This question is open to everybody, but especially Americans in favor of stricter gun control. Why isn’t there an effort to repeal the 2nd amendment?
The only sensible argument I can see, from the perspective of somebody who wants to curtail gun ownership, is that amending the Constitution is just too hard. Can’t win, why bother.
What, if anything, am I missing?
The basic problem is that any amendment first has to pass Congress, which, as you know, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the NRA. They can and routinely do stop anything related to gun control, even much lesser and more doable things, no matter what the public support level is.
Dumping those guys and electing new ones who aren’t, and can be expected to continue not to be, bought or intimidated is damn hard, yes. It’s much more practical to take smaller steps in the direction of sanity until the big one can get knocked off. The new district court ruling that the amendment does not protect concealed carry is a good example.
Then, if you can get two-thirds of Congress on board (ha!), the amendment would have to be ratified by 75% (38) or more of the states. So most of both the US Congress and the state congresses would need to vote in favor.
There are two ways to submit constitutional amendments to the states: a resolution in Congress or by the states petitioning for a constitutional convention. The latter has never happened, but the threat of it has motivated Congress to act (most famously regarding the 17th and 21st Amendments.)
A majority of people who support gun rights do not take the extremist positions of the NRA or think much of fallacious slippery-slope arguments, and meaningful reform of gun legislation does not require repealing the 2nd Amendment. For example, adding psychiatric histories to already-required background checks, requiring states to implement licensure schemes and safety standards, requiring liability insurance, and properly funding law enforcement to deal with illegal weapon transactions, and so on, are all positive steps that are perfectly constitutionally cromulent and don’t infringe on anyone’s rights.
The Second has to do with using the natural right to bear arms to justify the formation of regulated militias. Gun control does not necessarily go against it.
So, can’t win why bother from what I’m reading.
The “majority of the people” are not the ones who pay the lobbyists and contribute to the congresscritters’ warchests-It’s the NRA and it’s ilk who have the ear(and balls) of the government.
If you read Bone’s Positive Gun news thread, you’ll learn how guns save lives and property.
I’m pro-gun, and more than that, pro-freedom. Just curious why people who seem so appalled by the right to bear arms wouldn’t attack the base of its legal standing in the US.
You will find that most who say they support the 2nd Amendment usually take one of three approaches to that “militia” thing:
Amend the Constitution all you want, it won’t stop the bad guys from getting guns, only the law-abiding citizens. (The only argument the NRA makes that actually makes sense.)
You mean like the militia statutes of most of the states, which define the term essentially that way? (OK, usually there’s an age cutoff.)
I think you’re going to a lot of effort to construct some strawmen here. There’s a lot of room for reasonable regulation which could solve a great many problems within the framework of the 2nd Amendment as currently understood by the courts and which would preserve the rights that it guarantees.
Since the bad guys get their weapons* from* the “law-abiding citizens”, that’s not so.
You have to start somewhere. Make manufacture illegal. Make selling illegal. Make ownership illegal. Make ammunition sales illegal. Send teams door to door nationwide with gunpowder-detecting dogs and if they find weapons, seize them and imprison the owners. It wouldn’t be long before guns started filling up the dropoff bins at police stations.
I gave several examples in post #4. But I’ll enumerate some more here:
[ol]
[li]Make background checks include psychiatric history and other relevant data rather than just criminal records[/li][li]States could mandate that gun owners be subject to licensure and that they must pass reasonable safety tests[/li][li]Regulate private sales of semi-autos, so everything has to go through a licensed dealer who will do background checks and maintain records. (So-called “gun show loophole.”) [/li][li]Adequately fund law-enforcement so existing regulations regarding licensed gun dealers are actually enforced[/li][li]States could mandate that gun owners carry liability insurance (the policy would list each gun you own, like car insurance. (This also has the added benefit of establishing another paper trail.))[/li][li]Start holding people liable for knowingly failing to report stolen weapons[/li][li]Improve mandated-reporting laws so weapons can be temporarily confiscated (with due process) from people with psychiatric problems[/li][li]Require gun manufacturers to include better tamper-resistance for serial numbers, e.g. by including RFID chips within the receiver body[/li][/ol]
All of these ideas are fully compatible with the 2nd Amendment and (to my understanding) existing case law. Some of them are just enforcing laws that we already have, others could probably be done through regulations without even needing new legislation. Many of them (like owner licensure and insurance) could be implemented by states with new legislation. Regulating private sales would require federal legislation.
Now, if your goal is to ban guns completely, then yes, you would have to remove the 2nd Amendment entirely. But I don’t think that’s a good or reasonable goal, and I don’t think you’d find much support for it even amongst people who don’t like guns.
OTOH, I think reasonable reforms like the above ideas could significantly reduce gun violence and actually have a chance of becoming policy if we can move past the NRA slippery-slope rhetoric.
No, not regulated (i.e., controlled, subject to rules, etc.) militias. The term is well-regulated, and it means in good working order, capable, effective. While it seems archaic now it was widely used and well understood at the time the Constitution was written.
Until the second amendment has been repealed, none of these can happen.
No need for repeal. Just get all the pro-gun judges new glasses so they can read the whole 2nd Amendment:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, … "
Oh, the whole point is for things to be “well regulated”. So, regulating guns is fine. Why else would they have bothered to put that phrase in there at all???
And maybe, just for kicks, they get a course in what the word “militia” means.
You’re drawing water from a well of poison.