General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIs there a point in our current political environment here we must change the constitution?
The second amendment needs to go.!!! That so many support this 'right to keep and bear arms' is so outdated as to be ridiculous.
The time has come. It is my opinion that there should be an amendment to the Constitution to outlaw guns and anything else that is considered 'arms'. Please tell me why this need to shoot and kill is relevant to the world as it is today.
To Congress: Do something, damn it.
Thank you Seth Moulton and others who stood up and expressed their opinion on this ridiculous 'right' we have.
Times have changed, we need for laws that protect the people, not the gun-slingers!
The NRA and its minions would be dancing to a different tune if one of their family members was shot and killed by a gun-slinging idiot., whatever his ideology.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)An amendment that renders moot the ghastly Citizens United decision has to be at the top of the list, in my view.
YMMV...
tonyt53
(5,737 posts)Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)The goal of the 2nd amendment is very explicit: it's to enable the formation of private armies sufficiently well armed to defeat the armed forces of a state, probably including their own.
I think that interpreting it correctly would entail not just privately-owned assault rifles, but privately owned nuclear missiles.
The way forward is to repeal it. Of course, that's not going to happen, so actually the only way forward is to accept that thousands of innocent people are going to go on being needlessly shot every year.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)the purpose of the second amendment was to allow state militias and ensure that the federal government would never try to disband/disarm said state militias. There's historical context for this in British history (the last exercise of the royal veto by a British monarch was in 1708 when Queen Anne vetoed the Scottish militia bill).
Johonny
(20,851 posts)Supreme Court justices used to know this then Scalia and the fake originalists created a "new" meaning out of thin air. Now what is common knowledge as to its meaning is something that is basically false.
But we don't have to pretend to appease them.
Just reading posts
(688 posts)HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)I think the NRA has sufficient control to prevent repeal, not sure a majority couldn't be found to strike all the militia related language and to modernize the punctuation.
MousePlayingDaffodil
(748 posts). . . and "modernize the punctuation"? Something along these lines, you mean?
"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)although I don't think it would be worded quite that way as there will be a strong push to be able to prevent the "dangerous trigger people of the moment" from buying at least some types of them.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)Anything that changes the interpretation will not only not pass Congress, it would never get the requisite number of states needed to be added to the Constitution.
deaniac21
(6,747 posts)33 states. To quote Bush "That's hard".
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)Even harder.
meaculpa2011
(918 posts)the House, the Senate and the White House they passed ZERO gun control legislation.
Now you think that there's a possibility that the Second Amendment can be repealed. (?????)
aikoaiko
(34,170 posts)Doctor Jack
(3,072 posts)Overturn citizens united
Get rid of the electoral college
Get rid of presidential term limits
Get rid of elected judges
Have congressional districts drawn by independent authorities, no politicians
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)Go to a parliamentary system. Yep, throw the whole thing out and use a system that has proven to be more democratic.