Why It's Time to Repeal the Second Amendment
Constitutional law professor David Cohen had this in Rolling Stone today.
In the face of yet another mass shooting, now is the time to acknowledge a profound but obvious truth – the Second Amendment is wrong for this country and needs to be jettisoned. We can do that through a Constitutional amendment. It's been done before (when the Twenty-First Amendment repealed prohibition in the Eighteenth), and it must be done now.
The Second Amendment needs to be repealed because it is outdated, a threat to liberty and a suicide pact. When the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791, there were no weapons remotely like the AR-15 assault rifle and many of the advances of modern weaponry were long from being invented or popularized.
Sure, the Founders knew that the world evolved and that technology changed, but the weapons of today that are easily accessible are vastly different than anything that existed in 1791. When the Second Amendment was written, the Founders didn't have to weigh the risks of one man killing 49 and injuring 53 all by himself. Now we do, and the risk-benefit analysis of 1791 is flatly irrelevant to the risk-benefit analysis of today.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
onehandle
(51,122 posts)King George has been managed. Gun nuts need not apply to defend shit.
Kablooie
(18,634 posts)It refers to state's official militias being equipped not everyday citizens.
but since it's written in two clauses the NRA chooses to ignore the first clause.
Though nowadays just eliminating it wouldn't be a bad idea.
TexasProgresive
(12,157 posts)We couldn't get the ERA passed- How do you think we could get an amendment negating the 2nd of the Bill of Rights?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Even Tony Scalia only wrote in reference to guns in a home. I think we could restrict number, types, sales, toting, ammo, etc., to the point gun sales would pretty much dry up. It's a long process where biggest benefits won't be seen for decades.
I'm sure our resident gun "progressives" would go underground, but root them out. They are a threat to society, directly or indirectly.
struggle4progress
(118,282 posts)
colsohlibgal
(5,275 posts)We have been bullied and cowed by the NRA and the gun manufacturers. They pick and choose parts of the Amendment and ignore the fact it was written a long, long time ago when we had no standing military.
We must reclaim the narrative. People should still be able to buy guns if they pass muster. By guns that does not mean military assault type weapons.
Australia had a horrific mass shooting maybe 15 years ago now....they freaking did something about it. They have had zero mass spree shootings since.
We must work diligently to discredit and shame the NRA and their allies.....they have so much blood on their hands, they are evil personified.
Doc_Technical
(3,526 posts)Insist that all semi automatic weapons are to be use only
by authorized militias.
All militia semi auto weapons are to be kept in a secure armory.
Weapons can only removed from the armory in a declared
emergency or for official training.
This Federal law will overrule all State laws regarding militias.
47of74
(18,470 posts)Laws can be overturned or overruled by the courts. An amendment is the way to go. And I think the government must have the right to restrict those who have proven through word or deed that they cannot be trusted with firearms.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)... you start going for people's guns.
Or is your plan to repeal without changing anything?
LonePirate
(13,420 posts)krispos42
(49,445 posts)Which means it's not a "talking point" or tinfoil hat paranoia, is it?
LonePirate
(13,420 posts)krispos42
(49,445 posts)... So I'll walk away.
Doc_Technical
(3,526 posts)I only want to end civilian possession of semi auto firearms.
I have no problem with civilians possession revolvers, and
bolt action, lever action, and slide action long guns.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)
mwrguy
(3,245 posts)Marengo
(3,477 posts)47of74
(18,470 posts)There'd be a replacement amendment that says that people have the right to possess firearms unless;
A) They've shown they cannot be trusted to handle them responsibly.
B) They are "assault" weapons that have only one purpose: to mutilate the human body.
And that the Government has the right to regulate the possession of weapons, that people have the right to prohibit people from their property if armed, and that the right of people to not be deprived of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness is more important than firearms.
Response to 47of74 (Original post)
Mosby This message was self-deleted by its author.
hack89
(39,171 posts)That protect the right to keep and bear arms. Without a federal 2A you have made them more influential.
47of74
(18,470 posts)...and would think that it wouldn't just be a wholesale repeal of the 2A but a replacement of it which asserts Federal supremacy on the issue.
Anything is possible once you reject cultural, legal and political reality.
47of74
(18,470 posts)...since the Republicans in Congress can barely be bothered to even acknowledge these things and don't do jack shit about the problem and about 1/2 the country screams bloody murder if they even think a politician is thinking about the least little restriction on the almighty gun.
That's why we have to work to change the cultural, legal, and political realities to make it possible for the day to come that we can at least seriously consider making changes to the 2A. The cultural would be the most important part since it would affect the other two parts.
