Should the 2A be repealed?

[SCrider]

Wrong again vm...
"Throughout most of U.S. history, the Second Amendment was not viewed as protecting an individual right. It wasn’t until 2008 that the Supreme Court ruled the Second Amendment addresses an individual right in District of Columbia v. Heller. In a 5-4 decision, the justices on the high court struck down a handgun ban in Washington, D.C. by dividing the amendment into separate, but equal clauses.

Second Amendment: Individual Rights vs. Collective Rights

ivn.us

Correct it was not until Scalia decided to stray from supposedly being a strict constitutionalists to activist judge.

 

[mrjurrs]

Did this come out wrong, or is it something you could explain but didn't?

Nope. Human rights compared to civil rights for example. In this specific case, the 2nd Amendment.
"Throughout most of U.S. history, the Second Amendment was not viewed as protecting an individual right. It wasn’t until 2008 that the Supreme Court ruled the Second Amendment addresses an individual right in District of Columbia v. Heller. In a 5-4 decision, the justices on the high court struck down a handgun ban in Washington, D.C. by dividing the amendment into separate, but equal clauses."

Second Amendment: Individual Rights vs. Collective Rights

ivn.us

 

[mrjurrs]

Correct it was not until Scalia decided to stray from supposedly being a strict constitutionalists to activist judge.

Couldn't agree more. I hate the idea of originalists, they always drop that when it suits them. Scalia decided in favor of Bush v Gore as well. Originalist my ass.

 

[KingLeo]

Repealed? No.
Amended? Most certainly.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Second Amendment clearly recognizes this State's sovereign right: The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

A convention is a safety valve, in case a supermajority of states want some amendment but Congress won't let them ratify it (or won't write it the way the states want). Hopefully it's never needed, because in the modern polity States might start ripping out swathes of the constitution until Federal government doesn't work any more.

It starts with a balanced budget amendment. But that doesn't guarantee budget cuts, so add a provision that taxes cannot be raised more than 5% in one Congress or 15% in one decade. That threatens the military, so add a guarantee for them ...

And the opposite is true: in case Congress tried to change the Constitution, the states can stop it.

 

[Luce]

I voted no. Like it or not, the 2A is intrinsically part of our country's character.

Also, as my brother says, there's simply too many guns to even dispose of.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Repealed? No.
Amended? Most certainly.

Can you amend and amendment? Or would we have to repeal the amendment and pass a new amendment?

 

[KingLeo]

Can you amend and amendment? Or would we have to repeal the amendment and pass a new amendment?

Changing the actual words of the Constitution does take an amendment, as does actually deleting, or repealing, an amendment.

 

[VanceMack]

Wrong again vm...
"Throughout most of U.S. history, the Second Amendment was not viewed as protecting an individual right. It wasn’t until 2008 that the Supreme Court ruled the Second Amendment addresses an individual right in District of Columbia v. Heller. In a 5-4 decision, the justices on the high court struck down a handgun ban in Washington, D.C. by dividing the amendment into separate, but equal clauses.

Second Amendment: Individual Rights vs. Collective Rights

ivn.us

Not to sound like a broken record...but Heller was the legal case where the DC restrictions on individual rights were challenged, but prior to Heller, well over 100 million gun owners bought guns for individual use.

The operational understanding even prior to Heller was this "a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause". In other words, regardless of the first part of the amendment, the 2nd IS and always was an individual right...the rights of the INDIVIDUAL. That others wrongly interpreted it in order to fit their cause and in DCs case, their laws, does not change the facts.

 

[mrjurrs]

Not to sound like a broken record...but Heller was the legal case where the DC restrictions on individual rights were challenged, but prior to Heller, well over 100 million gun owners bought guns for individual use.

The operational understanding even prior to Heller was this "a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause". In other words, regardless of the first part of the amendment, the 2nd IS and always was an individual right...the rights of the INDIVIDUAL. That others wrongly interpreted it in order to fit their cause and in DCs case, their laws, does not change the facts.

Your description describes possession, not rights.

 

[VanceMack]

Your description describes possession, not rights.

Okie dokie then...

 

[The Stars Tremble]

And the opposite is true: in case Congress tried to change the Constitution, the states can stop it.

That's an unnecessarily divisive way to see it. The ratification stage IS a higher bar, but 2/3 in the House then 2/3 in the Senate is pretty hard to get, too.

 

[The Stars Tremble]

Not to sound like a broken record...but Heller was the legal case where the DC restrictions on individual rights were challenged, but prior to Heller, well over 100 million gun owners bought guns for individual use.

You can't prove that. Because, ironically, gun owners so adamantly oppose a register of who owns a gun and who doesn't.

EDIT: You can stop searching, you've done due diligence. Everyone who has tried to find this out has run up against the secrecy of gun owners. They're so paranoid about government finding out that they're not going to tell an opinion poll, whoever it's run by.

The inference that some very dangerous people are stockpiling guns and ammo, is unfortunately the end result of the average gun owner's considering it a secret. Maybe they worry what their boss or their neighbour might think too, but mostly I think they have a nightmare of armored police bashing in their door just BECAUSE they have guns. What I was saying before about paying too much attention to minor threats?

 

[post]

And the opposite is true: in case Congress tried to change the Constitution, the states can stop it.

The Trump appointed SCOTUS trio joined Justices Thomas and Alito late this week in inviting a state such as Connecticut to legislate patterned after Texas's vigilante law that has stopped the right to a safe, clinical abortion in Texas, to make it financially untenable in Connecticut to possess or sell any firearm more modern than of the black powder era. Connecticut's and any other state legislature, if the SCOTUS majority rules consistently, is now almost encouraged to pass a law banning sale and possession of all firearms, clips, and ammunition more modern than black powder technology, enforced by anyone of any state willing to file suit in any Connecticut court against anyone in that state selling or possessing other than black powder ammo, accessories, and firearms. Prevailing plaintiffs to be guaranteed $10,000 min. judgments and defendant paid legal fees.

Chief Justice Roberts, writing in dissent but describing Connecticut's new perogative

Chief Justice John Roberts warns Supreme Court over Texas abortion law

Roberts joined the high court’s three liberal justices in discussing the constitutionality of the Texas abortion law.

www.nbcnews.com

Dec. 12, 2021
"...It is a basic principle, he wrote, "that the Constitution is the 'fundamental and paramount law of the nation,' and 't is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.'" He cited as proof the landmark 1803 Marbury v. Madison case, which established the principle of judicial review, allowing the court to nullify laws that violate the Constitution.

“If the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the Constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery,” he said, quoting the 1809 U.S. v. Peters case, which found that state legislatures can't overrule federal courts. “The nature of the federal right infringed does not matter; it is the role of the Supreme Court in our constitutional system that is at stake.”

The Texas law, which took effect in September, delegates enforcement to any person, anywhere, who can sue any doctor performing an abortion or anyone who aids in the procedure. That makes it virtually impossible for abortion providers to sue the state to block the law, S.B. 8. Texas has argued that the law's opponents had no legal authority to sue the state because S.B. 8 does not give state officials any role in enforcing the restriction."

Constitutional Expert explains original meaning of Second ...​

https://azpbs.org › Arizona Horizon
Feb 20, 2018 — "The debate on gun control has caused many to question the wording of the ... 18th century was how black powder, or gun powder, was stored."

The Second Amendment was written in the age of ...​

https://www.wmicentral.com › opinion › letters_to_editor
Mar 27, 2018 —" NOPE! The common arms in use to fight the Revolutionary War and for self defense were black powder muskets and guns. So too that's what American ..."

 

[redbeer]

If the Second Amendment did not exist, violent people would only be able to injure others, not kill them. Also, no injuries would be life-threatening.

Guns kill people. Naked hands don't.

Ridiculous, criminals do not follow the law and would still have guns if the 2A was gone......Law abiding citizens would be screwed for the only ones with guns would be criminals and the government.....what a lovely society that would be, lol.

 

[redbeer]

My username does not mean I must love an amendment that gives anyone who lives in the United States or any of its territories to shoot and bomb people outside of war combat. Why should I support unwarranted severe injuries and deaths of innocent people in the same way two former U.S. Presidents were assassinated?

No more protecting loved ones or personal property?.....No more hunting?....Could you imagine a world wherein the only people with guns are the government and criminals? Needs to be more education on the use of guns and properly handling of them.....case in point, Alex Baldwin.....what kind of idiot points any kind, type, loaded or not at other people?.....he's an idiot, with total lack of knowledge in how to properly handle firearms.....it was not the gun, it was idiocy.

 

[post]

No more protecting loved ones or personal property?.....No more hunting?....Could you imagine a world wherein the only people with guns are the government and criminals? Needs to be more education on the use of guns and properly handling of them.....case in point, Alex Baldwin.....what kind of idiot points any kind, type, loaded or not at other people?.....he's an idiot, with total lack of knowledge in how to properly handle firearms.....it was not the gun, it was idiocy.

Sure!

Before RWE in the U.S. became unhinged.... here they all were, united by their fear of blacks exercising right to open carry.:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act
"Both Republicans and Democrats in California supported increased gun control, as did the National Rifle Association of America.[9] Governor Ronald Reagan, who was coincidentally present on the capitol lawn when the protesters arrived, later commented that he saw "no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons" and that guns were a "ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will." In a later press conference, Reagan added that the Mulford Act "would work no hardship on the honest citizen."[1] ..."

The bill was signed by Reagan and became California penal code 25850 and 171c.

Firearms and violence in Europe–A systematic review - NCBI​

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › articles › PMC8046231
by K Krüsselmann · 2021 · Cited by 1 — "It is estimated that around 7000 people (0.9 per 100.000 population) die of gunshot wounds each year in continental Europe, including suicides,"

Privately owned guns "protect" who ?

Stats of the States - Firearm Mortality

www.cdc.gov

 

[danielpalos]

No more protecting loved ones or personal property?.....No more hunting?....Could you imagine a world wherein the only people with guns are the government and criminals? Needs to be more education on the use of guns and properly handling of them.....case in point, Alex Baldwin.....what kind of idiot points any kind, type, loaded or not at other people?.....he's an idiot, with total lack of knowledge in how to properly handle firearms.....it was not the gun, it was idiocy.

Just gun lovers making up their own scenarios? This is what our Second Amendment secures: The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

 

[TurtleDude]

Nice try. It was a SCOTUS opinion. The SCOTUS opinion changed the manner in which the 2nd was interpreted.

no it didn't. If there was no individual right, even the kangaroo court's Miller decision would have dismissed the Miller position (in the lower court since he had no counsel to argue his case at the Supremes) on STANDING since he wasn't a member of the militia

 

[TurtleDude]

Correct it was not until Scalia decided to stray from supposedly being a strict constitutionalists to activist judge.

why wasn't Miller's trial court position dismissed on standing then, before a Kangaroo Supreme court in 1939? What did Cruikshank hold 60 years before the creeping crud of the New Deal pissed all over the tenth amendment?

 

[danielpalos]

no it didn't. If there was no individual right, even the kangaroo court's Miller decision would have dismissed the Miller position (in the lower court since he had no counsel to argue his case at the Supremes) on STANDING since he wasn't a member of the militia

That is why State law had supremacy.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)

Otherwise, there is no substantive basis to deny or disparage federal law regarding getting the jab.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

The Trump appointed SCOTUS trio joined Justices Thomas and Alito late this week in inviting a state such as Connecticut to legislate patterned after Texas's vigilante law that has stopped the right to a safe, clinical abortion in Texas, to make it financially untenable in Connecticut to possess or sell any firearm more modern than of the black powder era. Connecticut's and any other state legislature, if the SCOTUS majority rules consistently, is now almost encouraged to pass a law banning sale and possession of all firearms, clips, and ammunition more modern than black powder technology, enforced by anyone of any state willing to file suit in any Connecticut court against anyone in that state selling or possessing other than black powder ammo, accessories, and firearms. Prevailing plaintiffs to be guaranteed $10,000 min. judgments and defendant paid legal fees.

Chief Justice Roberts, writing in dissent but describing Connecticut's new perogative

Chief Justice John Roberts warns Supreme Court over Texas abortion law

Roberts joined the high court’s three liberal justices in discussing the constitutionality of the Texas abortion law.

www.nbcnews.com

Dec. 12, 2021
"...It is a basic principle, he wrote, "that the Constitution is the 'fundamental and paramount law of the nation,' and 't is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.'" He cited as proof the landmark 1803 Marbury v. Madison case, which established the principle of judicial review, allowing the court to nullify laws that violate the Constitution.

“If the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the Constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery,” he said, quoting the 1809 U.S. v. Peters case, which found that state legislatures can't overrule federal courts. “The nature of the federal right infringed does not matter; it is the role of the Supreme Court in our constitutional system that is at stake.”

The Texas law, which took effect in September, delegates enforcement to any person, anywhere, who can sue any doctor performing an abortion or anyone who aids in the procedure. That makes it virtually impossible for abortion providers to sue the state to block the law, S.B. 8. Texas has argued that the law's opponents had no legal authority to sue the state because S.B. 8 does not give state officials any role in enforcing the restriction."

Constitutional Expert explains original meaning of Second ...​

https://azpbs.org › Arizona Horizon
Feb 20, 2018 — "The debate on gun control has caused many to question the wording of the ... 18th century was how black powder, or gun powder, was stored."

The Second Amendment was written in the age of ...​

https://www.wmicentral.com › opinion › letters_to_editor
Mar 27, 2018 —" NOPE! The common arms in use to fight the Revolutionary War and for self defense were black powder muskets and guns. So too that's what American ..."

1. There is nothing in the Constitution guaranteeing the right to an abortion.

2. The Supreme Court can't make law. If it could, we wouldn't see so many politicians ignoring court rulings.

3. There were no cell phones, or land-line phones in the 18th Century, so by that logic they can be surveilled without a warrant.

4. The was no internet in the 18th Century. Therefore, computers aren't protected by the 1st and 4th Amendments.

There is serious flawed logic in your thinking.

 

[Goshin]

If the Second Amendment did not exist, violent people would only be able to injure others, not kill them. Also, no injuries would be life-threatening.

Guns kill people. Naked hands don't.

If you really believe that, I have no idea what to say to you. The detachment from reality is amazing.

Does France have a Second Amendment? No. Charlie Hebdo.
Does Norway? No. Look up the Norway massacre.
Statistics... thousands are murdered every year with hands, hammers, knives, sticks. FBI stats, look it up.

And please stop talking about something you clearly don't understand.

 

[trixare4kids]

If the Second Amendment did not exist, violent people would only be able to injure others, not kill them. Also, no injuries would be life-threatening.

Guns kill people. Naked hands don't.

Not much thought went into this post, did it?