Of course you do realize that the chances of repealing the 2nd Amendment is slim to none and slim just left the station.
...they are right, but that doesn't change the fact that I still support passing the ERA.
But you should get right on it and petition the congress to repeal it, of course you do know that all it takes is 13 states to block any repeal.
I hit post right before reading your comment.
You're honest about realizing that a repeal of the 2A is an unattainable goal, but we are entitled to our own opinions.
BTW, welcome to DU.
I do not think it will ever happen and if it does, it will just be decided state by state.
welcome and I hope we can have some nice discussions.
your goal come true?
And how do you think this repeal is going to happen?
...its interpretation by the Supremes.
Not sure what else I can do.
Are there some other specific differences that I didn't mention that you'd like to make?
I'm not sure what you are looking for here.
If you are thinking of something specific, then perhaps you should say so.
If YOU are thinking of something specific, perhaps YOU should say so.
Before anything else you have to be able to protect your person and family.
That's why we need to move away from the second and recognize firearms ownership as an essential element of life. Food, Water, Shelter, Safety.
The 2nd amendment, like the 1st, in a restriction on the government that they may not impede in any way a preexisting right.
Even if the 2nd was somehow repealed, the right would still exist, enshrined in state constitutions.
Maybe a remedial civics course is in order. Then you can get those petitions started.
sonte space: I support the repeal of the Second Amendment
You might consider renouncing the 2ndA as well, like I did a year or so back, & like Sharon stone did about 1999 after columbine. Repealing it is implausible, but a future supreme court could overturn 2008 heller & 2010 mcd.
.. 2ndA protects us from NOTHING, it's obsolete worthless junk science maintained by a corrupt gun lobby for profits & preying on gullible young americans, like a pied piper leading them off a pier.
.. Having no 2ndA right anymore as I renounced it, I could still go out & buy a gun so long as I passed a bg check, which I certainly could. There's no '2ndAmendment' Check in order to buy a firearm, nobody asks if you believe in it, gun dealers couldn't care less, especially at gun shows, excepting a few of the unethical sellers who need worry about undercover agents in sheep's clothing.
1999 Actress Sharon Stone, post-Columbine, turned in her guns to the LAPD, announcing her wish to relinquish her Second Amendment rights in favor of "peace of mind."
As well, GHBush relinquished his nra lifetime membership, and also gen norman Schwarzkopf (dec'd).
Tell me, do you think one should have to declare their support for the First Amendment before purchasing a book?
Bully for you. What a colossally empty gesture ...
Right. And that situation will continue indefinitely, because no one would ever want to legislate away your right to own a firearm, even in the absence of Constitutional protections. Amirite?
Make it a 20 year minimum sentence if caught with one. I think we would see a drop. It would take time.
you want the government to have a monopoly on lethal force.
Makes perfect sense -- to someone.
includes the whole amendment. There isn't another country on earth that is stupid enough to think there should be unlimited use of firearms, that would have a stand your ground law which is legalized murder. We let the gun lobby and gun manufacturers run all over the rights of people to feel safe in their lives.
Gunners represent a sickness in this society that comes from the corporatizing and tea partying of our laws.
I've always wanted an M249 squad automatic weapon. Atlanta, here I come!
... one can now carry in churches and bars? Just as one has always been able to do in ... wait for it ... New York?
Blood in the streets! The sky is falling!
I think you never tire of being anti social when it comes to guns.
...saith the former
Public Company; 10,001+ employees; MON; Biotechnology industry
2001 2004 (3 years)
Provided corporate communications strategy and support for Fortune 500 life sciences and agricultural company.
― James Baldwin
... that the Georgia legislation brings it into line with what is already legal in New York and always has been. Yet New York is considered one of the strictest, if not THE strictest, state in the Union when it comes to gun control. Nevertheless, many prohibitionists are having a field day railing about rednecks and blood in the streets. It hasn't been a problem in New York. Do you have any comment to make about that?
IMO, a licensed carrier should only be denied carry in areas that require strict screening -- scans and bag searches -- to enter and provide their own armed security inside. Anything more is just another attempt at a "ban of a thousand cuts."
...from a public policy perspective, unencumbered by artificial constitutional restrictions.
Think how rational we could be if we got rid the entire BOR.
It's like responding to a person who supports the ERA with a response that suggests that he or she would like to repeal the 13th Amendment.
If you actually believe that the Second Amendment is actually worth defending, there would be no deed for deflection and a change of subject.
You would just defend the Amendment on its merits.
The 2A as written and as presently interprated supports that right. Abolishing the 2A doesn't change that fact.
The 2A is not your problem. The only right explicitly recognized by the SC is the right to own a gun in your home for self defense. Even Scalia says that anything beyond that can be regulated. Remember that no AWB has ever been declared unconstitutional. All proposed gun control legislation short of an out right ban would be perfectly legal right now.
The failure to impose the gun control you want is a political issue, not a legal one.
"Then we can finally have a rational discussion of gun policy..."
Oh, a discussion is all you want? How does the second amendment prevent any discussion? Define rational.
"from a public policy perspective"
Oh, you didn't really mean you wanted a discussion, you meant you wanted everyone to take some dictation.
"unencumbered by artificial constitutional restrictions."
With the purpose being, to come up with some equally artificial restrictions against guns and the people that own them.
Whats the difference between the artificial legal restraints you would see enacted against guns and gun owners, and the artificial constitutional restrictions you feel stand in their way and would therefore like removed.
There isn't any.
...and the abolition of nuclear weapons that we used to have here in Iowa back in the 1970s.
I've had any number of opinions over my lifetime that "not even a majority of liberals would support".
I'm used to it, and it doesn't really bother me.
It just comes with the territory whenever one has opinions.
guns away from people. Get it?
So I pointed a few such opinions of mine.
Do you have no opinions that "not even a majority of liberals would support"?
Do you consider it wrong to have such opinions?
be reverted to the various states? There are only six states that do not have RKBA in their state constitutions, Iowa is one of them. I know that in Minnesota, where I live, I believe if the 2A were to be repraled at some point it would be added to our state constitution.
I just do not see the repeal of the 2A as a reasonable goal because of the political capital it would require.
By the way, what are you doing to attain your goal? The reason I ask is because the anti-RKBA people just do not seem to be as enthusiastic about gun control/confiscation as do the RKBA people are about keeping their RKBA.
The way I look at it is that those against RKBA don't have to do anything to continue not owning a gun.
...than a moderate, wishy-washy, middle of the road position that would not ban a single gun, but which would free us from artificially imposed constitutional restraints on rational public policy discussions and policymaking as part of the democratic process.
And yet for most people, that would nit be the case.
Aren't you here having a discussion about this very thing? Is it not rational and polite?
What do you believe the 2A does?
How would you define a right?