Roe v Wade or the 2nd Amendment?
Reported for forum change.
Ya sorry I didn’t change forums when I posted this. Tried to delete it but I guess that’s not allowed.
I think we need to determine what “overturned” means. It would be impossible to repeal Roe because it’s not codified in the same way that the Second Amendment is.
Abortion is more likely to face more onerous restrictions in the short term because the anti-abortion zealots will keep trying (and failing) to find anything that will withstand scrutiny in the courts, but long term the Second Amendment’s current status will be significantly changed over the next 50 years. The individual right will never go away, but the regulatory landscape will likely be strengthened, probably in the direction of universal registration and improvement in reporting to the NICS.
Okay, in clearer terms.
Complete outlaw of Abortions and complete outlaw of gun ownership (heck I’d even go so far as just all semi-automatic rifles and handguns, similar to Australian gun laws.)
Roe would seem to be easier to overturn because all it needs is 5 people out of 9 on the SCOTUS bench to agree to overturn it, and it’s done. Right now, it probably couldn’t happen, but if something happened to Ginsburg, and Kennedy or some other liberal justice retired and both were replaced by conservative justices nominated by Trump, then pro-lifers would be very much within striking distance of overturning it.
Repealing a Constitutional amendment is a far more convoluted and difficult process, and needs the agreement of many red-Republican states (can’t reach the 2/3 necessary otherwise); states that aren’t likely to pass it.
Edit: Since the OP clarified: Then I would say a total outlaw of all abortion will be much harder than a total outlaw of guns. Overturning Roe would only be one step towards outlawing all abortion as it would simply give the power back to the states and the liberal states such as Massachusetts and Oregon, with no doubt, would vote to keep abortion legal.
Abortion will be much harder to outlaw because it affects people on a very personal level - especially pregnant women. Taking someone’s guns away, on the other hand, just leaves them disgruntled but doesn’t affect their body.
Moderator Action
Moved from GQ to Great Debates.
I agree with what was said above.
Because the second amendment is in the Constitution, by definition that’s going to be harder.
But I don’t think either one is going anywhere, ever.
Thread title edited to indicate subject. Please use descriptive thread titles.
Given the 18th (and 21st) amendments were passed, I think you would want to be very sure of the future before betting on too much. A generational change is all it takes.
Then again, I live in Australia, so have a very different view. We also have a history of rejecting even the more sensible constitutional amendments.
Either one would take passing an amendment.
The people in favor of abortions do not have the organization, political power, or absolute devotion to their cause, that the people in favor of guns have. Also, one of them is slightly more willing to kill for their cause. (Yeah yeah, abortion itself is killing, according to its opponents - but the pro-abortion people don’t seem to have the means or the inclination to abort a bunch of fully-grown humans if the latter tried to outlaw abortion.)
Well, there’s NARAL.
I may be in a bubble, but I think the number of people who want all abortions outlawed is quite small. There’s wider support for making it difficult, but a complete ban would piss off a great number of Americans who want options available in case their daughter gets pregnant at 17.
As for guns, I don’t see many who want a complete ban of all gun ownership. So, I don’t see either of the OP’s scenarios ever coming to pass.
An amendment to repeal the 2nd amendment as it applies to arms would simply mean that the states and the federal government would be free to regulate ownership. It would not mean a ban on guns. Heck, it would simply bring the US pretty much into line with every other nation on the planet.
A grass-roots level campaign to repeal just that line in the second amendment is easily imaginable. Something along the lines of giving the choice back to the people. It isn’t a given that every state would even enact legislation changing the status quo. But those that wanted to could. I would put money on his happening in my lifetime.
I’ll hazard a guess that the gun issue comes down to corporate earnings - the conflict between corporation who profit from lowered violent crime (i.e. insurance companies) versus those who don’t (gun manufacturers, private prisons). The real wildcard is whether or not those who’d profit from legalized drugs get their way. Legalizing drugs is likely to have a significant effect on violent crime.
Except that here in America, gun controls do not seem to result in less violent crime.
Neither is likely to be overturned. RvW would be easier as the other would take a Constitutional Amendment to vacate the old (2nd) in a similar manner of 18th/21st).
Are you referring to all the Indiana-bought guns being used in Chicago, or what?
For likelihood I would say that overturning RvW is more likely, in that there is an organized concerted funded national movement working diligently to that goal. Whereas there is not a similar organization working toward the goal of overturning the 2nd (there is not, all paranoid ravings to the contrary). Instead, there is an organized concerted funded national movement working diligently to make sure it doesn’t happen.