Descending 2nd

[HDRider]

The 2nd Amendment could be repealed in its entirety or amended. Someone in Congress would have to make a motion to put it on the docket to bring to the floor. Or a group of states could petition Congress to initiate the process.

I would not call it "rewrite the Constitution". It is amending the constitution.

So it is as "simple" as amending the Consitution, such as has been done 27 times before.

Simple? No way. But yes, it could be done. It takes a couple years for ratification by the states.

That is why I put simple in quotes, but is has happened 27 times before. So, it is far from impossible to see the 2nd removed.

 

[Bright Raven]

So it is as "simple" as amending the Consitution, such as has been done 27 times before.

Simple? No way. But yes, it could be done. It takes a couple years for ratification by the states.

That is why I put simple in quotes, but is has happened 27 times before. So, it is far from impossible to see the 2nd removed.

There 2 nd Amendment could be repealed as stated in the Federal Register. However, currently the only state that would ratify repeal, is California. So it will not happen for a long time.

 

[HDRider]

I hope you are right, but fear you are wrong Mr. Raven.

 

[Brute 23]

That won't happen. If they don't want us to have guns they will make it hoops so hard to jump thru the common man can't get one. The best way is to make them where we can't afford to own one.

 

[Bright Raven]

I hope you are right, but fear you are wrong Mr. Raven.

Can you list 38 states that would ratify repeal of the 2nd Amendment? No. I can answer for you.

Maybe 20 years from now. I won't care by then. Lol

 

[HDRider]

I hope you are right, but fear you are wrong Mr. Raven.

Can you list 38 states that would ratify repeal of the 2nd Amendment? No. I can answer for you.

Maybe 20 years from now. I won't care by then. Lol

I am used to you answering for others.

Your second statement seems a bit selfish.

 

[Bright Raven]

I hope you are right, but fear you are wrong Mr. Raven.

Can you list 38 states that would ratify repeal of the 2nd Amendment? No. I can answer for you.

Maybe 20 years from now. I won't care by then. Lol

I am used to you answering for others.

Your second statement seems a bit selfish.

It was humor, that is why I included the lol. Nonetheless it holds some truth.

What I think will unfold is this:

Before there is a repeal of the 2nd Amendment, technology and social change will render firearms obsolete.

 

[hurleyjd]

I am confused about the word descending in the headline.

 

[HDRider]

I am confused about the word descending in the headline.

Maybe I should have said setting like sunset.

 

[HDRider]

I agree with BR, amending the Constitution to remove the 2nd is hard.

The other possibility is for the Supreme Court to reinterpret the 2nd. Many, almost half on the SC, hold the opinion that the 2nd only allows the National Guard, police and such to have weapons, by twisting the "well regulated militia" part.

I should have thought of that first. That is how it will happen. That is how we lose the 2nd.

 

[1wlimo]

While i do not see the need for AR's unless you sell them, removing every fire arm form every person in the US will not fix the problem.

The problem is with society, and until this is worked on nothing will change. In the UK firearms are hard to legally own unless you are farmer, etc. Hand guns very difficult for any one I believe now. So people use other weapons, but the crime rate is no where near as high as in the US.

Those who are pushed out of the mainstream are becoming a problem. That is a lot of people in younger generations. They are not taught to show respect, and when they look at society not many other show respect to each other. TV and government being two be examples.

 

[Bright Raven]

I agree with BR, amending the Constitution to remove the 2nd is hard.

The other possibility is for the Supreme Court to reinterpret the 2nd. Many, almost half on the SC, hold the opinion that the 2nd only allows the National Guard, police and such to have weapons, by twisting the "well regulated militia" part.

I should have thought of that first. That is how it will happen. That is how we lose the 2nd.

I have more good news. Reinterpretation of the 2 nd Amendment is not highly likely because the Supreme Court has previously ruled on the 2 nd Amendment which becomes a sort of Supreme Court case law. The previous rulings affirmed the right of private free citizens to have and bear arms.

 

[Bestoutwest]

Hopefully they do rewrite the second.
To where every able minded adult is required by law to be capable of defending themselves and others at all times.

This is a slippery slope, and will be the lynch pin in a scenario like this. What constitutes "able minded?" Just like the wording of "cruel and unusual punishment" is the most debatable wording in the 8th amendment, this would leave too much room for interpretation. You could suggest any mental illness would revoke the right, but what constitutes a mental illness? Would this INCREASE violence b/c those with mental illness are now going without help to avoid losing their weapons? Would that be constitutional to those in society that have mental illness but are harmless to others and themselves?

It is my personal opinion that we will see government sponsored execution (sorry Grit) removed as being unconstitutional before owning guns is declared constitutional. I can guarantee that there are too many gun loving states that will reject any ratification to the constitution, Idaho among them.

 

[HDRider]

I agree with BR, amending the Constitution to remove the 2nd is hard.

The other possibility is for the Supreme Court to reinterpret the 2nd. Many, almost half on the SC, hold the opinion that the 2nd only allows the National Guard, police and such to have weapons, by twisting the "well regulated militia" part.

I should have thought of that first. That is how it will happen. That is how we lose the 2nd.

I have more good news. Reinterpretation of the 2 nd Amendment is not highly likely because the Supreme Court has previously ruled on the 2 nd Amendment which becomes a sort of Supreme Court case law. The previous rulings affirmed the right of private free citizens to have and bear arms.

I wish I wore rose colored glasses too. The makeup of the court could very easily shift left, and the next ruling could change their interpretation. Some sitting SCJs have openly said as such.

 

[TexasBred]

I agree with BR, amending the Constitution to remove the 2nd is hard.

The other possibility is for the Supreme Court to reinterpret the 2nd. Many, almost half on the SC, hold the opinion that the 2nd only allows the National Guard, police and such to have weapons, by twisting the "well regulated militia" part.

I should have thought of that first. That is how it will happen. That is how we lose the 2nd.

I have more good news. Reinterpretation of the 2 nd Amendment is not highly likely because the Supreme Court has previously ruled on the 2 nd Amendment which becomes a sort of Supreme Court case law. The previous rulings affirmed the right of private free citizens to have and bear arms.

I wish I wore rose colored glasses too. The makeup of the court could very easily shift left, and the next ruling could change their interpretation. Some sitting SCJs have openly said as such.

2/3 of the states must also approve it (that's we the people).

 

[HDRider]

Not on the SC thing.

 

[Anonymous]

If States do actually call for a Article V (Constitutional)Convention, I'm afraid there would be so many changes that we may not recognize. Nothing would be off the table for major changes. Someone correct me if I'm wrong on my history, but I think it has only happened once when the founders changed from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution. Do you trust your politicians that much? I don't

 

[hurleyjd]

If States do actually call for a Article V (Constitutional)Convention, I'm afraid there would be so many changes that we may not recognize. Nothing would be off the table for major changes. Someone correct me if I'm wrong on my history, but I think it has only happened once when the founders changed from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution. Do you trust your politicians that much? I don't[/quote
There is no reason to change the constitution. The problem is the radio stations and websites that preach that our government is out to get us. I have read post on this website that says the same thing. The problem appears to be senators and congressman that do not take their job seriously.

 

[Bright Raven]

If States do actually call for a Article V (Constitutional)Convention, I'm afraid there would be so many changes that we may not recognize. Nothing would be off the table for major changes. Someone correct me if I'm wrong on my history, but I think it has only happened once when the founders changed from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution. Do you trust your politicians that much? I don't[/quote
There is no reason to change the constitution. The problem is the radio stations and websites that preach that our government is out to get us. I have read post on this website that says the same thing. The problem appears to be senators and congressman that do not take their job seriously.

Both parties put too much effort in 'fear mongering' than doin what they were elected to do.

 

[Anonymous]

If States do actually call for a Article V (Constitutional)Convention, I'm afraid there would be so many changes that we may not recognize. Nothing would be off the table for major changes. Someone correct me if I'm wrong on my history, but I think it has only happened once when the founders changed from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution. Do you trust your politicians that much? I don't[/quote
There is no reason to change the constitution. The problem is the radio stations and websites that preach that our government is out to get us. I have read post on this website that says the same thing. The problem appears to be senators and congressman that do not take their job seriously.

I agree, there is no reason to change the Constitution. Just follow it. I believe there are powers that be that given the opportunity, would spend a lot of money convincing politicians that changes need to be made to many areas. Republicans are calling for a Convention to force Congress to be fiscally responsible. What will an Amendment do when Congress does not follow the Constitution anyway?