.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Jordan_Gatling

The NRA are still successfully selling that one.

 

 

NorthReport

Senate Democrats are presently filibustering to force a vote on gun control

Paladin1

Mr. Magoo wrote:

 

I get the sense that you certainly aren't reading anything anyone else has posted, and I'm becoming unsure that you're reading what you've posted yourself.

 

That happens with firearm related topics.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Like smokers who have now been ostracized and banished from buildings Americans need to start ostracizing those who support the 2nd amendment

Exactly.  The next time you drive past a bunch of gun addicts huddling in a doorway, supporting the 2nd Amendment, roll down your window and shout "Hey, you fucking assholes!!"

 

Are you crazy? They'll all turn around and start shooting with their AK47 ar15 assault rifles.  Look at the firefights and bloodbaths what happen at NRA rallys and those gun shows with thousands of people and thousands of guns. The 2016 shot show had more than 64,000 people in attendance.  Take a guess how many crimes were committed there.

 

 

 

On another note I still find it super weird that over 80% of the firearm related murders in the US are with illegally owned pistols and while a very very small percent are committed with assault-rifle style firearms they're at the forfront when calls for increased gun control go out.

Seven people were killed and at least 35 others - including a 5-year-old girl - were wounded in shootings across Chicago between Friday night and Monday morning. None of them with a rifle so I guess it's not really news worthy?

 

< standard OMG gun nut here comes NRA talking points!!!!!11!response to follow shortly>

josh

You have point. Pistols should be banned as well.

Paladin1

josh wrote:
You have point. Pistols should be banned as well.

 

I know right? If you're going to ban guns then ban the ones that are doing 80% of the killing first, not 2% first.

Plus it was telling that everyone started shrilling about banning AR15s when it wasn't even an AR15 used. Devils in the details.

Paladin1

And really, it's easy to suggest turfing the second amendment and banning firearms but look at it subjectively.

 

If you ban firearms and citizens aren't legally allowed to buy them or own then criminals will still have access to a large number of firearms. Many US citizens successfully use legally bought firearms to defend themselves against armed criminals.  Assault, theft, carjackings, robbery, rape, murders.

 

I can't even estimate how many jobs would be loss if you ban firearms.  Firearm factories, ammunition factories, gun shops, large and small businesses that sell firearm components and gear. 

Is it just banning certain firearms or all firearms? Because hunting, it's effect on the ecology and again money tied up in that is a whole new bag of issues.  A million people becomming homeless over night might sting a little.

 

 

NorthReport

So the ratio of gun killings in the USA compared to Canada taking into consideration the population difference is about 8 times more frequent in the USA

The USA appears out of control with their gun epidemic

NorthReport

USA has way more guns per capita than any other country

NorthReport

USA has far more gun homicides per capita than any other rich country

NorthReport

States with more guns have more gun deaths

NorthReport

People with more guns in their homes are more likely to be killed with guns or to kill themselves with guns

Paladin1

NorthReport wrote:
States with more guns have more gun deaths

 

States with CCW permits have less violent crime.

Unionist

[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/36527250/there-have-been-93-us-gun... have been 93 US gun-related deaths in 72 hours, not including Orlando[/url]

And 205 were injured. Not including Orlando.

Quote:
Five people died in a mass shooting in Roswell, New Mexico. Four of those were girls aged between three and 14.

Quote:

In one mass shooting in Panorama City, California, two teenage girls and a man aged 20 died. Another woman was injured.

72 hours.

 

NorthReport

Science, even though the NRA and their lackeys try to block the research, without a shadow of a doubt shows that if you wish to live a long life you need to get rid of your guns the sooner the better

Paladin1

NorthReport wrote:
People with more guns in their homes are more likely to be killed with guns or to kill themselves with guns

 

Hummm. So someone who owns a gun is more likely to use a gun to commit suicide than someone is likely to commit suicide with a gun if they don't own a gun?   Makes sense.

NorthReport

Gun lovers remind me more and more of smokers who think they are going to have a long and healthy life

Paladin I don't want you to die young so get rid of your guns! Science refutes all your arguments about any health advantages of owning a gun

NorthReport

------

Paladin1

NorthReport wrote:
Gun lovers remind me more and more of smokers who think they are going to have a long and healthy life

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Burns

 

Quote:
Paladin I don't want you to die young so get rid of your guns! Science refutes all your arguments about any health advantages of owning a gun

But I like guns. I like shooting them recrationally, I like shooting them with my kids, I like cleaning them, I like modifing them, I like finding good deals on them, and I also use them to suppliment training for my job and career. I've used guns for 32 years and haven't had an issue yet.

NorthReport

Republicans know they can't win the science argument about gun control and now they are beginning to lose the battle as there is an outcry even from the likes of Trump that the government has to stop people getting access to guns who are being investigated by the FBI or who are on a no-fly list which means I presume they have already been investigated by the FBI

NorthReport

People dying of lung cancer from smoking cigarettes loved their cigarettes too

takeitslowly

and whos going to do door to door to take away the guns?

jjuares

Paladin1 wrote:

I can't even estimate how many jobs would be loss if you ban firearms.  Firearm factories, ammunition factories, gun shops, large and small businesses that sell firearm components and gear. 

 

 


Yes, many jobs would be lost. Don't forget ambulance drivers, other first responders, emergency room nurses and doctors, coroners, morticians etc.

Pages