Repeal the 2nd Amendment?

[Dante Reawakened]

Amendments to the constitution require a vote of 2/3 of both houses and ratification by 37 states if memory serves, I could be wrong. In any case, it is not an easy task, nor should it be. I think a snowball in hell has a better chance of survival.

What does it take to repeal a constitutional amendment? - National Constitution Center

 

[BackAgain]

Could we, should we, get rid of tbe 2nd Amendment?

This thread is not about me personally favoring, and advocating the banning all gun ownership. I have had a permit (recent), to carry concealed. Though banning all ownership of weapons or restricting ownership is part of the question(s). Constitutionally, don’t we have every right to repeal amendments?



Can you control yourselves and hold back the political and personal attacks on the OP?

Stevens, J., Dissenting: The Legacy of Heller

This article focuses on the late Justice Stevens's opinions and commentary on the Second Amendment, demonstrating his approach to law and judging.

judicature.duke.edu

Of course we can collectively seek to repeal the 2d Amendment. I doubt it would be repealed. But the Constitution itself was written with the prospect of changing it written in to it.

John Paul Stevens’ concept is ill-advised. But if the libs and progs want a convention of the States, I’m game. They may not like what comes out of the effort to modify the Constitution.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

In theory, yes – the Constitution would need to be amended to repeal the Second Amendment.

Needless to say, that’s not going to happen – nor should it.

As with the rest of the Constitution, and consistent with the Framers’ intent, it’s the role of the courts to determine what the Constitution means, including the Second Amendment.

Why shouldn’t it?

 

[Dante Reawakened]

View attachment 651072

Thanx for contributing the usual

 

[BackAgain]

View attachment 651072

Sometimes the simplest answer is the best answer. Excellent post.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

Another useless contributor

 

[Dante Reawakened]

Of course we can collectively seek to repeal the 2d Amendment. I doubt it would be repealed. But the Constitution itself was written with the prospect of changing it written in to it.

John Paul Stevens’ concept is ill-advised. But if the libs and progs want a convention of the States, I’m game. They may not like what comes out of the effort to modify the Constitution.

I believe neither would you like any outcome

 

[BackAgain]

Very good and concise post! Well done.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

Very good and concise post! Well done.

The gang is all here now. Losers and bullies who travel the threads in packs and contribute nothing

 

[BackAgain]

I believe neither would you like any outcome

Ok. You could be right, for a change. I might not like the outcome. But I’d sign a petition today in my new home state to have us convene a Convention of the States. Let’s be bold. Let’s both confront the risks associated with such a Convention.

 

[BackAgain]

The gang is all here now. Losers and bullies who travel the threads in packs and contribute nothing

Actually, your ignorance is on full display. This thread asked a question. “How about ‘no?’” Is a perfectly valid and very concise answer. So what your presently bitching about is unclear. Apparently you just don’t LIKE that particular answer. Tough shit, you pansy. Then don’t ask.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

Ok. You could be right, for a change. I might not like the outcome. But I’d sign a petition today in my new home state to have us convene a Convention of the States. Let’s be bold. Let’s both confront the risks associated with such a Convention.

The law of unintended consequences would rule and rue the day

The framers had Adams and Madison and a handful of others who studied up on and researched what they could. — without preconceived notions and agendas other than what they thought would save the nation. Those men started a civil war that turned neighbors, friends and family on each other. Much slaughter and mayhem and suffering. What they had was a common purpose ::: Do not let the grand experiment fail

 

[Dante Reawakened]

Actually, your ignorance is on full display. This thread asked a question. “How about ‘no?’” Is a perfectly valid and very concise answer. So what your presently bitching about is unclear. Apparently you just don’t LIKE that particular answer. Tough shit, you pansy. Then don’t ask.

Please don’t project your bitchiness. Most others are not whiney bitches like you

The ‘no’ lacks an explanatory context and is anything but concise. You confuse concise with other terms

 

[Batcat]

There are two ways to repeal an amendment. One way is for the proposed amendment to be passed by the House and the Senate with two-thirds majority votes. Then, the proposed amendment would have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states. The second way to repeal an amendment is to have a Constitutional Convention. It would take two-thirds of state legislatures to call for this convention and the states would draft amendments, which would have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states.

Considering the high threshold for making such a change to the Constitution, it's unlikely that the Second Amendment will be repealed. As Concerned American said, "I think a snowball in hell has a better chance of survival.".

Could we, should we, get rid of the 2nd Amendment?


Could we? NO. Not anytime soon anyway.

Should we? NO. I want the right to protect myself and my family in my own home. I should also have the right to go hunting if I want to or go to a Rod and Gun Club and hang with friends or associates there. And I should be able to carry a weapon in public to defend myself if necessary.

In recent years we have seen police departments in the big cities turn from proactive to reactive due to riots. Also many police departments are understaffed. Consequently it takes longer for the police to arrive when called. Often they arrive in time to put up crime science tape.

I don’t want to have to rely on the cops to save me or my family. Therefore I want the right to own firearms.

Criminals are not going to turn their firearms in if a law passes requiring all honest citizens to do so. If honest people don’t have firearms, home invasion will skyrocket.

 

[frigidweirdo]

At least Justice Stevens, for all his constitutional taffy-pulling, finally came to the realization that to enact the gun laws he and other liberals want, the Constitution would need to be altered.

It is a bit unclear how rescinding the 2ndA would get us to that goal since the Supreme Court has been boringly consistent for going on 146 years, that the right to arms is not granted by the 2ndA, thus the RKBA in no manner depends on the Constitution for its existence.

Next problem, where are you going to find the 38+ states required to ratify a new federal amendment, surrendering the rights of their citizens to complete federal control?

The Second Amendment is a "Constitutional Right", meaning it's guaranteed by the current Constitution. Were the 2A repealed, it'd not longer be a "Constitutional Right", it'd be up to the Supreme Court to decide whether it's "a right" or not.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

Ok. You could be right, for a change. I might not like the outcome. But I’d sign a petition today in my new home state to have us convene a Convention of the States. Let’s be bold. Let’s both confront the risks associated with such a Convention.

“Could we, should we…”

Answering ‘no’ means what exactly

 

[BackAgain]

The law of unintended consequences would rule and rue the day

The framers had Adams and Madison and a handful of others who studied up on and researched what they could. — without preconceived notions and agendas other than what they thought would save the nation. Those men started a civil war that turned neighbors, friends and family on each other. Much slaughter and mayhem and suffering. What they had was a common purpose ::: Do not let the grand experiment fail

Again. I’m content to take the chance. The notion of unintended consequences is exactly the risk both sides would have to confront. I’d sign a petition today to get my new home state to agree to a Convention of the States.

You might rue the day. I don’t care. I’m aware of the risks. That’s why I said that the libs and progs MIGHT not like the outcome. I didn’t guarantee it. I certainly never suggested that I would like it, either. A risk is a risk. In this case, I think it’s urgent to take the risk.

Mark Levin has called for a Convention of the States. A movement is underway. It might not come to fruition. But I’m hoping it does. 19 of the required 34 states have already approved it.

 

[BackAgain]

if you believe that to be so, then shut up and butch up, bitch.

Is that any way to speak to PV?

Lol!

 

[BackAgain]

“Could we, should we…”

Answering ‘no’ means what exactly

Are you criticizing your own thread headline? Seems kind of silly. But hey. That’s just you being you.

 

[westwall]

Studies show the guns in your home are statistically more likely to be used against family members either intentionally or accidentally or increase the chance of suicide than that they will be used to defend the homeowner and family.

But you should definitely have the right to protect yourself. Is there a problem with the government having a list of your home/you as having a gun? Shouldn't be. If the gun is to protect yourself then there's no reason there can't be a registry.



Agreed.



Disagree. This isn't a wild west movie.

Those "studies" were proven false long ago.