Skip to main content

Proposed Amendment to the United States Constitution - 2nd Amendment Repealed

1. The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of firearms, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

3. The article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

The above text is nearly identical to the 21st Amendment. We should repeal the 2nd in the same way. States that want to keep a free and open market for military style weapons are welcome to do so. But we have got to move past the "we can't do anything to take away my god given right to possess weapons of mass murder".

This of course does nothing to increase access to mental health care. And it does nothing to address our culture of violence perpetuated through video games, movies, etc. But it seems to me like a decent start.

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

  •  No Time Limit (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Apost8, adrianrf

    Remove this section:

    within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
    None of ther red states will even consider the propsed change in 10 years, let alone pass it within 7 years.
  •  While I could probably support that, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VClib, johnny wurster

    it is unrealistic.  What is possible is working with hunters and those who have guns for self protection to come up with common sense regulations that might prevent some of the killing.  We will not be able to eliminate shootings or even all mass killings, but if we can reduce them, it is worthwhile.  

    As Senator Manchin said this morning, you don't need a 30 shot magazine to hunt a deer.  

    There is middle ground here.  Even NRA members like Manchin agree some further regulation is needed.  It's not the only answer.  More mental health funding may help, as well as intervention.  And some of these attacks may still ahppen, but it's worth trying to reduce them.

    Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

    by TomP on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 09:59:40 AM PST

    •  Tom P - you are right (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TomP, johnny wurster, BlackSheep1

      If the Democratic Party decided to run on a "repeal the 2nd Amendment" in 2014 we would have our clocks cleaned. The GOP would love to run against that rather than income inequality.

      Senator Diane Feinstein, the author of the original assault weapons ban, will introduce legislation at the start of the 113th Congress that will ban the sale of new assault weapons, ban large capacity magazines, close the gun show loophole, and improve the background check system. For the first time in decades this looks like it has a chance to become a bill that could pass. Let's support it as a very positive first step.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 10:10:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I support the assault weapons ban... (0+ / 0-)

        ...and think we need to do more. I live in a "red" state that would undoubtedly do little to ban weapons like the Bushmaster 223. But I think we should let states that want (or need) to do more than can be done at the federal level do so.

        •  Tom R - states and local governments have that (0+ / 0-)

          right. In Heller the SCOTUS clearly left the door open for governments at all levels to pass and enforce reasonable gun control laws. There is nothing stopping that process. Look at New York City, they have very strict gun control laws on the books.

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 10:21:20 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Do you want to keep going back to the SC... (0+ / 0-)

            ...every time the NRA decides some locally determined laws are not reasonable? Seems to me that every time we do that, they narrow the definition of what a local jurisdiction can do.

            •  Tom R - the NYC laws are very strict (0+ / 0-)

              and those haven't been tossed by the SCOTUS and that sets a high bar. We aren't going to repeal the 2nd Amendment because in half the states it wouldn't even be considered so we need to work with what is achievable. In addition, if the Democratic Party made repealing the Second Amendment an objective it would be catastrophic from a political perspective.

              "let's talk about that"

              by VClib on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 10:35:44 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  The 2nd amendment won't be repealed (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VClib

    and it shouldn't be.

    It should be interpreted properly and in the context for which it was written.

    It may... at some point in the future... be reasonable to amend the 2nd amendment to establish clearer guidelines for gun ownership in the present as opposed to the very different world for which it was written. But that doesn't have to happen now (and I'm sure politically can't) in order to establish reasonable, responsible gun regulation in the United States.

    "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

    by Andrew C White on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 10:01:48 AM PST

  •  Yep (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    johnny wurster

    3/4ths of the states'll ratify that.
    You bet.

  •  Don't go after hunters, (0+ / 0-)

    a fair number of whom are very responsible and eat everything they hunt.  They also may depend on the meat to feed their families.  They're mostly with you on assault weapon bans and other restrictions.

    Country people can also have an occasional need to shoot a rabid skunk or a coyote pack savaging a defenseless flock of sheep - though not with an assault gun.

  •  I'm in agreement in principal. However, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    adrianrf

    I'm not a fan of the states' rights angle. Despite such a prohibition, it would still be ridiculously easy to move arms across state lines. (In this modern day and age, the notion of states rights is antiquated and only exists to give conservatives a rallying cry when they have no other argument against a reasonable federal restriction.)

    In my opinion, the ideal scenario would be to repeal the Second Amendment and include language clearly specifying that a Constitutional right to own firearms does not exist (such that extreme justices won't find such a right in other parts of the Constitution such as the Ninth Amendment), and allow any level of government to regulate firearms...including the federal government.

  •  Not The Right Approach (0+ / 0-)

    Have to acknowledge that responsible gun ownership is part of the culture. You can get a majority of gun owners to agree with regulations of high ammo clips and assault weapon bans. They will go to the slippery slope argument (regulation will lead to a complete ban) if they think that is on the table.

  •  Extremist response. (0+ / 0-)

    Again, a few years ago we got attacked and our rights took a hit. Patriot Act was passed.

    If we repealed the second amendment in response to this type of thing, are we also going to allow our other rights to be eroded in the name of safety.

    People need to think before they advocate taking away rights for perceived safety.

    This goes not just for the second amendment, but the first, the 4th, and so on. I've seen too many diaries advocating this type of thing. I guess in retrospect, no one gets to criticize the Patriot Act huh? or is that different?

    Whatever.

    We need responsible laws and regulation which are enforceable, carry real weight and consequence, as well as stress the responsibility of ownership. The repealers and the do nothings are just two different extremes.

    -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 Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 10:33:08 AM PST

    •  To me, there's a big difference... (0+ / 0-)

      ...between repealing the 2nd Amendment completely and writing a new amendment that establishes a limited right. I wouldn't favor fully repealing it at all.

      •  Laws can manage that. (0+ / 0-)

        Changing the amendment to be as 'limiting' as you describe will still require specific laws to outline those limits.

        Therefore, we should focus on those laws and avoid the bottleneck that would be created due to an amendment change.

        We can focus on good control laws already. If we start arguing amendment issues, we lose momentum and traction on what is important.

        That importance is regulating a severely under regulated right with proper laws that convey the responsibility of ownership and access.

        -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 Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 11:04:45 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Possibly (0+ / 0-)

          But we have a big problem though with getting any federal level gun regulations through. It will be nice if we get the assault weapons ban back in place. It would also be nice if we could adjust the Constitution somehow to remove the ambiguity of what we can and can't do.

    •  RE: "If we repealed the second amendment... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      adrianrf

      are we also going to allow our other rights to be eroded in the name of safety?"

      First, this comment assumes that we all agree that an individual right to keep and bear arms was ever written into the Constitution. We don't. That's the biased interpretation of those who oppose reasonable regulation of firearms.

      Nevertheless, even if all of us conceded that such a right is actually contained within the language of the Second Amendment (again, we don't), we don't all concede that such a right is reasonable and comparable to such rights as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and so on. The right to have guns is, in my opinion, a freedom that could be and should be eliminated. There's no reason that eliminating stupid rights should endanger Constitutional rights that we all reasonably hold dear.

      (Again, I don't personally seek to ban all firearms. Rather I just want to be able to regulate them as the majority sees fit without interference from the courts.)

      •  Responsible regulation is where I think we need to (0+ / 0-)

        You may not think the 2nd amendment gives us the right or concede it, but that's where we are and this is our reality.

        If you're going to advocate changing the bill of rights on this, then there's a whole list of things we open the door on and at this stage of things, we can not expect any amount of reasonable discourse to occur.

        We need to focus on the possible, on what we can do and that is reasonable re-regulation of laws that have been lax for too long.

        We need laws in place that make gun ownership bear the responsibility for the right implied, whether or not you or others agree with that right.

        -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 Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 11:40:52 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  That is the reality, as decided by five guys (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          adrianrf

          on the Supreme Court. As such, the kind of firearm regulation that both you and I (and the majority of lawmakers) might agree to is continually in danger because those same guys could decide, arbitrarily, that any such regulations are unconstitutional.

          Ideally, we would take that power away from them. In the meantime, we just have to hope that the conservatives on the Supreme Court don't destroy any and all reasonable efforts to avert the kind of tragedy that occurred in Newtown in the name of a nonsensical right that, in my opinion, was never written into the Constitution in the first place.

  •  It should have been repealed (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tom R, cjo30080, adrianrf

    the day the government decided we would have a permanent military. A permanent military ended any need for an armed, well regulated militia, and therefore any need for the second amendment.

    I'm no philosopher, I am no poet, I'm just trying to help you out - Gomez (from the song Hamoa Beach)

    by jhecht on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 10:48:50 AM PST

  •  Bad idea (0+ / 0-)

    Sorry, but this is a bad idea.   The Bill of Rights needs to be kept sacrosanct.   Don't open that door.

    Especially when it is unnecessary.  The 2nd Amendment is not absolute.   It provides for responsible gun ownership.   It does not provide the right to assault weapons to those with no conceivable legitimate use for them any more than the 1st Amendment provides the free speech right to threaten to shoot up a school or the freedom of religion to do it if you claim God told you to.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site