The 2nd Amendment could be repealed!

[The Jungle 1]

It would take a long time but it could be done. We should start the process. Cowards with guns are not going to agree to anything that would end the killing and bloodshed. They just don't care and have no humanity.
Children will continue to be butchered and the right will do nothing.

[napi21]

1. I hate to destroy your dreams, but there's no way that could;d/would ever happen.

The majority of citizens value that right more than any other right they have. Even people that don't own any guns treasure that right.

[The Jungle 1]

5. We said the same thing about abortion

We said the same thing about Prohibition. We said the same thing about women voting.
Not speaking out and doing nothing is accepting the bloodshed and makes us guilty.
The vast majority of US citizens want gun control. The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research shows 71% of Americans say gun laws should be stricter, including about half of Republicans, the vast majority of Democrats and a majority of those in gun-owning households.
Changing the 2nd is one path. Changing the 2nd does not mean we have to ban guns!

[Wonder Why]

14. And what about the ERA? Still not on the horizon. Even the freedom

of slaves required a war that killed more Americans than all other wars combined. And that was only passed because the states/people causing the problem were excluded. And let's not forget full voting rights for DC residents.

So even giving that the 2nd Amendment is amended, I can't see a way to stop the problem in a century. Both states and individuals will find a way around it just like they, so easily, found a way around Prohibition.

Yes, if both houses of congress become democratic with a supermajority and enough of those (TWO THIRDS OF BOTH HOUSES) vote for a revised amendment in spite of the big money that will be spent against it, the chances of getting 3/4 of the LEGISLATURES to go along (not the voters) or even having the governors of those other successfully calling a convention are not something to count on.

[The Jungle 1]

18. I think it is called politics

What you want is not always what you ask for!

[napi21]

23. I agree the majority want STRICTER gun laws, but the original post didn't say that. It said

repeal the second ammendment. I interpret that as "eliminating guns". I'm all for stricter gun laws. I believe, at minimum, gun laws should require the same things everyone has to do to get a drivers license. Training, testing before you can get a permit to GET a gun, then a period of time before you can be licensed, Z& then get retested every 5 or 10 years.

[DenaliDemocrat]

24. Totally agree

Repeal is way too much

[The Jungle 1]

36. I guess I would disagree with your interpretation of what repeal would do.

Getting rid of the second does not outlaw guns. It would just make it easier to pass laws to control guns.
I agree with licenses and training. I also know that there are some medical conditions that prevent you from driving. The same should apply to guns. Should a drunk person be allowed to carry a gun? The Supreme dunces just allowed people with domestic violence restraining orders to own guns. WTF
We are going the wrong direction and we need a radical response.


That said the original post was the bait and it has created solid debate. The country needs this debate.

[treestar]

78. Repeal of the Second Amendment does not necessarily mean that

and the Second Amendment will stand in the way of many desirable restrictions.

[onenote]

45. You have a very distorted view of history.

First, no one said that Prohibition could never be repealed. And comparing Prohibition, which lasted from 1920 to 1933 to the 2nd Amendment, which has been in the Constitution for 232 years, is ridiculous.

Second, I'm not sure what you mean when you say "we said the same thing about abortion". Are you saying the right to abortion could never be repealed? Could never be recognized? The reality is that all it took to recognize the right to abortion was the vote of a majority of the Supreme Court and that's all it took to undo it. That's not remotely the same as what it takes to ratify or repeal an amendment to the Constitution.

I note that you've moved the goal posts -- from "repeal" the Second Amendment to something less than repeal. Yes, the Supreme Court could move away from the Heller case's interpretation and thereby allow more gun control regulation. But that's not going to happen unless and until there is a Supreme Court majority willing to do so.

[Samrob]

17. Actually it is repealed by accepted rule of grammar. nt

[Initech]

20. Yeah it would take a war or two, or maybe even three to accomplish that.

[The Jungle 1]

38. We already have some gun control and had more in the past

I can't go the the local walfart and buy a Stinger. Why not the 2nd says I should be allowed.
The question is where do we put the line.
Our population has not need for weapons of war.

Again most men said women would never vote. Most people said we would never outlaw drinking.

[treestar]

77. a future American society would make it happen

just because we don't live to see it does not mean we should not get it going. If the abolitionists and suffragists thought like that . . but they didn't.

[dweller]

2. Go for it

Might as well try


✌🏻

[The Grand Illuminist]

3. Article V remedy would fail.

Nowhere near enough states would pass it. As I always say, it will take guns to get rid of guns.

[The Jungle 1]

6. We said the same thing about abortion

We said the same thing about Prohibition. We said the same thing about women voting.
Not speaking out and doing nothing is accepting the bloodshed and makes us guilty.
The vast majority of US citizens want gun control. The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research shows 71% of Americans say gun laws should be stricter, including about half of Republicans, the vast majority of Democrats and a majority of those in gun-owning households.
Changing the 2nd is one path. Changing the 2nd does not mean we have to ban guns!

[FakeNoose]

4. If you are very young, and if you're willing to wait a long, long time

... it might eventually happen.

Most of us don't have that long. Those of us in our 60's, 70's or 80's ... we'll never see it happen.

[The Jungle 1]

8. Correct it would take decades

The radical rights fight to change abortion law took decades. Getting the vote for woman took decades.
There is no instant fix here.

Not speaking out and doing nothing is accepting the bloodshed and makes us guilty.
The vast majority of US citizens want gun control. The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research shows 71% of Americans say gun laws should be stricter, including about half of Republicans, the vast majority of Democrats and a majority of those in gun-owning households.
Changing the 2nd is one path. Changing the 2nd does not mean we have to ban guns!

[inthewind21]

48. More than decades

In the History of this country 11,000 amendments have been put forward. Only 27 have been passed and ratified. Not good odds for wanting a constitutional amendment. It took 89 years and a civil war to abolish slavery, 13th amendment. And even then, did we really? Mississippi didn't ratify the 13th until 1995, 130 years later. It took 146 years and dead suffragettes for women to get the right to vote, 19th amendment. And Prohibition, 18th amendment, well that created organized crime and lots of $$$$$ was lost so of course that mistake was corrected much quicker. But it was in the works as an amendment for over a century. And abortion, that was a Supreme Court Decision not an amendment so the Supreme Court gave it then took it away. Repealing the second will have to be a constitutional amendment. Average time to get that done, based on the ones you compare, over 100 years.

[treestar]

80. Did Elizabeth Cady Stanton say anything like that?

she did not live to see the amendment allowing her to vote. But her entire life's work still went toward it.

[SYFROYH]

7. This Democrat would fight your efforts.

The 2nd Amendment is not really the problem.

[The Jungle 1]

11. I feel it is the problem

It is preventing us from passing reasonable gun laws. The general public has no need for weapons of war.
Just so you know I also have a safe full of guns. I am a gun owner and have a backstop on my property.

Not speaking out and doing nothing is accepting the bloodshed and makes us guilty.
The vast majority of US citizens want gun control. The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research shows 71% of Americans say gun laws should be stricter, including about half of Republicans, the vast majority of Democrats and a majority of those in gun-owning households.
Changing the 2nd is one path. ***Changing the 2nd does not mean we have to ban guns!***

[inthewind21]

51. Pretty sure we are speaking out.

You can cite polls all day long. It takes congress to pass bills/laws. The voting public has the ability to decide who that congress is every 2 and 6 years. So scream and cite polls all you want. Until the voting public as a whole gives a shit and votes in those who give a shit too, nothing will change. Right now, tax cuts, making sure the single mother of 3 gets nothing she doesn't deserve, what the drag queen's are up to, if my student loan is paid off, and I just can't relate to this candidate is more important than a mass shooting every week. And before you start about all the republican cheating, gerrymandering and such that took decades as well, and the voting public ignored it and kept voting in the same people, see Mitch McConnell, Chuck Grassley and many more. Republicans made very clear for the last 40 years their goal was to pack the Supreme Court and overturn Roe v Wade. Now we're all shocked they did just that? Republican's and the NRA for decades have very publicly told the country they would undo gun laws one by one and even loosen them. We're shocked now because they did just that? See a trend here?

[SYFROYH]

56. What gun control laws are prevented by the 2ndA?

The only laws I know are laws that prevented residents from having a functional handgun in their home for self-defense via District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago

It is true that we have a SCOTUS that is perceived to be more gun rights friendly, but nothing yet has been overturned.

[The Jungle 1]

88. This...

People with domestic violence restraining orders have a constitutional right to own firearms, a federal appeals court ruled recently. This ruling is based on the 2nd.

A federal judge for a second time declared multiple portions of New York's new gun law unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment acknowledges and guarantees the right of the individual to possess and carry firearms, and therefore D.C.'s ban on handguns was unconstitutional.

I am sure there are more

[SYFROYH]

94. Point taken but that wasn't SCOTUS if I recall

I’ll try to look it up

ETA: it wa the 5th US Circuit Appeal court.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

95. It was not a SCOTUS ruling,

it was the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which the OP has acknowledged in a downthread post, and very graciously.

[HariSeldon]

9. Maybe the "right to keep and bear arms" could be

...earned through military service, with states allowed to regulate the ownership, possession, and use otherwise. I know some folks come out of the military on the hard right, but at least they've had a fair amount of training with firearms.

[Takket]

10. agreed.

it won't be repealed (i wouldn't support that) but it should be rewritten. Democrats should put forward a proposal, and just do what the gop does... talk about it endlessly. make it the subject of every interview, and be honest about what is needed to change.

make no mistake, like the GOP war against women's rights, this will take decades, not years, but we owe it to future generations to try.

[The Jungle 1]

12. Yes make it a wedge issue.

[FBaggins]

13. "Start(ing) the process" involves a supermajority in both houses

We couldn’t get a simple majority for a 2A repealin either chamber at this point.

[usonian]

16. That said, conservatives have not suffered the stunning assassinations that liberals have.

Enough guns and they'll be killing gubmint authorities. Happened in Oakland and elsewhere.


They want a civil war. A losing proposition.
Except for this guy.

[LudwigPastorius]

19. The most recent change to the Constitution took over 200 years to be ratified.

But sure, let's play the long game. (Maybe we should include something about phasers and disruptors in the wording.)

[The Jungle 1]

27. The 22nd only took four years.

So let's play that long game.

[inthewind21]

57. The 22nd

Was about FDR running for a 3rd term breaking precedent and required no repeal as there wasn't one regarding presidential term limits. Which by the way was a dominate topic in his 4th run, which he won overwhelmingly. Quite different than repealing the 2nd.

[The Jungle 1]

66. Prohibition was repealed after only 13 years.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

71. Because Prohibition was highly unpopular and unenforcable,

The 2A isn't.

[The Jungle 1]

72. Children being killed in schools is highly unpopular!

The murder of Americans in churches is highly unpopular.
Being forced to take a gun to the movies is highly unpopular.
Being shot in a night club is highly unpopular.

It would be interesting to see if there was any polling on prohibition during prohibition. My bet is the numbers are the same.

Jury nullification is what ended prohibition. IMO Police would arrest but they could not get a conviction.

You keep saying the 2nd is popular but you still have offered no polling to support your position. It may be popular in your crowd but it is not popular with people who have experienced gun violence.
Like when my family was laying on the floor with my guns at 2 AM because there was a double homicide in progress 200 yards away. Bullets were flying all over the woods. It is not so popular when it happens to you or yours.

I considered randomly shooting in the direction of the battle. Just to let them know not to come my way. The police told me they would have arrested me for that!

I would still love to hear if you have any ideas on solutions for our gun problem. It has been my experience that gun issues are a one way conversation. I offer my solutions. The ideas get panned. Yet there are no solutions offered!

[MarineCombatEngineer]

73. ....

Children being killed in schools is highly unpopular!

Really? Gee, I'm glad you told me that, I had no idea that killing children is highly unpopular.
Thanks for bringing me up to speed.

My crowd? Really? MY CROWD?
You know nothing of me, I've been wholly in favor, on this board and IRL, of stricter firearms control laws so, with all due respect, take your little innuendo and......... well, you can figure out the rest.

I'm done here, you can have the last word if you so desire, but I won't engage with you any longer on this subject.

Have a great life.

[The Jungle 1]

75. I am sorry if I have insulted you that was not my intent.

We have discussed things in the past on this site and generally agree. I know you are a good Democrat and a union man like me. I just think this issue if important and we all need to work for solutions. Gun violence has directly affected my family and I want solutions.
The 2nd is standing in the way. I just want conversation so we can all better understand.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

79. Fair enough.

[roamer65]

21. Change the court.

Adding justices is the easier route.

[Fla_Democrat]

22. I believe it was in the documentary...

Jurassic Park, where warrior/poet/philosopher Dr. Ian Malcom says, "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should."


So, yeah, it could be repealed, but should it?

[The Jungle 1]

28. Repeal and replace.

Fix the Amendment so we are able to pass reasonable gun laws.
We had prohibition and then we didn't.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

32. Are you aware of just how hard it is to change the Constitution?

Just in case you don't know:

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution

Just where are you going to get 2/3rds of the Congress to approve and 3/4ths of the states to ratify?

[The Jungle 1]

40. Yes I am aware.

What do you propose to end the massive gun violence in America.
tens of thousands die every year.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

42. Not by repealing the 2A,

that would cause massive civil unrest and widespread disobedience.

The solution, IMHO, is to elect more democrats to Congress and pass stricter firearm laws.

[The Jungle 1]

43. I doubt it would cause unrest.

Strong majorities of Americans want more gun control. The 2nd is standing in the way. Repealing the 2nd would NOT mean guns would be banned. We would most likely have more state control.
If you continue to stand in the way of what strong majorities want then you will have unrest!
Americans are no going to put up with the killing of children there will be push back.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

61. I would say that we'll see,

but IMO, we won't, amending the Constitution and passing firearm control laws are 2 far different things, one is unpopular and the other is popular.

Next question, how would you force the banning of certain firearms?
What about those that already own those that would be subject to a ban?
How would you remove them from those that have them?
How about states that refuse to enforce such bans, how would you deal with them?
How would you deal with city, county, local LEO's that refused to enforce the ban?

[The Jungle 1]

62. Same as we have done in the past.

We did ban some guns in the past. Full auto is stilled banned unless it was owned before 1986.
An LEO who refuses to do their job should be fired on the spot. We are a nation of laws and if you disagree then you must work within the system for change
I want a stinger why can't I buy one. Isn't my 2nd Amendment right being taken away?

My question back to you is how do you propose we stop the bloodshed?
If you will not accept reasonable controls on guns then how do we stop the tens of thousands killed every year?
An 18 year old high school student can buy weapons of war. We have way more mass shootings than any other country. Well except Ukraine.

Again I will say repeal of the 2nd is NOT a gun ban. You would have to pass laws to ban guns.

Can you offer support that changing the 2nd is unpopular? The NRA is unpopular and membership is crashing.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

70. ....

https://heartland.org/opinion/survey-public-strongly-rejects-second-amendment-repeal/

You cannot fire a Sheriff, they're elected by the people of their county, which means that their constituents would approve of refusing to enforce federal law, which they don't have to enforce, they can't interfere with fed. agents, but they also don't have to assist in any way shape or form.

NRA is crashing, but there are many other firearm rights org. out there that are far more effective, org. like the GOA, (Gun Owners of America), 2nd Amendment Foundation, etc., they get the actual work done and have been quite successful over the years at getting legislation through the state and fed. legislatures.

Once again, what's your plan for removing said banned firearms from those that refuse to give them up?

I gave you my solution, elect more Democrats to the Congress and get a more favorable SCOTUS who won't overturn every firearm control law passed by the Congress.

BTW, I never said I won't accept reasonable firearm laws, so I'll thank you to keep your words out of my mouth, I have no idea where they've been.

[The Jungle 1]

74. Agree with some...

You did offer your solution. Elect Ds. However you did not provide any specifics.
In Pa a sheriff can be legally removed.
You are correct you did not say you would not accept reasonable firearm laws. That is what I always tell my dog. No kissing I know where that mouth has been.

I never said anything about removing guns from anyone. I would be willing to bet a lot of guns would be reported stolen if banning occurred. Repealing the 2nd does NOT ban guns.

I don't like to pick the fly shit out of the pepper however to be fair. The Hartland Institute is a conservative right wing publication. That does not mean their numbers are wrong however I do not trust them.

[onenote]

53. I propose electing Democrats to the Senate and Presidency.

And, eventually, regaining a solid majority in the Supreme Court that will overturn the Heller decision. And then have the federal government and state governments pass gun control legislation.

Not an easy task, but child's play compared to getting an amendment repealing the 2nd amendment ratified.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

33. Prohibition was a whole different ball of wax,

people do want stricter firearm laws, but there is very little appetite for a repeal and replace of the 2nd Amendment.

[onenote]

55. We had prohibition for 13 years. We've had the 2nd amendment for 232 years.

If you don't see the difference, I can't help you.

[Dr. Strange]

60. Question.

Fix the Amendment so we are able to pass reasonable gun laws.

What gun laws are prevented from being passed due to the second amendment?

[Fla_Democrat]

84. Too ambitious. Start smaller...

Like... Repeal the NFA. Did you know it only costs a $200 tax to buy a machine gun? I was just reading that the ATF was in the works of adding 4-40 million new tax stamp holders, and get this ... Not charging the $200.

I say circle file the NFA... and then worry about repeal and replace the 2nd Amendment. .

[treestar]

82. yes

then we could do as other countries have done, and not have mass shootings

[EnergizedLib]

25. I would support it

[brooklynite]

26. The 1st Amendment could be repealed!

Just as likely. No point imagining "anything is possible" without a realistic plan.

[The Jungle 1]

30. We said the same thing about abortion

We said the same thing about Prohibition. We said the same thing about women voting.
Not speaking out and doing nothing is accepting the bloodshed and makes us guilty.
The vast majority of US citizens want gun control. The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research shows 71% of Americans say gun laws should be stricter, including about half of Republicans, the vast majority of Democrats and a majority of those in gun-owning households.
Changing the 2nd is one path. Changing the 2nd does not mean we have to ban guns!

Police would love to end the 1st and 4th.

[brooklynite]

47. "We said the same thing about abortion"....and we haven't changed things.

If anything, access to reproductive rights has gotten worse, and nobody is proposing, much less working towards a constitutional amendment to protect them.

Public polling on issues is worthless; the question is whether a person who supports policy X supports it enough to vote out politicians who don't support X. Haven't seen that happening.

[onenote]

52. You keep bringing up abortion, which is a totally different situation.

The right to an abortion wasn't established via an amendment to the Constitution and it wasn't undone by an amendment to the Constitution. Both the recognition of the right and its elimination was the work of a majority of the Supreme Court. Getting a majority of the SCOTUS to change its interpretation of the constitution is a much different, and much easier, option than actually amending the Constitution.

If you can't appreciate that fact, I don't know what to tell you.

[treestar]

81. nobody wants that

the Second is a very different thing. Just for starters, it is for the 18th century. Reasonable enough for that century.

The Third is completely obsolete. Not all amendments are equal.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

29. Gisele Bundchen could call me on the phone and beg me to give her life meaning.

I won't be waiting for the call.

Yes, I know here name is Gisele Bündchen, but he title box won't take certain accent marks.

[The Jungle 1]

31. So we should just ignore the nationwide constant bloodshed?

Give up and do nothing is the solution?
A majority of the nation does not agree with that position.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

34. A majority of the nation doesn't agree with repealing the 2A,

and even if the 2A were repealed, then it would fall to the states to set their own firearm laws and most states have the right to own firearms in their state Constitution.

[The Jungle 1]

39. I agree with your second point.

Repeal of the 2nd would not outlaw guns. The laws could be passed on the federal level or the state level.
I know of no poll that demonstrates Americans are against repeal.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

41. If a majority of Americans supported a repeal of the 2A,

then it would be happening, but there is very little appetite for a repeal of the 2A, but there is widespread support for stricter firearm laws, that's far different from repealing and replacing the 2A.

Have you considered the consequences of convening a Constitutional Convention?
The repigs would love nothing better than to fuck with the Constitution to their advantage.

[onenote]

50. Have you actually looked for polls regarding Americans' position on repealing the second amendment

You say you don't know of a poll that demonstrates that Americans against repeal. I can only conclude that you haven't looked.

Here's one. There are others if you care to look.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/03/27/one-in-five-americans-want-the-second-amendment-to-be-repealed-national-survey-finds/

[The Jungle 1]

63. That poll is five years old!

More dead children will change peoples minds. The understanding that repeal does not mean guns are outlawed will change minds. Police standing on the sidelines while kids are killed will change minds.

[onenote]

67. It's hard to take you seriously when you refuse to back up your claims

For example, this more recent Gallup poll contradicts your unsubstantiated assumption that sentiment in favor of second amendment repeal has grown lately.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/405260/diminished-majority-supports-stricter-gun-laws.aspx

[The Jungle 1]

69. Someone made the statement that there is low support for repeal of the 2nd.

I asked for evidence of that. I still have not gotten evidence that Americans do not support repeal.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/madelinehalpert/2022/08/23/support-for-stricter-gun-laws-including-among-republicans-remains-high-poll-suggests/?sh=40548a3c2a24

No doubt these numbers will vary over time. However even the gallup graph you provided shows the trend since 2017 demonstrates consistent clear majority wanting more gun control laws.

What is hard to take seriously is when people want to debate numbers yet offer no solutions for the ongoing carnage.
How do you propose we decrease the gun violence in this nation. The constant bloodshed is there for all to see. How about we stop debating what an assault rifle is and stop debating polls and present solutions. I have presented what I think will work. What is your solution? I never get an answer to that question.

I live on 16 acres and there is a campground next door. There was a double homicide at the campground the other year. I have a safe full of guns. I don't go out on my property without a gun. This is no way to live. This is not freedom.

[onenote]

85. I offered a solution. You ignored it.

First, a poll from 2018 showing massive opposition to repeal of the second amendment was posted. You tried to dismiss it because it is from five years ago and opposition will have ramped up in the aftermath of Uvalde and other mass shootings. But a more recent poll undercuts your supposition by showing that support for restricting guns has dropped in the last couple of years -- and if support for restricting guns has dropped, its unlikely that support for repeal of the second amendment has shifted massively from opposed to in favor.

Second, there is a solution: elect more Democrats to the Senate and a Democratic president who will appoint Supreme Court justices who will overturn Heller, clearing the way for adoption of the types of gun control measures that do actually have majority support. We are far closer to achieving that result than we will ever be to getting 2/3 of the states to ratify an amendment repealing the 2nd amendment.

By focusing on repeal, your approach would undermine the one viable solution because candidates advocating repeal of the second will have a hard time getting elected in swing areas.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

37. Yes, you are correct, since those are clearly the only two choices available to us.

Last edited Thu Feb 23, 2023, 09:45 AM - Edit history (1)

So we should just ignore the nationwide constant bloodshed?

Give up and do nothing is the solution?
A majority of the nation does not agree with that position.

[LexVegas]

35. ...

[onenote]

44. So could the first amendment. Or the 13th amendment. In theory, any amendment could be repealed.

But in the real world, rather than the theoretical one, it isn't going to happen.

[The Jungle 1]

46. Sometimes you have to sneak people into compromise

Speak softly and carry a big stick. Teddy Roosevelt

[Hortensis]

49. First we need to fight to restore civics education

and implement requirements for proficiency.

GOOD civics education in elementary, middle and high school and in college.

It's desperately needed and winnable in most states. Plus some requirements could be federally mandated.

[inthewind21]

58. Bingo

[ificandream]

54. I wish it was even remotely possible. It's not.

And even if though some alternate universe it did, it would be unenforceable. Sorry.

[The Jungle 1]

64. If the 2nd is repealed there is nothing to enforce.

Repeal of the 2nd does NOT mean guns are banned.
It just means we can pass reasonable gun laws to end children being killed.
If there is no 2nd then the SC is not part of the equation.
The SC just said people with restraining orders are allowed to own guns. Wonder how much blood that will spill.

[Straw Man]

96. I beg to differ.

Repeal of the 2nd does NOT mean guns are banned.

No. It just means that guns could be banned. There would be no legal impediment to any number of bans, including total ones.

It just means we can pass reasonable gun laws to end children being killed.

Ah, the "reasonable" word: What is reasonable to you is not necessarily reasonable to everyone. And in fact, all it will do is force those who wish to kill indiscriminately to use other means. The difficult question is why people want to do that.

[Polybius]

59. I don't even think 2/3rds of DU would support this

It would be an interesting poll.

[The Jungle 1]

65. The problem is that people think that repeal would mean guns are banned.

That is not the case. It means we can pass reasonable gun laws with out the SC current stupid opinions.
The SC just ruled that people with restraining orders are allowed to own guns. They hate us.

Former Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court Warren Burger argues that the sale, purchase, and use of guns should be regulated just as automobiles and boats are regulated; such regulations would not violate the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/second-amendment-does-not-guarantee-right-own-gun-gun-control-p-99

The Gun Lobby’s interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies – the militia – would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires. Chief Justice Warren Burger

[inthewind21]

83. Stop

Just stop with the repeal the 2nd. It's not going to happen. Period. Ever! Aside from the fact that you will NEVER get Republicans to support repeal, you'd be hard pressed to get 1/3 of the Democrats. With good cause I might add.

Newsflash, "sensible gun laws" CAN be put on the books now. Know why that's not happening? Because for the last 40+ years the voting public has been in a lull and their own bubble and no one listened or took seriously what the R's very loudly and very publicly told the whole world they planned to do. 1. Stack the Supreme Court (Done) 2. Overturn Roe V Wade (Done) 3. Ensure there is a gun in the possession of EVERY citizen from birth to death (Almost done) 4. Tax cut the wealthy to the detriment of all others, (Done) and force the country into being a "Christian Nation." (working on it) and many other things. The wake up call SHOULD have been when McConnell did what he did to Obama with Merrick Garland. Sadly, to the detriment of the country, it was not.

You say we should be screaming? Were you listening for the last several election cycles when candidates (as well as a portion of the public) were, at top volume, trying to warn what was coming? Clearly a very, VERY large portion of the country was not. "Oh that could never happen here" said many. Well, it did. And here we are. You can't un-ring that bell. The damage is done. The Supreme Court is stacked and the un-rolling is under way. And NOW the panic of do something has set in. The time for action was BEFORE the clock ran down to 2 seconds and the opposing team was 25 points ahead! The game was won. Congress can still be changed. We have an opportunity to do that every 2 and 6 years. Question is, as a country, WILL we? The Supreme Court, that's a problem that will not be easily undone.

[The Jungle 1]

86. Yo, I do not have to stop. The 1st applies to all Americans.

Will the 2nd ever get repealed? Don't know, but saying never is is a bad idea.
This I know, talking about repeal of the 2nd turns up the volume and heat. I want the volume and heat turned up. I want a national conversation about repeal of the 2nd.
The only solutions republicans offer is thoughts and prayers. They need to pay for their inaction.

The SC just ruled that people under court ordered restraining orders are allowed to have guns. I do not think we can pass "sensible gun laws"!!!! Not with this court.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

87. When did the SC rule that?

All I can find is that the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that, not the SC.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/people-under-domestic-violence-orders-can-own-guns-us-appeals-court-rules/ar-AA173vfH

People under domestic violence orders can own guns -U.S. appeals court rules

[The Jungle 1]

89. You are correct

People with domestic violence restraining orders have a constitutional right to own firearms, a federal appeals court ruled recently.
I should have checked before flapping.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

91. No problem,

and just for the record, I oppose anyone under a domestic violence restraining order from even holding a firearm, whether theirs or someone else's.

[The Jungle 1]

92. I agree. But how do we get that changed now?

That ruling just leaves me shaking my head. Why would they do that to women and children.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

93. Who would do that you ask?

Those that value the 2A more than life itself.

I'm hoping that the SC will strike down the 5th's ruling, but I'm not holding my breath.

[fescuerescue]

68. The 1st amendment needs some tweaking too

So that things like citizens united don't happen.

[treestar]

76. Yes, not within our lifetime maybe

but the women who attended the Convention in Seneca Falls in 1848 did not live to see women's suffrage. But they didn't quit just because it would not be right away.

[ripcord]

90. It would be nice if we tried to do more to stop people who are using guns to committed crimes

We are half assing it by focusing only on gun control. The guy who killed Nipsey Hussle got 60 years to life, that is how you deal with the trash who are using guns. If we were serious about dealing with gun violence we would be pushing to get those people off the streets for as long as possible.