# Repealing the 2nd Amendment **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [June 14, 2016, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repealing-the-2nd-amendment/757326 "2016-06-14T04:05:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Waymore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Waymore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waymore)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2016, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repealing-the-2nd-amendment/757326/181 "2016-06-21T22:38:48Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Repealing the Second would not outlaw self defense. You do know that, right? People use guns to defend themselves. You do know that, right? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2016, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repealing-the-2nd-amendment/757326/182 "2016-06-21T22:50:40Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Repealing the Second would not outlaw self defense. You do know that, right? Baseball bats? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2016, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repealing-the-2nd-amendment/757326/183 "2016-06-22T00:22:41Z")
> [@Waymore](#): > > People use guns to defend themselves. You do know that, right? That isn’t a logical rebuttal to what was asked of you. Guns are not the _only_ means of self-defense. (“You do know that, right?”) A friend of mine defended himself against a home intruder with a Frankish throwing-axe. The intruder took one look and skedaddled like holy hell. ---
**Author:** ![ralfy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ralfy/32/600_2.png) [@ralfy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralfy)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2016, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repealing-the-2nd-amendment/757326/184 "2016-06-22T00:33:47Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > I presume as much, but could you elaborate? From Art. 1 Sec. 8: > **[Article One of the United States Constitution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_8:_Powers_of_Congress)** > > Article One of the Constitution of the United States establishes the legislative branch of the federal government, the United States Congress. Under Article One, Congress is a bicameral legislature consisting of the House of Representatives and the Senate.: 73  Article One grants Congress various enumerated powers and the ability to pass laws "necessary and proper" to carry out those powers. Article One also establishes the procedures for passing a bill and places various limits on the powers > [@](#): > > To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; > > To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; “First Militia Act of 1792” > [@](#): > > The first Act, passed May 2, 1792, provided for the authority of the president to call out the militias of the several states, “whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe.”[3] The law also authorized the President to call the militias into Federal service “whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act”.[4] This provision likely referred to uprisings such as Shays’ Rebellion. The president’s authority in both cases was to expire after two years. > **[Militia Acts of 1792](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792#First_Militia_Act_of_1792)** > > Two Militia Acts, enacted by the 2nd United States Congress in 1792, provided for the organization of militia and empowered the president of the United States to take command of the state militia in times of imminent invasion or insurrection. > The president's authority had a life of two years and was invoked to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794. In 1795, Congress enacted the Militia Act of 1795, which mirrored the provisions of the expired 1792 Acts, except that the president's authority... “Second Militia Act of 1792” > [@](#): > > The second Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted every “free able-bodied white male citizen” between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company. (This was later expanded to all males, regardless of race, between the ages 18-54 in 1862) > > Militia members, referred to as “every citizen, so enrolled and notified,” “…shall within six months thereafter, provide himself…” with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gunpowder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack.[5] Some occupations were exempt, such as congressmen, stagecoach drivers, and ferryboatmen. > > The militias were divided into “divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions, and companies” as the state legislatures would direct.[6] The provisions of the first Act governing the calling up of the militia by the President in case of invasion or obstruction to law enforcement were continued in the second Act.[7] Court martial proceedings were authorized by the statute against militia members who disobeyed orders.[8] followed by three more acts: 1795, 1862, and 1903 “Militia Act of 1862” > **[Militia Act of 1862](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1862)** > > The Militia Act of 1862 (12 Stat. 597, enacted July 17, 1862) was an Act of the 37th United States Congress, during the American Civil War, that authorized a militia draft within a state when the state could not meet its quota with volunteers.\[citation needed\] The Act, for the first time, also allowed African-Americans to serve in the militias as soldiers and war laborers. Previous to it, since the Militia Acts of 1792, only white male citizens were permitted to participate in the militias. > The ... “Militia Act of 1903” > **[Militia Act of 1903](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903)** > > The Militia Act of 1903 (32 Stat. 775), also known as the Efficiency in Militia Act of 1903 or the Dick Act, was legislation enacted by the United States Congress to create what would become the modern National Guard from a subset of the militia, and codify the circumstances under which the Guard could be federalized. It also provided federal funds to pay for equipment and training, including annual summer encampments. The new National Guard was to organize units of similar form and quality to Du... ---
**Author:** ![ralfy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ralfy/32/600_2.png) [@ralfy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralfy)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2016, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repealing-the-2nd-amendment/757326/185 "2016-06-22T00:42:54Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > If the National Guard is the only well-regulated militia then are they the only ones with a right to keep arms? If so what’s the point since the state provides them with guns? From what I know, the right to bear arms is a natural right, part of English common law and the right to defend oneself and loved ones. That means it takes place with or without the Second or even the existence of a government. In addition, any citizen can choose not to bear arms. On the other hand, the Second coupled with Art. 1 Sec. 8 and the Militia Acts regulate and enforce the use of firearms among male citizens of a certain age range in order to defend or fight for strangers. ---
**Author:** ![Waymore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Waymore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waymore)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2016, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repealing-the-2nd-amendment/757326/186 "2016-06-22T00:45:38Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > That isn’t a logical rebuttal to what was asked of you. Guns are not the _only_ means of self-defense. (“You do know that, right?”) It is a logical rebuttal. I never claimed they are only used for self defense. I claim that they are used for self defense a large percentage of the time, and they are very effective means of self defense, especially for people who are outnumbered or at a physical disadvantage to the people who are attacking them. By depriving a person access to handguns, you’re making it substantially harder for that person to defend himself. ---
**Author:** ![ralfy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ralfy/32/600_2.png) [@ralfy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralfy)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2016, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repealing-the-2nd-amendment/757326/187 "2016-06-22T00:46:46Z")
> [@Waymore](#): > > Private ownership of property is a natural right. Any society that doesn’t recognize that is wrong. > > This is essentially an appeal to numbers. I own a red car. If it developed that suddenly people felt that owning a red car was wrong, would I stop owning that car? > > No. It’s conceivable an individual or small group of people could be in a situation where an assault rifle could be useful for self defense. I can’t really imagine a situation where somebody worried about home defense would need a nuclear device. > > Plus, there a difference between the potential lethality of firearms and nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. A crazy person with a gun can cause a lot of carnage, but nothing comparable what the same person could do with weapons of mass destruction. > > Hand guns /= mustard gas. It’s silly to assume so. > > Besides, it’s not as if there aren’t already many regulations of weapons in the US. The choice before us isn’t regulation or no regulation. The choice is the current level of regulation and an even greater level of regulation. From what I remember, private property is a legal concept rather than a natural right, and started from physical force that was eventually legitimized (e.g., enclosures during the 18th century). ---
**Author:** ![ralfy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ralfy/32/600_2.png) [@ralfy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralfy)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2016, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repealing-the-2nd-amendment/757326/188 "2016-06-22T00:54:21Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The basic problem with repealing the 2nd amendment is that at its core it is the right to self defense. If we establish that there is no such right, then that implies a duty to protect on the part of the state. > > The 2nd amendment was written for militias, but also as a bulwark against tyranny, but finally it was also a recognition that the authorities can’t be everywhere. Nothing about that has changed since the 18th century, when gun rights were necessary to protect far off settlements from the natives, or from marauding wildlife. You can still get pulled into a dark alley, and millions of people still live hours away from a credible police response to a serious situation. So the alternative to no right to bear arms is that the state must be able to protect every human being in the country from every possible circumstance that would require a firearm. Wolves attacking your sheep? Cops better be out there before the first sheep’s blood hits the ground. My understanding is that it’s the other way round: the need to defend others does not guarantee the right to defend oneself. Rather, self-defense is a natural right, but that by default involves oneself and loved ones. That natural right, in turn, is used to justify defending strangers. Another point to consider is that the Second coupled with Art. 1 Sec. 8 and the Militia Acts is meant to force male citizens of a certain age range to serve the federal government. Finally, natural rights may be abridged for one reason or another, and it does not have to involve the Second but gun regulations which vary across states. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2016, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repealing-the-2nd-amendment/757326/189 "2016-06-22T03:01:48Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > A friend of mine defended himself against a home intruder with a Frankish throwing-axe. The intruder took one look and skedaddled like holy hell. Never bring an axe to a gunfight. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2016, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repealing-the-2nd-amendment/757326/190 "2016-06-22T04:17:25Z")
> [@Waymore](#): > > . . . By depriving a person access to handguns, you’re making it substantially harder for that person to defend himself. By depriving other people of guns, it makes that person much safer from being shot from a distance. Ever have a window broken by someone taking a shot at it? I have. If that guy hadn’t had a gun, I’d have been that much safer. ---
**Author:** ![Waymore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Waymore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waymore)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2016, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repealing-the-2nd-amendment/757326/191 "2016-06-22T05:17:21Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > By depriving other people of guns, it makes that person much safer from being shot from a distance. People use handguns for self defense, it’s silly to argue otherwise. > [@Trinopus](#): > > Ever have a window broken by someone taking a shot at it? I have. If that guy hadn’t had a gun, I’d have been that much safer. So folks should be denied their natural rights because you had a window broken? ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2016, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repealing-the-2nd-amendment/757326/192 "2016-06-22T05:29:13Z")
> [@Waymore](#): > > People use handguns for self defense, it’s silly to argue otherwise. He isn’t arguing otherwise. He’s pointing out that people also use handguns for offence, and they use or handle firearms in other ways which create danger to others. And we’re entitled - morally required, even - to balance these competing interests when deciding how to regulate firearms. ---
**Author:** ![Waymore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Waymore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waymore)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2016, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repealing-the-2nd-amendment/757326/193 "2016-06-22T05:45:07Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > He isn’t arguing otherwise. He’s pointing out that people also use handguns for offence, and they use or handle firearms in other ways which create danger to others. And we’re entitled - morally required, even - to balance these competing interests when deciding how to regulate firearms. Every freedom can be abused. That alone isn’t a compelling argument for denying the population a fundamental right. [Cite.](http://www.medhelp.org/general-health/articles/The-25-Most-Common-Causes-of-Death/193?page=3) According to the cite above, Americans have a 1 in 300 chance of dying from gun violence. There’s a 1 in 6 chance of dying of heart disease, 1 in 7 chance of dying of cancer and 1 in 28 chance of dying of stroke. Until people are ready to criminalize a shitty diet and lack of exercise, calls for repealing the 2nd amendment due to the need to balance freedom and risk seem disingenuous. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2016, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repealing-the-2nd-amendment/757326/194 "2016-06-22T05:57:20Z")
> [@Waymore](#): > > Every freedom can be abused. That alone isn’t a compelling argument for denying the population a fundamental right. > > [Cite.](http://www.medhelp.org/general-health/articles/The-25-Most-Common-Causes-of-Death/193?page=3) > > According to the cite above, Americans have a 1 in 300 chance of dying from gun violence. There’s a 1 in 6 chance of dying of heart disease, 1 in 7 chance of dying of cancer and 1 in 28 chance of dying of stroke. > > Until people are ready to criminalize a shitty diet and lack of exercise, calls for repealing the 2nd amendment due to the need to balance freedom and risk seem disingenuous. Denying you a handgun is not denying you “a fundamental right”. You’re still entitled to defend yourself; just not with a handgun. And the rationale for this is that the benefit to you of allowing you to defend yourself with a handgun is outweighed by the detriment to you (and others) of allowing other people to have handguns which may injure you (and others). I don’t think the comparison with cars or diet is a good one. Handguns are fundamentally violent; they are machines for launching projectiles in a way that will kill or injure people. That’s what they were developed to do. Whereas cars and food have multiple beneficial uses that have nothing to do with killing or injuring people. I don’t think the two are analogous at all. ---
**Author:** ![Waymore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Waymore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waymore)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2016, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repealing-the-2nd-amendment/757326/195 "2016-06-22T06:47:09Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > Denying you a handgun is not denying you “a fundamental right”. Guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on this. > [@UDS](#): > > And the rationale for this is that the benefit to you of allowing you to defend yourself with a handgun is outweighed by the detriment to you (and others) of allowing other people to have handguns which may injure you (and others). And that rationale doesn’t hold water. > [@UDS](#): > > I don’t think the comparison with cars or diet is a good one. Handguns are fundamentally violent; they are machines for launching projectiles in a way that will kill or injure people. That’s what they were developed to do. Whereas cars and food have multiple beneficial uses that have nothing to do with killing or injuring people. I don’t think the two are analogous at all. The ability of a gun to launch a projectile can be lifesaving in some situations. It’s a tool, like a car. When people argue for restricting guns but not for restricting things that kill far, far more people, I have a hard time believing the public safety angle is being taken in good faith. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2016, 6:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repealing-the-2nd-amendment/757326/196 "2016-06-22T06:59:12Z")
> [@Waymore](#): > > Guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on this. We already do, I think! > [@Waymore](#): > > The ability of a gun to launch a projectile can be lifesaving in some situations. It’s a tool, like a car. Yes. But your “fundamental right” assertion is an attempt to give the lifesaving potential of a gun some kind of priority over its potential for harm. The lifesaving potential “trumps” the potential for harm, so that public policy has to prioritise one over the other. I say that’s BS. If a public policy is forseeably going to cause more deaths and injuries, attempts to discount that with an appeal to “fundamental rights” deserve the strictest and most sceptical scrutiny. And I’m not seeing any sense at all in the attempts to establish the right to keep and bear arms as a fundamental right. They seem completely incoherent to me. > [@Waymore](#): > > When people argue for restricting guns but not for restricting things that kill far, far more people, I have a hard time believing the public safety angle is being taken in good faith. And when people argue for a fundamental right to keep and bear arms as something that trumps the consequences of gun violence in the formation of public policy, I have a hard time believing that the public safety angle is being taken at all. ---
**Author:** ![Waymore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Waymore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waymore)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2016, 7:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repealing-the-2nd-amendment/757326/197 "2016-06-22T07:18:16Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > We already do, I think! Touche > [@UDS](#): > > Yes. But your “fundamental right” assertion is an attempt to give the lifesaving potential of a gun some kind of priority over its potential for harm. The lifesaving potential “trumps” the potential for harm, so that public policy has to prioritise one over the other. I’m making an even more radical claim than this. I’m saying a fundamental right should only be abridged when the potential for harm is much greater than the lifesaving potential. > [@UDS](#): > > I say that’s BS. If a public policy is forseeably going to cause more deaths and injuries, attempts to discount that with an appeal to “fundamental rights” deserve the strictest and most sceptical scrutiny. And I’m not seeing any sense at all in the attempts to establish the right to keep and bear arms as a fundamental right. They seem completely incoherent to me. You may not recognize the right to keep and bare arms, but it was of such a fundamental concern to the framers that the Federalist had to insert the right into the Bill of Rights to get the Anti-Federalists to go along with the Constitution in the first place. Besides, your objection to handguns would only being to make sense if the number of unjustified homicides plus accidental gun related deaths were seriously out numbered by the number of lives saved by handguns. > [@UDS](#): > > And when people argue for a fundamental right to keep and bear arms as something that trumps the consequences of gun violence in the formation of public policy, I have a hard time believing that the public safety angle is being taken at all. I’m not the one making the an argument based on the appeal to public safety. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2016, 8:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repealing-the-2nd-amendment/757326/198 "2016-06-22T08:07:34Z")
> [@Waymore](#): > > You may not recognize the right to keep and bare arms, but it was of such a fundamental concern to the framers that the Federalist had to insert the right into the Bill of Rights to get the Anti-Federalists to go along with the Constitution in the first place. I wouldn’t be pointing this out, if I were you. Far from suggesting that the right to keep and bear arms was a “fundamental concern”, it suggests that whether it was a concern at all was a matter of disagreement even at the time. Not only is the US Bill of Rights the only statement of fundamental rights to include this one, but now you tell us it was only included by way of compromise. Plus, as I have already pointed out, the terms in which the right was inserted into the Constitution are not consistent with your view that the right to keep and bear arms arising out of a right to self-defence; they explicitly link it to state security. > [@Waymore](#): > > I’m not the one making the an argument based on the appeal to public safety. No, but I think the logic of your position is that you must accept public safety as a paramount concern. If the safety of the individual isn’t a matter of importance, how can there possibly be a right to self-defence? What value does that right vindicate, if not the value of people being safe in their persons and property? And this raises the question of whether I’m entitled to demand measures that (I think or hope) will enhance _my_ safety, if the same measures are going to imperil the safety of others. I can’t demand, can I, that my safety be prioritised over the safety of others? That’s just selfishness. ---
**Author:** ![Waymore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Waymore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waymore)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2016, 8:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repealing-the-2nd-amendment/757326/199 "2016-06-22T08:19:16Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > I wouldn’t be pointing this out, if I were you. Far from suggesting that the right to keep and bear arms was a “fundamental concern”, it suggests that whether it was a concern at all was a matter of disagreement even at the time. Not only is the US Bill of Rights the only statement of fundamental rights to include this one, but now you tell us it was only included by way of compromise. Because the anti-federalists would only support a constitution that specifically enumerated the fundamental rights the government couldn’t violate, including the right to bare arms. And this was simply a continuation of the right to bare arms that was part of English Common Law. > [@UDS](#): > > Plus, as I have already pointed out, the terms in which the right was inserted into the Constitution are not consistent with your view that the right to keep and bear arms arising out of a right to self-defence; they explicitly link it to state security. And as I have pointed out 1) state security is simply a particular instance of self defense, and 2) the right to self defense exists in and of itself. > [@UDS](#): > > No, but I think the logic of your position is that you must accept public safety as a paramount concern. If the safety of the individual isn’t a matter of importance, how can there possibly be a right to self-defence? What value does that right vindicate, if not the value of people being safe in their persons and property? And this raises the question of whether I’m entitled to demand measures that (I think or hope) will enhance _my_ safety, if the same measures are going to imperil the safety of others. I can’t demand, can I, that my safety be prioritised over the safety of others? That’s just selfishness. The logic of my point is it’s disingenuous to ban guns for the ostensible purpose of public safety while taking no action against things that are far, far more deadly. ---
**Author:** ![Waymore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Waymore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waymore)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2016, 8:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repealing-the-2nd-amendment/757326/200 "2016-06-22T08:21:04Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > And this raises the question of whether I’m entitled to demand measures that (I think or hope) will enhance _my_ safety, if the same measures are going to imperil the safety of others. I can’t demand, can I, that my safety be prioritised over the safety of others? That’s just selfishness. The vast majority of handguns never imperil the safety of others. It’s a non-starter. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repealing-the-2nd-amendment/757326.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/repealing-the-2nd-amendment/757326.md?page=11)