Dare I say it? Repealing the Second Amendment. Is this an idea worth exploring?

the second amendment is a negative restriction on the federal government as is the tenth. Between the two, the federal government cannot interfere with "universal arms for all US Citizens" if they are properly interpreted. So what about the state laws which interfere with "universal arms for all citizens". WELL here is the issue-unlike the federal government that was never GIVEN any power by the states or the founders to enact any laws or regulations that interfere with what private citizens cn own, state governments-consistent with their own constitutions, actually had all sorts of police powers concerning firearms. where people could carry, where they could use firearms and who could own them. Some of those laws did not interfere with adult citizens keeping and bearing weapons and those remain even with incorporation. Others, however, do interfere with that and are properly stricken by incorporation

 

The second amendment isn't a negative restriction on federal government if one uses your and SCOTUS' interpretation of the last 13 words of the second amendment...I grow weary from retyping this obvious fact.

 

the obvious fact is your posts continue to prove you really have no understanding of constitutional law and what "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". THAT IS A NEGATIVE RESTRICTION. so is the TENTH.
you still haven't told us why so butt hurt over states being told they cannot ban AR 15s

 

Hmmm… the trend in states has been to adopt what is called Constitutional Carry, meaning no permit is required to carry (open or concealed). I believe we are at a stage where 1/2 the states are ‘Constitutional Carry’ so do you really think there is appetite and enough votes in Congress or among the states for a 2A repeal?

 

the anti second amendment movement is entirely a leftist attempt to turn citizens into subjects or serfs.

 

I agree. The goal appears to be social control, precisely, what many of the founding fathers were concerned with and why the Bill of Rights was adopted, as it included provisions to limit the powers of Government, the 2A, being just one of those limiting provisions.

 

if crime control or public safety was really the anti gun leaders' real motivations then

1) they would be trying to ban the firearm used in 70X more killings than "assault weapons"

2) they would be in favor of increasing the sentences on those who use firearms to harm others

3) they would have supported the "stop and frisk" protocols which were proven to be far more effective in reducing violent street crime than crap like magazine limits and other nonsense designed ONLY to harass lawful owners.

 

That point is addressed in the conclusion, which is to say, the OP acknowledges that repealing 2A is not politically feasible. The purpose of the thread as just to examine a particular viewpoint, and debate it, on it's face, without regard to the actual well nigh impossibility of an actual repeal.

 

This was your conclusion:

The nature of the threat the firearms pose has not changed since the Bill of Right was ratified. A pipe with a bullet in it was as dangerous then as it is now, and vice versa. As Charles Whitman proved with 2 bolt action hunting rifles with which he committed a mass murder that went unchallenged for decades for it's carnage. What it's time to "evaluate" is the nature of society that has become less self sufficient, more susceptible to mental problems that come from the feeling of being left behind and far less educated in firearm safety and weapon handling. And, we are no less threatened by tyrannical despots than we were then. And, no less in need of patriotic defense of OUR liberty against tyranny as January 6th 2021 proved.

 

Yes... but addressing these things does not make it harder for the law abiding to exercise their right to keep and bear arms, so there's little to no interest in doing so.

 

Just because people are out to get you doesn’t mean you’re not paranoid. Not everybody that wants to ban guns is against you, and gun owners, personally. Most of them see dead kids and innocent people and, scary black guns. And that’s all they know of the problem. Unfortunately the simple solution, their simple solution won’t solve the problem and, will just create a bigger problem. They aren’t trying to create a despotic America, they want a safe America.

They don’t understand that their simple solution won’t make them safer and, will actually make them less safe.

 

Well, right. The useful idiots who blindly follow those who ARE against us aren't necessarily against us.

The (D)ishonest prey upon the emotions of the ignorant because hey know it works.

 

The reason why we know that the claims on that webpage are not true is because we are well informed about history.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If that is the case, why do these people continue to support these measures even after the truth is explained to them?

 

Yes.

They feared that a future government might try to violate those rights, and would succeed if not for Constitutional protections.

They did not fear that a future tyrannical government would try to outlaw those other things.

They were concerned that a future tyrannical government would try to weaken the militia.

The Second was to ensure that the people could not be disarmed, and that militiamen could not be denied training.

That is incorrect. The Second Amendment is still in force and is therefore not superfluous.

You should ask King George about whether they were revolutionaries.

Those two sets of people, are the same people.

 

That is incorrect. The Second Amendment protects the individual right to keep and bear arms.

There is nothing disingenuous about pointing out this fact.

Enforcing the Constitution is not overreach. That is what the courts are supposed to do.

That is incorrect. It was about protecting the rights of the people to keep and bear arms.

True at the time.

The Fourteenth Amendment changed that.

That is incorrect. It prevents infringement of the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

True at the time.

The Fourteenth Amendment changed that.

That is incorrect. The individual right to keep and bear arms has been protected by the Second Amendment for its entire history.

Maybe so, but that does not change the fact that the Second Amendment has always protected the individual right to keep and bear arms.

 

OK up to this point I think, but....

The right most certainly did NOT support that unconstitutional monstrosity.

We strenuously opposed it.

The right did not support this bill. We just did not oppose it because it doesn't really do much of anything at all.

Goal post moving.

"Republican" and "rightwing" are not the same thing.

What conversation?

Are there any gun controllers out there who are willing to have a civilized conversation?

When someone does something with bad motivations, I think that it is fair to call them on that.

No. The only motivation for gun control is to violate people's civil liberties for no reason. It has no other purpose.

Sounds good.

You should tell this to all the gun control people who resort to childish name-calling.

 

Hating your countrymen, no matter how misguided, will not solve your problem. Like them, your “solution” is making things worse.

Has it been? Really?

 

what's wrong with hating dishonest authoritarians who try to piss on our rights with massive mendacity about guns and crime control

 

The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, also known as the 1994 Crime Bill, was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 13, 1994. The bill was passed with bipartisan support, with both Democrats and Republicans voting in favor of it.

In the Senate, the bill was passed with a vote of 61-38, with 46 Democrats, 14 Republicans, and 1 Independent voting in favor of it. The 14 Republicans who voted in favor of the bill were:

1. Bob Bennett (UT)
2. Thad Cochran (MS)
3. Al D'Amato (NY)
4. Pete Domenici (NM)
5. Mitch McConnell (KY)
6. Richard Lugar (IN)
7. Arlen Specter (PA)
8. Ted Stevens (AK)
9. Strom Thurmond (SC)
10. John Warner (VA)
11. James Jeffords (VT)
12. William Cohen (ME)
13. Connie Mack III (FL)
14. Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX)

In the House of Representatives, the bill was passed with a vote of 235-195, with 38 Democrats and 157 Republicans voting in favor of it.

8 repubs signed it
https://www.businessinsider.com/8-house-republicans-support-expanding-gun-background-checks-2021-3

If you want to nitpick, but I'm using them the same way.

The one we're having.

Aren't I having a civilized conversation? I can't speak for others. I think @Golem would give you a civilized conversation.

Not sure what you mean. Do you have any examples?

I find that view to be rather cynical. But, it's not true. But I think I see now what you thought was 'bad motivation'.
The liberal view is that sensible gun control will save lives. Saving lives is the motivation. If you want to debate whether or not gun control
saves lives, that would be the valid argument.

There is a lot of that on both sides. You should see the USMB forum. This place is tame.

 

You are wrong-you are confusing the Brady bill with the clinton Gun ban

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1031/vote_103_1_00375.htm

 

All anti-gunners lie for that is the only truth they know that fits their lying narrative.

 

Wut?

Wut?

 

When you don't quote the whole post "Wut?", is what you get.

 

M'kay. So?

Even though you know you shouldn't.

There's no rational, factual basis for this view; as such the motivation you claim is, at best, circumspect.

 

I have no idea how your responses apply to what I said.
Unless you can explain what you mean and how it applies to what I said, I'll just assume you replied to the wrong person.