There is no need for repeal. We should defer to the 'well regulated' portion, and ask that gun fetishists' read what they promote.

And haven't they already done so and decided that the 2A means "individual right" to carry?

but make it mainstream. Attack their "strength" openly and aggressively. And point out repeal wouldn't ban a single gun, we could simply get to legislate them from scratch with a forced discussion on what to collectively do.

But in the current political climate is that likely?

I wish.

On the manufacture, sales, ownership and usage of firearms in the USA

Sadly

Not that I disagree. But the left flank already pisses off Republicans. If it was done "long game" couldn't harmful backlash be mitigated?

Or is banning all guns not the ultimate goal?

To control the Senate we have to win in pro-gun swing states.

And no - banning all guns is not the goal.

As a long-term goal?

Move them back to National Guard armories like First World countries do?

Secondly it is pure fantasy that pro-gun states will support gun bans.

More of a thought experiment than anything else.

If you could go to the range, or check your guns out of the armory for hunting like First World countries do? Would you consider dispensing with the 2A and individual right to carry?

I don’t believe that is the norm.

But it was once, and it could be again.

There's a reason they're called "armories"

Because in order to mobilize huge armies like we saw in WWI and WWII conscription was the norm with mandatory service in the reserves after an initial stint of active duty. Those armories stored the weapons for the reservist to train with. They were never used to store civilian weapons.

Not in reality though.

Isn't disarming a worthy goal?

that everyone wants to disarm the Good Guys first and usually has no plans to disarm the Bad Guys, who should be done first.

How naive.

If you think they don't exist, then I would suggest that you are the one who is naive.

Check out the Deacons for Defense and Justice, the Pink Pistols, and the National African American Gun Association and then we can have a discussion about who the Good Guys and the Bad Guys are.

Also Mexico has disarmed their civilian population, they have only one gun store in the entire country, how is that working out for them?

What's next? Cartel home invasions in suburban St. Louis? Fear-mongering? Mexican gangs after our women?

Please... Try harder if you're going to engage with me.

... I understand why you would since there's no answer to that ..the criminals obviously won't disarm

If you think gun crime will go up under a total ban, as I'm suggesting in 30 years or so as a long-term goal, then I just can't reach you with reason.

And if drug gangs can smuggle in tons of cocaine they can smuggle in weapons

Doesn't seem to stop very many of them from obtaining more.

I own property, where I shoot occasionally. I therefore would have to go to the "local" armory, which is paid for by (Me? The Govt? Who?) to pick up the firearm(s) I wish to shoot that day. Is my ammo also at the Armory? How far am I going to have to drive to the Armory? My property is pretty secluded, might be an hour or so each way. Only "sanctioned" ranges? Again, how far do I have to drive, is there an Armory at each range, who is paying for all this (range, armory, personnel, etc.), availability (cuz EVERYONE has to use their firearms this way, causing overcrowding at the range). Time limits? Reservations? Higher and higher increase in fees? Will this be funded by the taxpayer, as a "promise" by the government to keep the 2nd alive?

Hunting: Hunting occurs at different times of day, different times of year, depending on game/area you live. Armory would have to be staffed 24/7.

If I wanted to commit a murder, what would stop me from checking out my weapon of choice, ammo, etc, and instead of going hunting, or to a range, I drove to wherever I decided to do my evil deed, and commence. If conditions were even right, I could just shoot the Armory personnel as soon as I got my stuff, and the whole armory would be mine.

As far a first world countries, they have shootings too, with stricter laws than us. Don't know if you've researched that or not, but maniacs come in all languages, and they often can get black market firearms to do their work. French/Belgian railway comes to mind, for starters.

Do you consider Switzerland a First World country? For many decades, a military arm was kept in each home, 1 for each person of military age, and they had to practice/qualify with it annually. Even when they switched over to fully automatic arms. Don't recall hearing about the mass shootings from there over the years. IIRC, they have changed their laws somewhat, making them a little stricter, but they still have more arms out than the rest of Europe.

Hope you don't have any "interesting" hobbies, because yours may be next on the list by the do-gooders.

Comics Code Authority imposed censorship for decades.

But we aren't talking about the long-game idea of repealing the 1A, we're talking about the idea of repealing the 2A.

What about storing guns in armories until hunting season? Then you check them out, along with ammunition, and go hunting? Then bring them back and check them back in?

Too many "what if's" to make it believable.

And, don't you think the 1st is in trouble? Maybe not from direct repeal, but being beaten into a worthless pile.

The repeal of the 2A isn't just about sane gun laws. It's also about the culture that worships guns.

will fix our toxic culture? I don't think that's the way to go, myself. After the 2d goes, and we are still in trouble, then which one goes? 1st? 4th?

More of a course correction.

The culture surrounding the 1st and 4th Amendments isn't a toxic cesspool of metastasizing evil.

It automatically follows that we can't trust them in the War on Guns?

I agree. Completely. We can't trust them. With guns, with lives, with rights.

That's why I'm arguing for the long game. Gives us time to disarm the police as we disarm the populace. Eventually, maybe we can live in a First World country where cops aren't issued service weapons until they need them for a specific instance. They don't get to have their "own" cop gun to kill kids with. They have to check one out, and ammunition. Go do a thing, legally, then go back, check the gun back in, then get back out on the street to patrol like a British Bobby.

You're going to disarm the police. Then disarm the population. I don't think it will go quite like you want.

goal.

I mean, objectively speaking, if all guns on earth magically disappeared overnight and it became magically impossible to make another one...

Wouldn't that be an objectively GOOD thing?

I'm not talking realism. I'm talking goals. You don't aim to make nuclear bombs safer. You aim to abolish them completely.

Aren't guns an objective evil? A machine designed specifically to kill? Not a car, not a screwdriver, not a swimming pool?

The argument isn't whether or not guns are good, bad, evil.

The OP asked if we should abolish the 2nd Amendment.

In a moment, all gunpowder stops working worldwide. Artificially generated electricity also stops working, as does steam power and artificially generated nuclear power.

Needless to say, 99% if people are dead within a year.

To your point, though, a few hours after "The Change" occurs, a policeman comes upon a woman being assaulted by a man. He tries to shoot him. *Click* (racks the slide, chambers a new round), *Click* (tries again), *Click*.

He barely manages take the guy out with his nightstick. After discovering that no guns work anywhere, he thinks something to the effect of, "I really never liked guns....but I think I'm really going to miss them."

Most of the the novel (and all of the sequels) are set decades later. People are still having conflicts, but they've had to resort to learning how to use swords, bows, and catapults again.

I don't think so, if several men break into a lone woman's house in the middle of the night, what is your solution for her?

Doesn't work on me any better than handguns work on home invaders. Read the statistics.

Last edited Fri Mar 26, 2021, 07:03 PM - Edit history (1)

Will just make the criminals/gangs much more aggressive and less afraid to do whatever they want.
See Mexico for an example

Sentencing enhancements can be applied. An extra trained Armed Police like the UK ensure that the government will be in a position to combat armed criminals.

Everyday citizens have nothing to fear from Mexican gangs.

I'm 48. Never owned a gun. Never will. Guns are for cowards.

Never once been worried that Mexican gangs are gonna kill me. Because I'm not paranoid or racist

.. But when you need it you really need it

Comparing a device designed to save lives with one designed to take them.

Mexico was used as an example, as Mexico has very strict firearms laws, but the Mexican gangs run roughshod over the military and police in that country. The gangs there have no problem obtaining firearms, including full auto. Only one gun store in the whole country, so where are they getting them?

They already whip Republican voters into a frenzy by telling them the Dems want to take their guns away.

I think a more round-about way of getting stricter gun control laws might work:

1. Repeal Citizens United.
2. Do a scorched-earth campaign finance reform, so that the best candidate wins, not the best-financed candidate.
3. Make all lobbying illegal. All of it.

So, basically, don't make it illegal to own a gun. Make it illegal to own a politician. Then and only then might Republican Congress members feel capable of doing the right thing instead of doing the thing that gets them elected or that lines their pockets.

Without destroying the First Amendment?

they have lobbying in Europe, too.

But I did find this on the website Represent.us:

So, why don’t we just ban lobbying all together? Well, constitutionally, we can’t — and we shouldn’t have to.

Lobbying isn’t inherently evil. After all, a lobbyist is just a professional person hired to represent their client’s interests to an elected official. All kinds of groups, from major businesses to unions to nonprofits, pay for lobbyists.

The act of lobbying itself — that is, simply advocating a position to an elected official — is not the problem, and it’s actually protected by the First Amendment. Individuals and groups have every right to express their opinions to Congress about how proposed legislation might affect them and to try to convince lawmakers to take their side. The problem is that lobbyists routinely use money, favors, gifts, or lucrative job offers to do the convincing for them.

You can lobby, and you can donate to a politician. But you shouldn’t be allowed to do both.

Luckily, that’s something we can fix with a single law. The unseemly and terrible behavior we’ve covered in this piece may be legal now, but it doesn’t have to be. Reforms to ban lobbyists from coordinating fundraising, close the revolving door, and end “shadow lobbying” have already been proposed at the federal level, and they’re currently picking up momentum in cities and states around the country. As the anti-corruption movement grows, we get closer and closer to ending lobbyist corruption for good.

Thanks

This 2005 law gave the gun manufacturers and sellers protection from litigation. Sue them out of existence.

I didn't know that, so I'll read up on it.

If we could legislate our way out of this problem, though, wouldn't we have had better success by now?

You can not sue them for selling legal products in accordance with all applicable laws. Not complicated.

The PLCAA happened because gun control groups tried to sue gun manufacturers out of existence. They failed and this was the blowback.

What better options? Is repeal of the 2A really that onerous?

All gun control with the exception of a ban on handguns in the home is perfectly legal and constitutional. AWBs, registration, bans on carrying in public, magazine size limits are not stopped by the 2A.

That's pretty significant.

The only right the 2A protects is the right to own a handgun in your home for self defense. That is it.

Via legislation. The 2A is an impediment to the cultural and societal shifts necessary to make such legislation possible.

A long-game movement, from the left, to undermine and eventually repeal the 2A would be bad exactly how?

Why waste your time repealing the 2A? Seems like an absolute waste of political capital.

If we weren't spending our capital, but playing the long game by letting the left flank spend theirs (they can afford it, as the Republicans already despise them) then over time... decades perhaps... sufficient states could accumulate to repeal the 2A.

The cultural effect would be profound.

I am not worrying about it.

They shouldn't have to. Bit selfish, don't you think?

Heller does not say anything like that.

only when they break the law. The gun industry has been granted immunity from civil litigation for selling lethal products that cause the deaths of tens of thousands every year. This has to stop.

It is not like they try to hide the dangers of firearms.

cause the deaths of 30,000+ Americans every year, just because they are not breaking the law. I strongly disagree.

Among other things, the First Amendment specifically prohibits Congress from abridging "the right of the people...to petition the Government for a redress of grievances". The US Constitution grants citizens the right to seek redress (sue) using the courts, and the PLCAA completely takes away that right.

If the gun industry believes they are not guilty of negligence, then they have nothing to fear from the public's right to sue them. I say let the courts decide.

Their products do a lot more damage to society than guns.

However, unlike all other industries, gun manufacturers and sellers enjoy immunity from civil litigation. I would argue but for this unprecedented degree of immunity, the gun industry would have already taken steps to prevent the sort of carnage occurring in this country as a result of their lethal products.

hit a puddle, and take out a minivan with 5 people in it, can I sue Chevy? I mean, they designed a vehicle that can do 90 MPH, therefore they must be negligent, right?

If someone can prove Chevy was negligent, then they can sue them. It's not a question of whether the auto or gun industry are negligent, or not. The problem with the PLCAA of 2005 is that it immunized the entire gun industry from any sort of civil litigation...you simply cannot sue them.

If they make a defective product, they can be sued. If Chevy makes a defective product, they can be sued. If you MISUSE a Chevy, you won't have standing to sue Chevy. That is the point in the PLCAA. Gun industries were being sued for MISUSE of products, not defective ones.

can do, or not do, to be found negligent. The way an industry markets its products and to whom, how aggressively they resist safety measures or fight legislation intended to make their products safer, and so on.

to gun manufacturers and dealers in federal and state courts. PLCAA prevents plaintiffs from filing lawsuits against gun manufacturers or dealers in many cases when these parties have been negligent and there has been 'criminal or unlawful misuse' of a firearm or ammunition."

...is in believing that a firearms company, three steps removed from a retail cutomer, and with a Federal background check in the process, is responsible for the criminal acts of an individual.

One has nothing to do with the other. Whether negligence exists, or not, is a matter for the courts to decide, not NRA lobbyists.

....but how is a manufacturer "negligent" when a criminal misuses a firearm?

Good point.

The Bill of Rights is a document that lists generic actions of individuals and specific protections of individuals in relation to our government. This list echoes the type of individual freedoms expressed in the Declaration of Independence. The BoR is a nationally foundational document. It is part of the Constitution because many people wanted it to be part of the Constitution. Some articles are there because of specific abuses by former government. A case in point would be the Third regarding the quartering of soldiers.

The 2A has been acknowledged to be an individual right. It is a consequence of the right to life in that it is a protection of the authority of an person to acquire and maintain a means of self-defense. Lots of people not just those of the political right will view your end goals with suspicion for suggesting a repeal. Any actions to that end will be utterly divisive, generally distracting and mostly counterproductive.

Assault is an attack on the life and freedom of another person. It's not wrong because there's law against it. There's a law against it because it's wrong.

Why blame the 2A for the ongoing problem of assaults in this country?
Why blame guns for the ongoing problem of assaults in this country?

IMO government exists to do for us that which we are unable to do for ourselves. By working together we become able to deal with and mitigate the sources of assault and abuse in society. Assailants are imprisoned and rival abusive or warring governments are deterred or dominated and disarmed. Our government helps in cases of natural disasters such as floods, fires and pandemics.

So how can government best help with the problem assaults and deadly attacks? Since most of these assaults and the most deadly of them involve guns, some folks have concluded that efforts to control who can acquire or keep a gun will have an effect. These efforts won't work, at least not with the sweeping visibility which proponents claim or hope that they will.

The 2A repeal is a hollow hope. It's not going to happen. There are exactly zero instances of changes to the BoR. You could point at a few instances of subsequent Amendments that expand the groups protected by the BoR but none of the Articles has been changed or removed.

There are many potentially productive things which can be done. Working to nullify the 2A is a hostility provoking distraction at best.

CDC data shows that the almost 38,000 people dying via gunfire represent a loss of over 900,000 years of human life. I think we owe political capital to actions that will best and most likely mitigate those numbers.

not going to happen, exactly like the fools who prattle ignorantly about abolishing the Electoral college.
You have to get more states than will ever go for such a thing.
Thank goodness.

Karl Marx
“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary”

"But when you disarm them, you at once offend them by showing that you distrust them, either for cowardice or for want of loyalty, and either of these opinions breeds hatred against you."
Niccolò Machiavelli - The Prince

Well, hopefully we will have the SCOTUS eliminate the 1934 and 1968 gun control acts and make Constitutional Carry legal everywhere in all states, so I will deeply look forward to another insightful, historically nuanced, and useful opinion from you and other gun restrictionists when that happens. Cheers.

Since we're making up nonsensical -isms

You don't like them, want to get rid of them, think people who want them are nuts, evil, and/or bad and support anything that gets them out of people's hands.

Fortunately we have these things called "rights" and gun-grabbers can sit and fulminate until hell freezes over and I will find it funny. The second amendment isn't going away and hopefully will be greatly strengthened.

There is simply no extrinsic action, circumstance or situation that will ever justify a single additional hurdle. pause or requirement to any law-abiding citizen owning any firearm they wish as far as I am concerned; I have exactly the same utter contempt for anti-gunners that I do for racists, sexists, and religious fanatics.

At least my contempt is rational

So here are some considerations, thoughts and questions:
First, thinking about "the left flank" it seems questionable how much attention a proposed Constitutional Amendment would receive at all if not actually backed by a major party. Are you certain that there isn't already a far left group backing a 2A repeal? I'm guessing there may be.

Second, by "Hurt or help?" I infer that you mean hurt or help the cause for further gun regulation. I've already addressed the expected results should such a movement gain any traction with any degree of Democratic support. [ https://www.democraticunderground.com/1172210113#post65 ] However, if the party would overtly distance itself or denounce that movement, we would gain some real traction with many middle of the road gun owners.

Last, as a bit of a less relevant side effect, there will always be the extremist RWNJ who will lump together and condemn every group to the left of the Birchers and blame them all for the very idea of a repeal.

Other than the moveon petition which has gathered less than 6,000 signatures in a year, all of these seem to be thoughts of individual pundits and politicians that lack an organized group advocating the same.

however few, push for this. When the right comes out, and says the Democratic Party wants to take your guns, and there are our representatives, in plain view, going for broke, that does not help us at all.

Some folks view the police as having a special status such as the unquestioned ability to carry firearms and a greater degree of assumed respect. I have read about some folks that had special status in the mid 18th century. They carried guns and became progressively more unpopular as time went on. These folks were British soldiers.

I have read also that the term "soldier" meant one who serves for pay. The redcoats, as they were disparagingly called, were sent by Parliament and the King to fight in the French and Indian War. These soldiers remained after the war and in 1765 the Quartering Act required the colonies to feed and house these soldiers. In 1774, this act was expanded. This and other punitive actions brewed the Revolution.

This isn't a perfect analogy but it's worth considering. Redcoats were housed and provided for by local governments. Law enforcement is a paid occupation and due to cops being allowed to carry without question and having qualified immunity, it's basically a special status. I think Orwell that all are equal but some are more equal than others.

This is the sort of situation that inspired the Third Amendment.
Today there are calls to defund the police.

This is the kind of thing that develops from having a group with special powers and rights.
Making guns less available to the average law abiding citizens or taking away certain guns while passing on to the police M-16s and APCs at a discount makes sense how?

Forget defining what qualifies as an assault weapon. Where is the line between cop and soldier?

Perhaps not defunded, but funding put where it is needed. APC's? Give/sell them to dept's, they will think of a way to use them. "If you give someone a hammer" saying, per se. Training needs improvement. The difference between a Glock and a Tazer, and being trained, by muscle memory, which area of belt to grab for each one, for just one example. Most dept's have limited funds for range training, and a lot of cops that aren't "gunny" are actually pretty poor shots, compared to the general gun culture. 1-200 rounds a year, (if that), do not make a good marksman. I have done some training with some local dept's (prior corrections), and could outshoot 99.9% of them.

As far as the "quartering", IIRC, soldiers were actually living with colonist families, who had to provide room/board for them. Law enforcement is paid a salary to perform a certain job, same as a politician.

Police serve a need, if you completely defunded them, and "got rid" of them, something totally different, (but actually the same), would replace it. Vigilante committees. "Community protectors". No one actually wants to be without some type of law enforcement, otherwise, civilization would become not so civil.

And the defining line between cop and soldier, is that cops are used internally, and soldiers externally, to the nation. "Supposed" to, anyway. A lot of NG troops being deployed internally, lately. Posse comitatus, (if followed).

I do, however, have a problem when officers and departments have little to no accountability.

I see that situation as analogous to the colonial redcoats living off the colonists and having no accountability to them.

Governments are a compromise between tyranny and anarchy. Government's most important obligation to the people is expressed in the Declaration. "That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." (Emphasis mine)

IMO the most effective and valid means to maintain freedom is the respect for the rights of the people. I suggest that freedom is not like some volume knob to be used to try to adjust errant behavior of society's problem children.

if not most of the "take 'em away" crowd are urban dwellers.

They have no idea what it is like to worry about apex predators or pests appearing near your house or attacking your livelihood.

I have a friend who owns cattle out west. When he goes out onto his property to take care of his cattle he never leaves without a weapon as he runs into dangerous animals on a very regular basis. I was with him when he was fixing fences and he was never more than a few feet from his gun. He pointed out the coyotes that I never saw but were within a 50 or so yards on us he grabbed and shot got 2 and scattered the rest.

But nope, he needs to have his guns taken away or else....

But, of course, in urban settings, when seconds count, law enforcement is minutes away.

Just some random wise thoughts:
"If you’ve got to resist, you’re chances of being hurt are less the more lethal your weapon. If that were my wife, would I want her to have a .38 Special in her hand? Yeah." (Health Magazine March/April 1994)

"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times)

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. (Chapter 40 of On Crimes and Punishment, 1764.)

"Without doubt one is allowed to resist against the unjust aggressor to one's life, one's goods or one's physical integrity; sometimes, even 'til the aggressor's death… In fact, this act is aimed at preserving one’s life or one’s goods and to make the aggressor powerless. Thus, it is a good act, which is the right of the victim." (I think Summa Contra Gentiles, 13th century)

"Though defensive violence will always be 'a sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." (Writings of Augustine of Hippo, 4th century)

"But now whoever has a purse or a bag, must take it and whoever does not have a sword must sell his cloak and buy one." (Luke 22:36)