Skip to main content

View Diary: Text of the proposed 28th Amendment to the Constitution. (97 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I don't Section 2 is feasible (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Glen The Plumber, Sharon Wraight

    Unless we are proposing to disband the military, the police and the national guard. Which might be nice someday, but it probably goes beyond anything achievable in the life anyone alive today...

    I think Section 2 should be dropped, and Section 3 renumbered as Section 2.

    IMO our argument should be that all guns are not being banned in the US, but that we need the legal flexibility of repealing the second amendment in order to deal with the excessive availability of guns in the US. No hunter needs rocket launchers or military weapons of any kind to bring down a whitetail, and our cities shouldn't be required to put up with millions of Saturday Night Specials.

    •  Section 2 is mandatory. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Glen The Plumber

      Makes a federal crime those that import and export in violation of state law.

      Otherwise the amendment has no teeth or reasonable grounds to be enforced.

      I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

      by detroitmechworks on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 02:21:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, the legal use of this amendment 28 (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sharon Wraight

        could be done in federal and local law.

        Under Section 1 alone. it would become possible, for example, for New York City to ban handguns except for police.

        The problem we have is that the 2nd amendment forces a one-size-fits all gun policy on both rural and urban areas, and the needs are different. Nobody needs military weapons except the military, but there is no need for urbanites to ban deer hunting in Utah (or wherever it is that they do it), and there is no need for deer hunters to stop urbanites from banning handgun sales.

        •  I strongly feel that the gun lobby... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Glen The Plumber

          would use any ambiguity to demand the right to import weapons into states that do not allow them.

          Better to have no assumptions, IMHO.

          I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

          by detroitmechworks on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 02:32:48 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think the point of repealing the 2nd (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Glen The Plumber, a2nite

            is to knock out the ability of SCOTUS to overturn state and local laws on that basis.

            It would still be up to the federal, state and local governments to set the laws they need. I don't think we want to try to put a specific solution into the constitution. We just want more legal flexibility in the solutions we can use.

            •  It maintains the right of... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Glen The Plumber

              localities to set their own laws.  Otherwise what you have is undefined and subject to political whim of courts.

              I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

              by detroitmechworks on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 02:38:44 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Well, Sec 2 would alter interstate commerce (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                pistolSO

                and affect the ability of the military and police to supply themselves with equipment.

                IANAL, but even I can see that this is never going to work as written. And I really don't think it would be an improvement to try to write special exceptions for the military into the constitution.

                •  It's identical with the exception of the item... (0+ / 0-)

                  in question,

                  To the repeal of the 18th.  It worked before, it'll work again.

                  I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

                  by detroitmechworks on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 02:51:04 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I don't think that is much of a recommendation (0+ / 0-)
                    •  So, we have lots of illegal alcohol now? (0+ / 0-)

                      Oh right, only a few states still ban importing of it... let's see... Pennsylvania...  I hear they've got a  lot of problems with Rum Runners.

                      Oh wait, no they don't.

                      /snark

                      I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

                      by detroitmechworks on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 03:05:59 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  The language of the 21st amendment (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        detroitmechworks

                        was designed to allow states to keep bans on alcohol if they chose. That isn't the problem here.

                        Section 2 is unnecessary "code". The problems it is trying to fix should be handled elsewhere in the software :-)

                        •  I see your point. (0+ / 0-)

                          However, I fear that if we do not add this in, the argument will be made by conservatives and gun fanatics that the federal law overrides the local laws... and since the federal law says nothing on the issue...

                          I hope that explains my reasoning a bit better.

                          I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

                          by detroitmechworks on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 03:21:57 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I don't think we should try to craft gun policy (0+ / 0-)

                            in the constitution. The place to do that is in the federal and state legislatures.

                            The reason for repealing the 2nd, IMO, is that it gives the legislatures the freedom to work on the problem without fear of SCOTUS overturning their work specifically because it goes against the (bad) US tradition in this area -- that is more or less what the SCOTUS gun decisions have said: you can't change tradition very much.

      •  I must be missing something. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        pistolSO

        States can already institute their own gun laws. If you're under the impression that the only thing preventing states fr
        imposing strict gun laws, I'd say you don't know much about it. And if you don't think people wouldn't "get it" that this process is a circuitous attempt to undermine gun ownership, I think you underestimate people.

        Just as I understand the right's "personhood amendments" as a back door way of trying to effective reverse a perfectly legal Roe v Wade decision, I think this would be seen a just as transparent.

        Sorry.

        I also happen to think you overestimate the numbers of strict gun control advocates.

        •  States have been consistently overridden (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Glen The Plumber, atana

          with regards to carry laws, etc.

          It's needed.

          And I'm not being circuitous about it at all.  I want strong gun control.  This is merely the first step to imposing it.  I'm just suggesting we do it the legal way that can't be overturned by the conservatives.

          I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

          by detroitmechworks on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 02:35:28 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  And I'm suggesting that you may be (5+ / 0-)

            In a bit of a bubble if you think it's just conservatives that would oppose this.

            This is part of the problem. The "sides" are presently the crazy NRA, who no longer even represents actual gun owners much anymore, and the "strong gun control" left, many of whom really would like to see most all guns illegal.

            There's no voice for the majority of gun owners -democrat or republican.

            Nevertheless, I think your proposal is a good thought experiment but as I said I think even going state by state I think you'd be surprised even in some liberal states, the resistance this would get. 200 million guns are not all owned by republicans living in Oklahoma. And so, an unintended consequence of this idea is that blue states end up with redder legislatures, who then make trouble for state residents and work steadfastly against any democratic federal governance.

            •  Then let them oppose me. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Glen The Plumber, stevej

              In good faith, and I shall do the same.

              I grew up with weapons, served with them, and am familiar with them.  I am also a strong gun control advocate who does not see the need for most of them.

              I think that the reason more people don't advocate for strong gun control is because of the constant propaganda that states your points, nearly verbatim.

              I strongly feel that we need much stronger gun control in this country, and the courts and elected officials have consistently proven that the only way we will be able to accomplish that is through constitutional amendment.

              I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

              by detroitmechworks on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 02:48:53 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I believe we need some better regulation. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                David54

                I own guns too.

                But I have no idea what "strong gun control" means in your book. But I still think the effort circuitous. At least be honest about the intent. Come on.

                And as far as your thoughts on "why more people don't advocate for strong gun control" being propaganda...maybe maybe not. You're certainly entitled your your beliefs. I have a different set of reasons why I believe people oppose "strong gun control". And my reasons are as likely or unlikely to be the cause as your own. But the devil is in the details, isn't it? So why would I agree with something so undefined unless, in my opinion, the was no (or virtually no) gun control restriction I would find too restrictive? I personally have controls I think make sense and those I think are symbolic but maybe a good idea and yet others I think would be terrible. So, no. It's not the propaganda. It's the details.

                And again, it's not just republicans who value their 2nd amendment rights. This isn't a propagandistic statement. It's a statement of fact. I think you're in a bit of a bubble. Sorry.

                •  I will not post specifics. (0+ / 0-)

                  Because that is exactly what is wanted.  Specifics to be negotiated upon, nitpicked and finally dismissed because they are "Too Specific".

                  I'm going for the bullseye.  There is No illusions in what I am proposing.  I am proposing that gun laws can be made as restrictive or as lenient as any state desires, within that state, and that state alone.

                  I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

                  by detroitmechworks on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 03:10:17 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Ah, you're going with the Romney Gambit. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    FrankRose

                    I was actually surprised at how close that came to working.

                    •  Funny. (0+ / 0-)

                      I posted EXACTLY what I am proposing, and somehow that makes me RMoney because I won't talk about something afterwords?

                      Yeah, have fun with that big man made of straw.

                      I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

                      by detroitmechworks on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 03:56:22 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I quote (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        FrankRose
                        I will not post specifics. (0+ / 0-)

                        Because that is exactly what is wanted.  Specifics to be negotiated upon, nitpicked and finally dismissed because they are "Too Specific".

                        There's a way to misread that?
                        •  Yup. (0+ / 0-)

                          Because it has NOTHING to do with what I suggested.  Or did you miss the entire text of the diary?

                          I was asked what gun control I felt was necessary after the 2nd is repealed.  That's not what this diary is about and not something that needs to be dealt with NOW.  Not until the 2nd which allows gun regulation to take place.

                          I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

                          by detroitmechworks on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 04:01:22 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  So first we jump, and then we figure out where to (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            detroitmechworks, FrankRose

                            land?

                            Listen, we're not going to agree about this. I can't see screwing with the Constitution without a really really solid idea of how it's going to play out. I don't see a single reason to think that anybody knows.

                            I would actively work against any attempt to alter the Constitution at this time. I think that the goal is noble, but there's no certainty about outcome, and I can think of many circumstances where unintended damage outweighs any gain.
                            Things can play out strangely on the ground.

                            I'm going to leave it here. I hope that you have a pleasant evening, and a prosperous New Year.

                          •  Thank you for the wishes. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Remembering Jello

                            I strongly disagree, but I appreciate your honest opposition.

                            I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

                            by detroitmechworks on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 04:21:40 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

            •  IMO we should be trying to repeal the 2nd (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Glen The Plumber

              but not "amend" it in any way that would impose a gun ban.

              Yes, the right will say this is a step toward a gun ban. In some places I'm sure there would be a gun ban -- Berkeley and San Francisco might pass actual gun bans. But Idaho will not.

            •  It's a thought experiment, but it doesn't (0+ / 0-)

              go very far before it hits a massive wall: it won't work.
              It won't happen.
              We have a chance to change the discussion in this country about guns and gun responsibility, and gun obsession, and any kind of significant move to "repeal the 2nd amendment" is going to completely derail that.
              The NRA would love a "repeal the 2nd amend. movement."

              Furthermore, it's a little like the "secessionist" movement.
              It just further divides the country.
              This is a problem we're going to have to conquer, "all together".

              You can't make this stuff up.

              by David54 on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 06:24:20 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site