Is gun control a futile debate?

[Rambozo]

Essentially, if one is marginally familiar with the Constitution, then they should be aware that debates on gun control in America are a futile endeavor.

The reason for this is that the 2nd Amendment is enshrined into the Constitution. And while there are different interpretations of it, I see nothing approaching a snowball's chance in hell of the 2nd Amendment being repealed.

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

A current public debate started by a retired Supreme Court Justice has people talking about possibly repealing one of the Constitution’s original 10 amendments. In reality, the odds of such an act happening are extremely long.

constitutioncenter.org

Changing the actual words of the Constitution does take an amendment, as does actually deleting, or repealing, an amendment. Including the first 10 amendments, the Bill of Rights, which were ratified in 1789, the Senate historian estimates that approximately 11,699 amendment changes have been proposed in Congress through 2016. Only one amendment, the 18th Amendment that established Prohibition, was later repealed by the states.

In simple odds, the chance of any constitutional amendment being repealed would be roughly the same as a person living to 80 years old being struck by lightning during their lifetime, according to National Weather Service data. And for the Second Amendment, which was rooted in the English Declaration of Rights a century before the Bill of Rights was ratified, the odds would likely be steeper.

So unless there is any actual chance of this happening, I don't see there to be any real "debate" on the issue of gun control. The 2nd Amendment is the law of the land, and it's not going anywhere any time soon. And while people can bother themselves with attempting to pass gun control laws on the state and federal level, there is a likelihood of them being found unconstitutional by the courts.

So does anyone disagree? Do they believe the states will agree to repeal the 2nd Amendment, or have an approximation of when such a decision will be made? 10 years from now? 100 years? I'm just curious.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Don't fool yourself. All it will take is Democrats stacking the Court, which they absolutely will do the next time they get a chance.

 

[Individual]

Essentially, if one is marginally familiar with the Constitution, then they should be aware that debates on gun control in America are a futile endeavor.

The reason for this is that the 2nd Amendment is enshrined into the Constitution. And while there are different interpretations of it, I see nothing approaching a snowball's chance in hell of the 2nd Amendment being repealed.

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

A current public debate started by a retired Supreme Court Justice has people talking about possibly repealing one of the Constitution’s original 10 amendments. In reality, the odds of such an act happening are extremely long.

constitutioncenter.org

Changing the actual words of the Constitution does take an amendment, as does actually deleting, or repealing, an amendment. Including the first 10 amendments, the Bill of Rights, which were ratified in 1789, the Senate historian estimates that approximately 11,699 amendment changes have been proposed in Congress through 2016. Only one amendment, the 18th Amendment that established Prohibition, was later repealed by the states.

In simple odds, the chance of any constitutional amendment being repealed would be roughly the same as a person living to 80 years old being struck by lightning during their lifetime, according to National Weather Service data. And for the Second Amendment, which was rooted in the English Declaration of Rights a century before the Bill of Rights was ratified, the odds would likely be steeper.

So unless there is any actual chance of this happening, I don't see there to be any real "debate" on the issue of gun control. The 2nd Amendment is the law of the land, and it's not going anywhere any time soon. And while people can bother themselves with attempting to pass gun control laws on the state and federal level, there is a likelihood of them being found unconstitutional by the courts.

So does anyone disagree? Do they believe the states will agree to repeal the 2nd Amendment, or have an approximation of when such a decision will be made? 10 years from now? 100 years? I'm just curious.

More change will come about through how each generation is taught to accept the interpretation of words/wording than by amendments to our Constitution.

 

[Rambozo]

Don't fool yourself. All it will take is Democrats stacking the Court, which they absolutely will do the next time they get a chance.

No, the process is outlined here.

https://www.davemanuel.com/2022/01/03/how-hard-to-repeal-amendment

To start the process of passing a new amendment, the proposed amendment must be passed by a 2/3rds majority in BOTH the House and Senate.

After that, the proposed Amendment still isn't part of the Constitution, as the Amendment must be sent to all 50 states for a vote.

Each state has its own process of ratifying the vote, but the key point remains the same - in order to become part of the Constitution, a proposed amendment must receive Yea votes from 38 of the 50 states in order to become a Constitutional Amendment.

This means that 3/4ths of the US states must vote yea in order for the Amendment to become part of the Constitution. If not, it will fail.

There is a second way that an Amendment could be added to the Constitution, and this would involve 2/3rds of the US states calling a Convention to amend the Constitution. Again, this proposed Amendment would still have to be ratified by 75% of the country's State Legislatures.

 

[Loulit01]

Don't fool yourself. All it will take is Democrats stacking the Court, which they absolutely will do the next time they get a chance.

The Court can't repeal an amendment.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

A thread that COULD lead to an interesting discussion, and as Loulit pointed out..........

The Court can't repeal an amendment.

BUT of course some people can't participate in a debate without the usual swipe at Democrats when Democrats weren't even mentioned in this thread............

Don't fool yourself. All it will take is Democrats stacking the Court

Some people clearly wake up every day, regardless of the topic, with nothing on their minds other than...................... Democrats!!!

 

[JMB1911A1]

No, the process is outlined here.

https://www.davemanuel.com/2022/01/03/how-hard-to-repeal-amendment

To start the process of passing a new amendment, the proposed amendment must be passed by a 2/3rds majority in BOTH the House and Senate.

After that, the proposed Amendment still isn't part of the Constitution, as the Amendment must be sent to all 50 states for a vote.

Each state has its own process of ratifying the vote, but the key point remains the same - in order to become part of the Constitution, a proposed amendment must receive Yea votes from 38 of the 50 states in order to become a Constitutional Amendment.

This means that 3/4ths of the US states must vote yea in order for the Amendment to become part of the Constitution. If not, it will fail.

There is a second way that an Amendment could be added to the Constitution, and this would involve 2/3rds of the US states calling a Convention to amend the Constitution. Again, this proposed Amendment would still have to be ratified by 75% of the country's State Legislatures.

Doesn’t matter to Democrats. They will find some unenumerated right that overrules the 2A or they will use the Sotomayor duck rule to determine that the 2A only applies to the use of while mustered on the village green.

 

[Loulit01]

Doesn’t matter to Democrats. They will find some unenumerated right that overrules the 2A or they will use the Sotomayor duck rule to determine that the 2A only applies to the use of while mustered on the village green.

Because they've done so every time they were in the majority in the past.

 

[Artymoon]

So does anyone disagree? Do they believe the states will agree to repeal the 2nd Amendment, or have an approximation of when such a decision will be made? 10 years from now? 100 years? I'm just curious.

For now, it is essentially just a thought process and a fun thing to debate. Packing the courts with anti gun judges would certainly make life miserable for 2A but would not do away with it. I don't see it being repealed anytime soon but I can imagine a world years down the line where each generation is slowly steered a bit further to the left until it becomes a reality. That's when the great experiment comes full circle.

 

[Helix]

The Republicans control the issue. Let them own it completely.

 

[JMB1911A1]

Because they've done so every time they were in the majority in the past.

Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg admitted that Roe v Wade made up a “right” out of thin air.

 

[Noodlegawd]

The Court can't repeal an amendment.

They don't need to repeal it to render it effectively useless.

 

[Noodlegawd]

No, the process is outlined here.

https://www.davemanuel.com/2022/01/03/how-hard-to-repeal-amendment

To start the process of passing a new amendment, the proposed amendment must be passed by a 2/3rds majority in BOTH the House and Senate.

After that, the proposed Amendment still isn't part of the Constitution, as the Amendment must be sent to all 50 states for a vote.

Each state has its own process of ratifying the vote, but the key point remains the same - in order to become part of the Constitution, a proposed amendment must receive Yea votes from 38 of the 50 states in order to become a Constitutional Amendment.

This means that 3/4ths of the US states must vote yea in order for the Amendment to become part of the Constitution. If not, it will fail.

There is a second way that an Amendment could be added to the Constitution, and this would involve 2/3rds of the US states calling a Convention to amend the Constitution. Again, this proposed Amendment would still have to be ratified by 75% of the country's State Legislatures.

No, the process is:

1. Win the Presidency and a majority of the Senate and House,
2. eliminate the filibuster,
3. add 6 seats to the Supreme Court and fill them with hardcore left-wing Justices, giving them a strong majority on the court,
4. pass a federal or state law banning guns, and
5. litigate the Constitutionality of that ban all the way to the Supreme Court, which would then overturn Heller, thereby rendering the 2nd Amendment completely meaningless for any modern purposes.

 

[Loulit01]

They don't need to repeal it to render it effectively useless.

Highly debatable.

 

[Loulit01]

No, the process is:

1. Win the Presidency and a majority of the Senate and House,
2. eliminate the filibuster,
3. add 6 seats to the Supreme Court and fill them with hardcore left-wing Justices, giving them a strong majority on the court,
4. pass a state law banning guns, and
5. litigate the Constitutionality of that ban all the way to the Supreme Court, which would then overturn Heller, thereby rendering the 2nd Amendment completely meaningless for any modern purposes.

You think democrats are organized enough to do all that? ROFL

 

[Noodlegawd]

Some people clearly wake up every day, regardless of the topic, with nothing on their minds other than...................... Democrats!!!

Some people wake up every day, regardless of the topic, and forget that the website they spend every waking moment on is a political debate website, and that this subforum is for debating gun control, an issue on which the two main political parties in the US are diametrically at odds.

 

[JMB1911A1]

You think democrats are organized enough to do all that? ROFL

It has been the stated objective (at least one through three) from many Democrats including Chuck Schumer and James Carville.

 

[Loulit01]

It has been the stated objective (at least one through three) from many Democrats including Chuck Schumer and James Carville.

Source?

 

[Noodlegawd]

Highly debatable.

Then debate it. That is, after all, the entire purpose of this forum.

 

[j brown's body]

Gun fetishization in this country is so powerful that controlling guns would be like trying to control sex.

 

[Loulit01]

Then debate it. That is, after all, the entire purpose of this forum.

There must be a dozen long, long, long, threads on gun control in this forum. I've spent far too much time debating a subject with people for whom the topic is immune to logic and reason. I'm done.

What is the title of this thread?

 

[JMB1911A1]

Source?

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5442239-carville-democrats-states-supreme-court/

Democrats’ dilemma: Eliminate the filibuster or pack the Supreme Court

ANALYSIS — The Supreme Court has had nine justices since 1869. Adding justices now would further politicize a court that’s already too politicized.

rollcall.com

 

[JMB1911A1]

Gun fetishization in this country is so powerful that controlling guns would be like trying to control sex.

Says the guy whose drag queen avatar is holding a gun.

At least I am honest about my position.

 

[Loulit01]

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5442239-carville-democrats-states-supreme-court/

Democrats’ dilemma: Eliminate the filibuster or pack the Supreme Court

ANALYSIS — The Supreme Court has had nine justices since 1869. Adding justices now would further politicize a court that’s already too politicized.

rollcall.com

Nothing about overturning the 2nd Amendment.

 

[JMB1911A1]

There must be a dozen long, long, long, threads on gun control in this forum. I've spent far too much time debating a subject with people for whom the topic is immune to logic and reason. I'm done.

What is the title of this thread?