Movement to Repeal 2nd Amendment Growing

Tarponator

mustang190 said:

So by your logic crime should be a thing of the past because so many criminals are frozen with fear. 
Got it!

No, that would be your logic, not mine.  That, and your appeal to the extreme logical fallacy.

A solution doesn't need to be perfect to work, and I just showed you one hundred thousand pieces of proof.

You just don't get it.

Perhaps I should be more condescending.  What I'm doing isn't working. 

Scoutboat

NACl H2O Luvr said:

https://petitions.moveon.org/sign/repeal-the-second-amendment-6/?source=search

Petition Background

Enough is enough. Americans shouldn't have to be worried that an irresponsible gun-owning parent's recklessness will result in the slaughter of their young children at school. We need REAL gun control. Stringent rules such as those in Australia or the UK. Dramatic reductions in the numbers of guns in American homes. In order to do that, we must first repeal the 2nd Amendment, to remove the deadly constitutional right of all Americans to own as many lethal weapons as they desire. Repealing the 2nd amendment won't automatically make all gun ownership illegal, but it will allow us to move forward and create the rational rules we need for the 21st century.

It takes more than a petition to change our Constitution.
First, a bill needs to be introduced in Congress, passed by both houses and then approved by the President.
Then, a national referendum is held requiring a majority of voters to pass.
Individual states can enact firearm laws (under the 10th Amendment) as long as said laws do not infringe on the 2nd Amendment.
Fully automatic arms have been outlawed since the 30's.

Gardawg

our society is made up of a lot of anti-social folk.

they want the benefits of civilization without paying the cost.

in a dog eat dog society everyone really does need a gun for protection.

too bad we can't be more than a dog 

fins4me

A real effort to eliminate the 2nd amendment should and probably would warrant a revolution,  defeating those who started the idiocy and reestablishing the doctrines of the founding documents. 

mustang190

Tarponator said:

mustang190 said:

So by your logic crime should be a thing of the past because so many criminals are frozen with fear. 
Got it!

No, that would be your logic, not mine.  That, and your appeal to the extreme logical fallacy.

A solution doesn't need to be perfect to work, and I just showed you one hundred thousand pieces of proof.

You just don't get it.

Perhaps I should be more condescending.  What I'm doing isn't working. 

Oh I get it. I can see thru the BS. 
What laws are you talking about?
Banning semi-automatic weapons?
Banning magazine fed weapons?
for instance. Just how will these bans work?
maybe passing a law that all private weapons be stored in a government approved magazine?
 Ban gun shows? 
The list goes on, mean while the real problems continue. 

Scoutboat

fins4me said:

A real effort to eliminate the 2nd amendment should and probably would warrant a revolution,  defeating those who started the idiocy and reestablishing the doctrines of the founding documents. 

Amending the Constitution doesn't require a revolution as I've already explained.
The 18th Amendment banned alcohol, the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th without a revolution.
In reality, the 2nd Amendment (although I'm totally in favor of firearm ownership) is outdated.
Our Founding Fathers had no idea of the results of the progress that resulted in the weapons of today.
So, the 10th Amendment was enacted, giving states the right to regulate firearms.
So, in a nutshell, if you want your state to change the firearm laws, VOTE.

Bimini Twisted

For the record, the former Supreme Court Justice is a Republican, appointed to the court by a Republican President.

fins4me

Scoutboat said:

fins4me said:

A real effort to eliminate the 2nd amendment should and probably would warrant a revolution,  defeating those who started the idiocy and reestablishing the doctrines of the founding documents. 

Amending the Constitution doesn't require a revolution as I've already explained.
The 18th Amendment banned alcohol, the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th without a revolution.
In reality, the 2nd Amendment (although I'm totally in favor of firearm ownership) is outdated.
Our Founding Fathers had no idea of the results of the progress that resulted in the weapons of today.
So, the 10th Amendment was enacted, giving states the right to regulate firearms.
So, in a nutshell, if you want your state to change the firearm laws, VOTE.

Perhaps I was not clear. I do not think the 2nd Amendment should be repealed. I think if an attempt were to be made it is one of the few things (the removal of property ownership rights or the loss of freedom of religion  being others)  that should trigger a revolt against such action.

Florida Bullfrog

Scoutboat said:

 states can enact firearm laws (under the 10th Amendment) as long as said laws do not infringe on the 2nd Amendment.
Fully automatic arms have been outlawed since the 30's.

I agree with your statement there in terms of the current state of the law. States may regulate guns so long as the regulation doesn't run afoul of the Second Amendment of the Federal Constitution under the authority delegated to them from the 10th Amendment. 
 

Scoutboat said:

First, a bill needs to be introduced in Congress, passed by both houses and then approved by the President.
Then, a national referendum is held requiring a majority of voters to pass.

I disagree. Constitutional Amendments are introduced into Congress and then 2/3rd of Congress must approve it, or by  /3rds of State Legislatures calling for a convention and the convention proposing it. Either way, 2/3rds of the State Legislatures or 2/3rds of individual state conventions must then approve the Amendment. The President or the voters aren't directly involved. Its all a function of Federal and State congresses or constitutional conventions. 

Scoutboat said:

Amending the Constitution doesn't require a revolution as I've already explained.
The 18th Amendment banned alcohol, the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th without a revolution.
In reality, the 2nd Amendment (although I'm totally in favor of firearm ownership) is outdated.
Our Founding Fathers had no idea of the results of the progress that resulted in the weapons of today.
So, the 10th Amendment was enacted, giving states the right to regulate firearms.
So, in a nutshell, if you want your state to change the firearm laws, VOTE.

The 10th was the last of the original Bill of Rights and was enacted at the same time as the first 9. Originally, none of the Bill of Rights restricted the States. A State was free to take away your freedom of religion, speech, right to bear arms, ect. The reason the Founders structured it that way is they presumed the State governments were closer to the people and therefore easier to control. They trusted each State would have its own appropriate bill of rights that didn't intrude on the Natural Rights of the citizens. They presumed that citizens could more easily overthrow and replace any State government that violated the Rights of the citizens. 

After the Civil War, the 14th Amendment was passed to limit the ability of States to take away the rights of persons living in those states irregardless of State constitutions. In the early 1900s, Federal courts started holding the 14th Amendment as applied the Federal Bill of Rights to the States. The 2nd Amendment has been applied to the States by the Supreme Court, just as all the other Rights have been over the past several decades. As such, the 10th Amendment is severely limited by whatever constraint the 2nd Amendment would put on it. Consequently, States are no longer as free to limit firearms as much as they've been able to in the past.  

The reason repeal of the 2nd Amendment might spark revolution in the way other repeals have not is the notion that its the most important freedom that keeps all others safe. Also, that its a Natural Right that exists whether the Constitution confers it or not. That's what the Founders believed anyhow, that the Rights exist as a cosmic moral force independent of the Constitution, and any government is only valid to the extent it protects those rights. The ability to drink alcohol or not seems trivial in comparison. 

Florida Bullfrog

Bimini Twisted said:

For the record, the former Supreme Court Justice is a Republican, appointed to the court by a Republican President.

But was a liberal in most of his rulings...