I didn't say it was unconstitutional. The constitution makes it very difficult to repeal for a reason.
It's why only 1 amendment has ever been repealed and that amendment was written nearly 150 years after the founding of the country.
I'm fairly certain that the 1st and 2nd amendment are pretty much untouchable.
But I wish you the best in trying to get it repealed. The more you try to get it repealed, the more people will support the 2nd amendment and remind people that we actually have rights that we need to protect lest it be taken from us.
It does not stretch my imagination to see people being fed up with it being legal to own firearms with the lethality that is currently allowable. I may be wrong. Fight for your rights. Be vigilant. I will continue to advocate for repealing the right to own guns. I may never see my vision come to fruition.
> There is nothing unconstitutional about repealing an amendment. The Constitution details the mechanism for amending it.
You really think you can get 34 states to vote to repeal something from our bill of rights?
If you are a democrat mastermind and want to do that then your best bet is to get more and more states created out of the blue states to get more than 2/3rd of the states to vote to repeal 2nd Amendment.
So people can have guns as long as they're in a "well-regulated militia"? Do we want all gun owners to be in self-governed militias? I don't follow this line of thought.
I’m no expert on the legalities and legal interpretations of the 2nd amendment but it seems to me a case could be made that well regulated gives the government broad regulatory powers. The mention of militia could be interpreted to mean only members of the militia, clearly under the command of the military, can own guns. Of course a repeal of the amendment would be fine with me too.
Times change and interpretations change. I do not feel bound to interpret the Constitution by only considering what the founders meant. But for people who are originalists the well regulated meaning in the wording of the second amendment should imply broad government powers of regulation. It’s the only part of the Bill of Rights that grants a right to both the government and the people. It’s an oddly worded amendment. I imagine that the founders understood that a broad, unregulated right to own guns might not be the best public policy and hence threw in the well regulated wording. Also they mention it being necessary to a free state. If it is no longer necessary to a free state what then? Can a ban be placed on ownership? I don’t know how they would answer the question. I do know how I answer it.
That's probably the place to end this back-and-forth. We aren't going to hash out "rule by men" versus "rule of law" a thread about banned subreddits. But I think the right way to be unbound from what the Constitution means is to actually convince people to amend it. There are significant justice implications to ignoring the laws of a country in service of realpolitik.
The second amendment means to me something different from what it means to you. As I’ve said all along In these threads, fight for your rights. Advocate for your position. I will fight to change public perception.
If the text becomes too arcane or unclear, the correct remedy is to amend the constitution, not backfill the meanings of the words from outcomes we already have in mind.
No, its not, otherwise it wouldn't explicitly allow penal slavery.
you misquoted it the text reads: 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.
emphasis mine, It is the right of the people that will not be infringed.
Rhode Island's 1842 constitution starts like this:
> The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty . . . .
So according to you, if the 'security of freedom in a state' is threatened, then the government can suspend the freedom of the press?
Or take 1784 New Hampshire constitution:
> In criminal prosecutions, the trial of facts in the vicinity where they happen, is so essential to the security of the life, liberty and estate of the citizen, that no crime or offence ought to be tried in any other county than that in which it is committed . . . .
So according to you, 'if the trial of the facts in the vicinity where they happen is not essential to the security of the life' (again, in wartime or any exogenous circumstances like 9/11 attacks) then this right of citizens to be tried in the county where the crime was committed can be suspended by the govt whenever they deem fit?
Or maybe, this 'justification clause' which was written in many different ways at many different places by the people of that time is actually 'one and the most important justification' for a right and not 'If and only if trial of the facts in the vicinity ...'.
Let me explain another scenario. The first amendment starts with "Congress shall make no law...". Today we clearly understand it to mean 'US Congress', but in the year 2256, People have created a new legislative body called Congress-22 and now they claim that first amendment only restricts Congress's power to restrict speech. On the other hand Congress-22 still has the power to restrict speech and religion.
Same thing goes with 'militia'. It used to mean "pretty much all able-bodied men from age eighteen to forty-five". This does not mean that it ONLY protects the right of 18-45 men to keep and bear arms, but it cover everyone's right to keep and bear arms.
They left out part of it
> First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the __right of the people__ peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Does that mean that first amendment is not an individual right to free speech, press or religion?
> Fourth Amendment: The __right of the people__ to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
How about now? You don't have the individual right against unreasonable searches and seizures?
> Ninth amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained __by the people__.
Again, the 9th amendment which claims that there are rights outside of constitution and they are retained by the people, just because they are not written in the constitution. Are these all the 'right of the states'??
Or my favorite one, the tenth amendment:
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or __to the people__.
Here, it uses "the states" and "the people" separately. Clearly if second amendment meant it is a right of the states to keep and bear arms, then it would have mentioned it so, and not said "right of the people".
I think you had me wrong it is an individual right. They neglected to include the of the people part in their quote. The 2A applies to the people not the militia
I pretty much agree with you on the rest