The 2nd Amendment is an anachronism.

[Odin2005]

The Founders were opposed to permanent standing armies because at the time they were associated with monarchical absolutism and instead expected state militias to do the job of defense, that is the context of the 2nd Amendment. It says people have a right to own weapons so they can serve in the militia need be. it has nothing to do with an absolute right to own guns.

[Turbineguy]

1. That may be

but the NRA which used to celebrate the 2nd amendment and what the founders meant by it has been taken over by terrorists.

[aristocles]

2. How the NRA rewrote the Consitution

http://fair.org/extra-online-articles/how-the-nra-rewrote-the-constitution/

[kelly1mm]

3. Perhaps so and maybe it should be repealed, although the SC disagrees with your overall

interpretation on the right to own guns (although the SC did not find an ABSOLUTE right to own guns)

Do you think the congress has enough votes to repeal? And more importantly, will enough states ratify?

[xchrom]

5. Throwing the net of the SC doesn't answer anything

Re the 2a.

Who were they?

Their affiliations?

What was the dissent?

And last but not least - it can be revisited.

[kelly1mm]

7. Sure it can be revisited. Usually it takes a generation or two to overcome the power of precident

though, Lawrence v Texas being the latest - that only took 17 years to overturn Bowers v Hardwick, which is the fastest overturning of precident in USSC history.

Again, do you think there are enough votes in congress to pass an amendment to repeal the 2nd? And will enough state ratify it?

[xchrom]

9. I think there are lots of things that can and should've

Been done without visiting 2a.

You build success -

[kelly1mm]

14. On that we may agree! However, the OP was about how the 2nd amendment was an anachronism

and I asked questions concerning repeal of the amendment described as an anachronism - fair game, no?

[xchrom]

27. I strongly believe it is antique.

And I think it self evident - it is doing us damage as a nation.

[kelly1mm]

29. So is it safe to assume you support repeal? If so, do you believe we have enough members of

congress to repeal and, more importantly, enough states to ratify the repeal to make it law? It only takes 13 states to stop it.

[xchrom]

32. Not yet. But framing is everything.

There is no excuse for being inarticulate and building your case at times like this.

[kelly1mm]

36. I agree. It will be A SHIT LOAD of work to get society to a place where the congrees would repeal

the 2nd amendment. Further, I doubt I will see 38 states in my lifetime (40ish more years) that would ratify a repeal. But maybe, after I am gone, the 2nd amendment will be a true relic.

[Lizzie Poppet]

11. As do linguists. But an amendment repealing it could render that moot.

Not addressing whether that would be a good idea or not, but it would be possible, at least as a longshot.

Personally, I expect a fragmentation of the Union long before then, though.

[hack89]

4. So garner enough public support to amend or repeal it.

and no one says there is an absolute right - even Scalia in Heller said that government regulation is ok.

[backwoodsbob]

6. repeal it

simple enough

[Dems to Win]

8. It's time to REPEAL the second amendment.

I just sent this to my (retiring) congresswoman:

Dear Congresswoman Woolsey:

Repeal the Second Amendment Now.

It is irrational that we have a constitutional right to own a gun but not a car. A car has utility and purpose, transporting us to where we need to go, and occasionally tragically causing death. Guns have the sole purpose of causing death. They have no other utility.

Please, I beg of you, in your final days in Congress, make the most courageous stand of your life. Introduce a bill to amend the Constitution, striking the second amendment from the Bill of Rights. Take the one real, bold, sane action that will be a fitting memorial to the children and adults massacred in Newtown.

Only after the second amendment is repealed can we have meaningful regulation of guns, which rationally needs to be much stronger and more rigorous than the licensing and insurance requirements for cars, rather than far weaker as is currently the case. It is disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

Challenge your congressional colleagues to pass your bill and send the amendment to the states for ratification. Stand up to the bloodthirsty, moneyhungry NRA. Trust that in all states of our union, there are enough people who love children more than they love guns. Let us have a REAL, meaningful conversation about rights and guns and death.

Challenge your colleagues to exhibit as much courage as a kindergarten teacher or an elementary school principal.

Repeal the Second Amendment Now. It is obvious what we need to do to have any hope of preventing further Newtowns. No other response is proportional to this ongoing catastrophe.

Repeal the Second Amendment Now.

Respectfully,

[X_Digger]

10. Seious question for you:

Do you think the right protected by the second amendment disappears with repeal of the second amendment?

[aristocles]

13. Yes. n/t

[X_Digger]

23. No, it would go from being an enumerated right, to an unenumerated right protected by the ninth.

The Bill of Rights did not create rights- it protects pre-existing rights.

Read your Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau (not to mention 220+ years of court precedent).

eta: And you'd have to remove the right from 49 or 50 state constitutions, and argue it doesn't exist in every court district in the US.

[Dems to Win]

15. What do you mean?

If you prefer, we can replace the language of the second amendment to:

There is no right to possess or manufacture weapons in the these United States.

That specific enough for you?

[X_Digger]

25. No exceptions? You've just removed the military and police.. n/t

[Dems to Win]

26. I don't have a 'right' to own a car, yet I own one. End the special privileges for guns.

Once the 2nd amendment is gone, we can set reasonable rules for gun ownership and enforcement, just like we do for all other items we deem worthy of regulation. Just because we repeal the 2nd amendment doesn't mean we make all gun ownership illegal (though we could choose to do just that, through our legislatures), it just means we can set the rules of ownership without bowing to the Supreme Court's interpretation of a very badly worded amendment creating a 'right' that does not serve us well in our modern, crowded world.

Police and army don't need the 2nd amendment to be armed -- we can set up any new rules we want in a post-2nd-amendment country, after repeal.

[X_Digger]

28. See post #23. Not as easy as you imagine. n/t

[aristocles]

30. See post #2. n/t

[X_Digger]

31. This is constitutional law, nothing to do with the NRA.

I don't think you understand how rights work, how our constitution protects rights, or how constitutional jurisprudence works.

[aristocles]

33. And I suppose our rights come from God? n/t

[X_Digger]

35. They do pre-date the constitution.

I'm not a religious person, but if you read your Locke / Rousseau, they speak of a 'creator'. Certainly the folks who wrote the constitution and bill of rights thought that rights existed before they finished writing those documents.

That's why the ninth amendment still applies.

A good example: Do you have the right to travel? Of course you do. It's been established in case law that such a right exists. Where do you find that right ensconced in the constitution or amendments? Nowhere. It isn't there.

The "right of privacy" (as opposed to the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure) is similarly a right that you won't find in the constitution- it's protected by the ninth amendment (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade#Right_to_privacy )

[Dems to Win]

34. I didn't say it would be easy, I said we CAN do it. And we CAN, if only we have the will.

We the people control the constitution, the courts, the whole shebang.

Are we as civilized as Scotland after Dunblane? Can we take effective action, even if it might be hard and might take a long time?

TODAY is the day to start.

[X_Digger]

37. It's not as simple as rolling back the second amendment.

I've seen a lot of folks propose that, as if that would make the right go away. It's a bit naive, to be honest.

I'm saying it's a lot harder than you seem to think it is, for various reasons. And if you spend all your effort on repealing the second amendment, burning bridges and blowing political capital, it would be a hell of a slap in the face when it doesn't result in what you think it would.

[Dems to Win]

38. It is the NECESSARY FIRST STEP in achieving responsible gun laws. Period.

Nowhere did I say repealing the 2nd amendment will itself solve the problems. We then have to go on and craft strict laws and enforce them. But that cannot even be attempted while saddled with the 2nd amendment.

Obama will never run for re-election. He should USE his political capital for good purpose. And preventing the slaughter of more 5-year-olds is a worthy purpose.

[elleng]

51. We can set rules of ownership NOW, WITH the 2d amendment.

It just takes guts to do so.

[jeff47]

39. Soldiers and police don't buy their guns.

The government does, and issues them to soldiers and police.

[X_Digger]

42. Soldiers? No. But quite a few police do. n/t

[jeff47]

43. Quite a few buy additional guns

But "department issue" exists.

[X_Digger]

44. "Department issue" doesn't exist in every department.

Thank states' dwindling budgets for that reality.

Just like teachers are buying school supplies for their classes, many departments have their officers purchase their own weapons.

[jeff47]

46. Is your argument that this is an un-fixable problem? (nt)

[X_Digger]

47. No, that repealing the second amendment wouldn't accomplish what the naive think it would. n/t

[jeff47]

48. .....because the police department would have to buy guns.

Seriously?

If you're just gonna phone it in that badly, why bother posting?

[X_Digger]

49. No, because the right would then be an unenumerated right protected by the 9th. n/t

[jeff47]

50. Which isn't what we're talking about in this sub-thread

If you'd like to go there, I'll happily point out that if a right requires the sacrifice of these 20 children, it isn't worth protecting.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

16. That depends on the wording of the amendment that repeals it

"In order to protect the general populace, people are forbidden from owning or carrying firearms. There will, of course, be certain exceptions, such as police, military, national guard, judges, prosecutors, mayors, governors, city council members, private security personnel, aldermen, rich people, celebrities, senators, representatives, employees of mercenary companies, owners of jewelry stores, liquor stores, pawn shops, gas stations, all-night diners, 24-hour party stores. But other than that, all guns are eliminated."

and, voila, no more second amendment

[X_Digger]

24. Lol, I see what you did there..

and I approve

[Poiuyt]

12. I agree absolutely

The 2nd amendment has no relevance in today's society. It was written into the Constitution as a way of fighting back against the government, and today it still serves as kind of an antigovernment measure. Witness how fixated the antigovernment types are about their guns. The infatuation some people have about their guns is perverse.

[aardvark401]

17. A questio for those of you that

do not support the right to keep and bear arms. If the words the "right of the people" in the second amendment do not refer to the general population how do you propose defining those words in the 1st and 4th amendments? Are the 1st and 4th amendments only applicable to a select group?? You may attempt a repeal but I don't think enough states would agree.

[jeff47]

40. A question for you

Are you literate?

I mean, there's nothing here about "right of the people". There's discussion of the environment when the 2nd amendment was written versus today. The founders didn't like standing armies, and felt revolution would be necessary every now and then.

Well, we now have a standing army. And there is absolutely no way a revolution with currently-legal weapons could overcome that army in a a revolution - An F-35 beats an AR-15. Even a really nice AR-15.

[napkinz]

18. NRA logo ...

http://www.facebook.com/NoTeaParty

[napkinz]

19. First Amendment: "Can't Yell Fire" ... Second Amendment: "Can't Open Fire"

[davidn3600]

20. The founders wanted the people to have teeth

They believed the best government is one that feared the people. They saw it has the only way to safeguard liberty and prevent tyranny.

[jeff47]

41. That is no longer possible.

Weapons "normal" people can obtain would be utterly ineffective in a revolution against the US military. Your AR-15 isn't going to work terribly well against an Abrams, Apache or Aardvark.

If you'd like to bring up our adventures in Afghanistan or Vietnam, you should remember the US didn't lose militarily. They lost the political battle back home. That isn't going to apply with a revolution within the US.

[humblebum]

21. So, if "it has nothing to do with an absolute right to own guns" then how

are they expected to have weapons in order to serve in a militia? you could not have a militia without the right to bear arms. You also could not hunt for food or protect your property and family.

In reality weapons were a necessity for many to survive daily life at that time. Yes, that right was always guaranteed.

[fordgmman1966sel]

22. well said

that amendment has been misinterpreted to a great degree

[Riftaxe]

45. Repeal it then

run for office on that platform, or find someone who will.

They will be completely and utterly trounced on election day, but at least you could claim you attempted to do something about the constitution that a small minority of US citizens do not like.

[jberryhill]

52. I agree

It was written in the context of not having a standing federal army, but preserving state militias.