Skip to main content

I wonder how the people of New Town with the Sandy Hook Elementary school feel about gun control? And the people of a long list of other municipalities under similar circumstances? While we again morn the dead, we need to hopefully start an action to change a eighteenth century vision of life and technology  in the second amendment and move forward to a twenty-first vision of life and technology while keeping a modern vision of American principles of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Under the adage "all politics is local", I believe the following is possibly the best path ahead, in that it places directly in local hands the responsibility and accountability  for gun control:
•    Vote to repeal the second amendment which states " A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
•    Vote to pass an amendment which states  "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall be decided by vote at the lowest  political subdivision [To Be Revised]"

The above repeal/pass has been done in the past with the eighteenth and twenty-first amendments. The eighteenth was a national law which imposed  prohibition.  The repeal of prohibition  was accomplished with the passage of the Twenty-first Amendment on December 5, 1933. By its terms, states were allowed to set their own laws for the control of alcohol. This proposal is similar, in that it passes to the states and below the responsibility and accountability.

The language of the proposed amendment probably needs some legalistic correction. What I believe the amendment should imply  under for example of a political division of state, county, city, is that if the city passes a law related to gun control then within the city the law holds, but if the county has passed a law, this law would not apply within a city in that county which passed its own law. Thus in a rural dominated county which had the majority of votes and they voted for no gun control within the county, a city within the county could pass a gun control law. Thus we would pass to locale population the responsibility and accountability for gun laws.

I suspect that mayors of every major and midsize city would support this process. Similarly jurisdictions with vastly uninhabited locations with a strong hunting history should be able to pass hunting related gun laws. Thus local elected officials would be responsible and accountable to the local population.

How is the constitution amended? Article V of the Constitution prescribes how an amendment can become a part of the Constitution. While there are two ways, only one has ever been used. All Amendments have been ratified after two-thirds of the House and Senate approve of the proposal and send it to the states for a vote. Then, three-fourths of the states must affirm the proposed Amendment.

I suggest the congressional members of the House and Senate from Connecticut immediately proposed the above. While the above proposed amendment may not be perfect,  it hopefully will cause  some type of action within the Congress.  Then a to be formed concerned group (New York Mayor Bloomberg are you interested in leading?)  should follow the path of this proposal or a acceptable  proposal  through Congressional committees and related. We need to see who really wants to solve this concern and who does not. As a proposal gains within the Congress, actions have to happen within States so that they will affirm the Congressionally approved wording.

Originally posted to jsugrue on Sat Dec 15, 2012 at 07:25 AM PST.

Also republished by Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment (RASA).

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Even simpler... (4+ / 0-)

    just amend to replace "arms" with "muskets".

    Just another faggity fag socialist fuckstick homosinner!

    by Ian S on Sat Dec 15, 2012 at 07:33:28 AM PST

  •  I think we know that 'repeal and replace' is (0+ / 0-)

    simply going to result in 'repeal', no matter to what it's applied.  Even though in the heat of the moment, I might have used repeal myself, the reality to achieve an actual replace is to call for replacement directly, or 'amendment'.

    I would also like to suggest the flaw in your proposed replacement - it puts any given individuals' ability to be safe from poorly regulated guns at the whim of the political beliefs of their neighbors, rather than establishing a specifically safer setup.

    My own suggestion is to require actual militia armouries where weapons are stored, from which weapons have to be checked out when needed, run by armourers who have the discretion to call in police if requests are made by obviously distraught or deranged individuals, and cross-matching to ensure they've only got a single weapon checked out at a time, unless they're staying onsite at approved firing ranges if they simply want practice with different weapons.

    Thr problem is not specific weapons, or even simply specific individuals.  It is potentially any individual, if they're in an odd mental state at that given point in time.

    •  I belive Supreme Count decision do not allow (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bontemps2012, Sharon Wraight

      " actual militia armouries where weapons are stored" is not allowed by the Supreme Count decisions.  The Supreme Court decisions have blocked practically all options. The Supreme Count has made a series of judgements which have blocked gun control, based on existing 2nd amendment. Its time to change the 2nd!

  •  That makes no sense as an (0+ / 0-)

    Amendment. Amendments to the Bill of Rights specify rights we have. Either we have it or we don't. You don't say that a right is subject to a vote. If that is the case, you just don't mention it at all, since it is not a Constitutional right. If the 2nd Amendment were simply repealed, the result would be the same as what you are trying to say here.

  •  that's a really interesting idea. (0+ / 0-)

    I think the biggest objection from gun control advocates is that that could make it easy to smuggle guns from a gun rights jurisdiction to a gun control jurisdiction.

    Still, really interesting idea.  Well done, T&R.

  •  I don't think this will work (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bontemps2012

    What will happen is what happens today:  the states with lax gun laws will serve as the source of firearms for those with strict laws.  Furthermore, the citizens of states like mine (Arizona) will be at increased risk as our glorious legislature will probably just do away with any gun control period.

    I fail to see how doubling down on the antiquated, 18th century, states rights political anachronism we call "federalism" will move us to  "a twenty-first vision of life and technology.  This is a nationwide problem and needs a nationwide solution.  Otherwise, you'll only insure that the kids who'll die will be from Arizona or Texas rather than Connecticut or Oregon.  Not acceptable.

    See the children of the earth who wake to find the table bare, See the gentry in the country riding out to take the air. ~~Gordon Lightfoot, "Don Quixote"

    by Panama Pete on Sat Dec 15, 2012 at 07:46:57 AM PST

    •  I suspect large & mid size cities will .. (0+ / 0-)

      I suspect large & mid size cities will pass, and seriously impliment very strick gun laws. Similary  very lower level political boundries will have very much lattitude in what gun laws to impliment, as compared to what the Supreme Court has ruled.  If your city wanted to ban completely all guns, that is now your option, or you county could do the same. Now its up to your law enfircement to act.. you have untied there hands!

      •  I live in the Phoenix metro area (0+ / 0-)

        There are plenty of one-horse little bergs within a couple of hours drive from me which would have no gun control laws and plenty of whack job gun nuts who'd be perfectly happy to sell an assault rifle to anyone with the cash.

        We need to address this as a nation, not as the absurd fiction that we are 50 sovereign republics.  Fuck federalism.

        See the children of the earth who wake to find the table bare, See the gentry in the country riding out to take the air. ~~Gordon Lightfoot, "Don Quixote"

        by Panama Pete on Sat Dec 15, 2012 at 06:38:28 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Even easier. Just repeal the 2nd amendment. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Autonomeritus

    Period. Let government do whatever is necessary to protect people from gun violence. Make the safety of the American people more important than the right to own a gun. Everything is different now. The old debates are over. "reasonable gun control" is no longer possible. And that discussion is no longer possible.

    To make a parallel argument gay people would have been very happy with civil unions back in the eighties. But they were denied by the right wing. So now the demand is full marriage rights and we are not taking anything less than full equality.

    We would have been happy with some improved gun control laws. But gun laws have gotten weaker. Even over the past 4 years. So now we demand full repeal of the 2nd amendment. Compromise with gun owners is no longer possible. And it might take a while but I am at least coming to take away guns. Because gun owners have proven they can be trusted to use them and keep them safely.

    •  that'll never happen. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mbc
    •  Wrong. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mbc, happy camper
      Because gun owners have proven they can be trusted to use them and keep them safely.
      Gun owners as a group have not proven themselves irresponsible. The generalization made is as irresponsible as saying those who have caused deaths by automobiles have, by their actions, proven all car owners unable to be trusted with operating motor vehicles.

      We need to return to responsible enforcement and to implement laws which place a priority of the extreme responsibility one has due to ownership.

      ...And if one says repeal the second amendment, then the others are up for grab too.

      Fox news has proven free speech can not be trusted for everyone? Well, let's repeal that one too.

      Criminals have shown that privacy issues can not be trusted with the general public, so lets repeal our rights against search and seizure, after all, if we have nothing to hide, then there is nothing to worry about right?

      Before you start giving up rights in reaction to events, think about the patriot act too.

      -6.38, -6.21: Lamented and assured to the lights and towns below, Faster than the speed of sound, Faster than we thought we'd go, Beneath the sound of hope...

      by Vayle on Sat Dec 15, 2012 at 08:22:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I believe kmackle left out a NOT (0+ / 0-)

        kmackle wrote "... And it might take a while but I am at least coming to take away guns. Because gun owners have proven they can be trusted to use them and keep them safely." First sentence wants to take guns away, and it you add a NOT in second sentence, it is compatable with the first sentence.
        I suspect the sentence is to read "Because gun owners have proven they can NOT  be trusted to use them and keep them safely

    •  YES. It's time! Past the tipping point now. (0+ / 0-)

      A majority of decent non-NRA Americans will support total annihilation of the Second Amendment after this event yesterday.  Do it right directly in the face of the NRA and all their ilk (now likely a minority), and wipe out their gun-fetish culture that helps enable and provoke gun violence by losers everywhere.

    •  Agreed. (I saw this too late to rec.) nt (0+ / 0-)
  •  iMO. Better would be ... (0+ / 0-)

    The second amendment is hereby repealed.

    •  I can't think of 3 states that would (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mbc

      support that, let alone 33.

      •  Need 38 states to ratify. (0+ / 0-)

        I'm not a Constitutional expert, but my understanding is that there is a two-step process.

        First, in order to be proposed and voted on, Amendments need a 2/3 vote of either:
        * the US Congress (both House and Senate); or
        * approval by a national convention assembled at the request of 2/3 of the states' legislatures. (The latter has never been successful, to date.)

        Second, to become ratified, amendments must then be ratified by approval of either:
        * the legislatures of 3/4 of the states; or
        * state ratifying conventions held in 3/4 of the states.  (3/4 * 50 = 37.5, rounded up to 38.)

        An uphill battle, for sure, to repeal or revise the Second Amendment, but one I think is worth fighting for. 30 years can make a big difference.

  •  I disagree with repealing it (0+ / 0-)

    That would be like using a pile driver to swat a fly.

    One common-sense change would have likely prevented this tragedy--if you or anyone living with you has a mental condition, you can't have a gun in your home.

    Romney-Ryan: America's Rollback Team

    by Christian Dem in NC on Sat Dec 15, 2012 at 08:56:24 AM PST

  •  Agreed, repeal/revise 2nd A. Let states decide. nt (0+ / 0-)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site