Gun Control Debate -  Repeal of the 2nd Amendment (1568 views) Notify me whenever anyone posts in this discussion.Subscribe
From: Glock221 DelphiPlus Member Icon4/12/13 10:14 PM 
To: All  (1 of 33) 

People Sign Absurd Petition to Repeal 2nd Amendment
& Confiscate All Legal Guns


In the above shocking video, author Mark Dice circulates a fake petition to “repeal the Second Amendment and get all of the legal registered guns off the street.” Many people begin signing the petition before they even know what it’s for.

  • Edited September 7, 2019 9:06 am  by  EdGlaze
 Reply   Options 

From: EdGlaze DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by host10/2/15 5:35 AM 
To: Glock221 DelphiPlus Member Icon  (2 of 33) 
 1205.2 in reply to 1205.1 

An Open Rant Aimed at Those Who Would Repeal the Second Amendment
by CHARLES C. W. COOKE (an English immigrant to the U.S)
August 27, 2015

Talk is cheap, but persuading Americans to surrender their rights will be expensive, difficult, and time-consuming.

A few hours after yesterday’s shooting hit the news, the comedian Rob Delaney penned this tweet:

The @NRA & the politicians they own must not know this T. Jefferson quote. The 2nd Amendment is a FUCKING BOY’S COAT. — rob Delaney (@robdelaney) August 26, 2015

For ease of viewing, here is that Jefferson quotation in full (it’s adapted from a July 12, 1816, letter to Samuel Kercheval):

I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

We should be absolutely clear about what Delaney is arguing here: He is a) agreeing with Jefferson that “laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind,” b) contending that “progress” suggests that the individual right to keep and bear arms is now counterproductive, and c) concluding that it is time therefore to make a “change in law and constitution” — in other words, to repeal the Second Amendment. This, it is true, is not a mainstream position on the American Left — at least, it is not one that is argued openly. But it is a reasonably popular one on social media, it has strong support within the more leftward-leaning parts of the political commentariat, it is often implied by the casual manner in which progressives such as President Obama refer to “Australia” and other heavily regulated nations, and it enjoys indirect approval from around one quarter of the American public. When the likes of Rob Delaney and Bill Maher and Keith Ellison say that we need to get rid of the Second Amendment, they are not speaking in a vacuum but reflecting the views of a small but vocal portion of the American population. And they mean it.

That being so, here’s the million-dollar question: What the hell are they waiting for? Go on, chaps. Bloody well do it.

Seriously, try it. Start the process. Stop whining about it on Twitter, and on HBO, and at the Daily Kos. Stop playing with some Thomas Jefferson quote you found on Google. Stop jumping on the news cycle and watching the retweets and viral shares rack up. Go out there and begin the movement in earnest. Don’t fall back on excuses. Don’t play cheap motte-and-bailey games. And don’t pretend that you’re okay with the Second Amendment in theory, but you’re just appalled by the Heller decision. You’re not. Heller recognized what was obvious to the amendment’s drafters, to the people who debated it, and to the jurists of their era and beyond: That “right of the people” means “right of the people,” as it does everywhere else in both the Bill of Rights and in the common law that preceded it. A Second Amendment without the supposedly pernicious Heller “interpretation” wouldn’t be any impediment to regulation at all. It would be a dead letter. It would be an effective repeal. It would be the end of the right itself. In other words, it would be exactly what you want! Man up. Put together a plan, and take those words out of the Constitution.

This will involve hard work, of course. You can’t just sit online and preen to those who already agree with you. No siree. Instead, you’ll have to go around the states — traveling and preaching until the soles of your shoes are thin as paper. You’ll have to lobby Congress, over and over and over again. You’ll have to make ads and shake hands and twist arms and cut deals and suffer all the slings and arrows that will be thrown in your direction. You’ll have to tell anybody who will listen to you that they need to support you; that if they disagree, they’re childish and beholden to the “gun lobby”; that they don’t care enough about children; that their reverence for the Founders is mistaken; that they have blood on their goddamn hands; that they want to own firearms only because their penises are small and they’re not “real men.” And remember, you can’t half-ass it this time. You’re not going out there to tell these people that you want “reform” or that “enough is enough.” You’re going there to solicit their support for removing one of the articles within the Bill of Rights. Make no mistake: It’ll be unpleasant strolling into Pittsburgh or Youngstown or Pueblo and telling blue-collar Democrat after blue-collar Democrat that he only has his guns because he’s not as well endowed as he’d like to be. It’ll be tough explaining to suburban families that their established conception of American liberty is wrong. You might even suffer at the polls because of it. But that’s what it’s going to take. So do it. Start now. Off you go.

  • Edited August 4, 2017 9:26 pm  by  EdGlaze

From: EdGlaze DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by host10/2/15 5:37 AM 
To: All  (3 of 33) 
 1205.3 in reply to 1205.2 

And don’t stop there. No, no. There’ll still be a lot of work to be done. As anybody with a passing understanding of America’s constitutional system knows, repealing the Second Amendment won’t in and of itself lead to the end of gun ownership in America. Rather, it will merely free up the federal government to regulate the area, should it wish to do so. Next, you’ll need to craft the laws that bring about change — think of them as modern Volstead Acts — and you’ll need to get them past the opposition. And, if the federal government doesn’t immediately go the whole hog, you’ll need to replicate your efforts in the states, too, 45 of which have their own constitutional protections. Maybe New Jersey and California will go quietly. Maybe. But Idaho won’t. Louisiana won’t. Kentucky won’t. Maine won’t. You’ll need to persuade those sovereignties not to sue and drag their heels, but to do what’s right as defined by you. Unfortunately, that won’t involve vague talk of holding “national conversations” and “doing something” and “fighting back against the NRA.” It’ll mean going to all sorts of groups — unions, churches, PTAs, political meetings, bowling leagues — and telling them not that you want “common-sense reforms,” but that you want their guns, as in Australia or Britain or Japan. Obviously, the Republicans aren’t going to help in this, so you’ll need to commandeer the Democratic party to do it. That means you’ll need their presidential candidates on board. That means you’ll need to make full abolition the stated policy of the Senate and House caucuses. That means you’ll need the state parties to sign pledges promising not to back away if it gets tough. And if they won’t, you’ll need to start a third party and accept all that that entails.

And when you’ve done all that and your vision is inked onto parchment, you’ll need to enforce it. No, not in the namby-pamby, eh-we-don’t-really-want-to-und-it way that Prohibition was enforced. I mean enforce it — with force. When Australia took its decision to Do Something, the Australian citizenry owned between 2 and 3 million guns. Despite the compliance of the people and the lack of an entrenched gun culture, the government got maybe three-quarters of a million of them — somewhere between a fifth and a third of the total. That wouldn’t be good enough here, of course. There are around 350 million privately owned guns in America, which means that if you picked up one in three, you’d only be returning the stock to where it was in 1994. Does that sound difficult? Sure! After all, this is a country of 330 million people spread out across 3.8 million square miles, and if we know one thing about the American people, it’s that they do not go quietly into the night. But the government has to have their guns. It has to. The Second Amendment has to go.

You’re going to need a plan. A state-by-state, county-by-county, street-by-street, door-to door plan. A detailed road map to abolition that involves the military and the police and a whole host of informants — and, probably, a hell of a lot of blood, too. Sure, the ACLU won’t like it, especially when you start going around poorer neighborhoods. Sure, there are probably between 20 and 30 million Americans who would rather fight a civil war than let you into their houses. Sure, there is no historical precedent in America for the mass confiscation of a commonly owned item — let alone one that was until recently constitutionally protected. Sure, it’s slightly odd that you think that we can’t deport 11 million people but we can search 123 million homes. But that’s just the price we have to pay. Times have changed. It has to be done: For the children; for America; for the future. Hey hey, ho ho, the Second Amendment has to go. Let’s do this thing.

When do you get started?



1. You need 2/3 of Congress to support your gun-free desires

2. Propose amendment to Constitution to repeal 2nd Amendment

3. Legislators of 38 states must ratify 

4. Congress must legislate gun reform and President must sign

5. Have government confiscate guns by force from maybe the 80% of citizens unwilling to turn them in

  • Edited March 24, 2019 9:42 am  by  EdGlaze

From: EdGlaze DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by host5/17/16 8:45 PM 
To: All  (4 of 33) 
 1205.4 in reply to 1205.3 


Pro-Clinton College Professor: Repeal Second Amendment!
National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action
8 July 16

At a time when it’s more important than ever to maintain the right of the American people to keep and bear arms for self-defense, law professor David S. Cohen is calling for repeal of the Second Amendment. “Americans’ rights are in mortal danger,” he says, unless Hillary Clinton is elected president and stacks the Supreme Court with progressive judges.

In the repeatedly discredited rag, Rolling Stone, Cohen writes, “sometimes we just have to acknowledge that the Founders and the Constitution are wrong. This is one of those times. …The Second Amendment needs to be repealed because it is outdated, a threat to liberty and a suicide pact.”

By “outdated,” Cohen means that the Framers of the Bill of Rights were unable to conceive of 19th century semi-automatic firearm technology. “When the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791, there were no weapons remotely like the AR-15 assault rifle (sic),” he said.

However, as the late, great Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, “Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”

And in any case, there is nothing outdated about the underlying principle of the Second Amendment: to prohibit the government from interfering with the ability of people to acquire, possess and develop proficiency with arms they might one day need to defend themselves and their loved ones.

Cohen’s rant is just one example of an astonishing amount of sheer nonsense that has filled the Internet since the terrorist attack in Orlando. Anti-gun politicians, and so-called opinion columnists and TV talking heads — who pretend to be “experts” on every topic under the sun, but who in reality know virtually nothing about even one topic — are confidently calling the AR-15 an “automatic” weapon, a “military” weapon,” and a “weapon of war,” and telling everyone that the most popular rifle in America should be banned.

Of course, the First Amendment protects the right of pundits to demonstrate that the size of their egos are only matched by the depth of their ignorance on firearms and the Second Amendment. And so it should be.

If history repeats itself, the recent slew of half-baked, culture-war-based, ideologically-motivated, attention-seeking statements against guns will only increase support for the right to arms, and additional support may develop as people increasingly realize that President Obama and Hillary Clinton, who are urging gun bans, are the very politicians most responsible for the rise of overseas terrorist groups who inspire and possibly direct evildoers within our midst.

All the more reason for the American people to protect their right to protect themselves.

  • Edited November 25, 2016 8:05 pm  by  EdGlaze

From: EdGlaze DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by host11/24/16 10:25 PM 
To: All  (5 of 33) 
 1205.5 in reply to 1205.4 

Repealing the Second Amendment
by Jenn Jacques
24 Nov 16

Last week I had the pleasure of joining Colion Noir on his new show CNLive on NRATV to talk about the non-binding referendum that passed in Oak Park Township, IL to repeal the Second Amendment.

During the discussion, an interesting point came up about what fuels the gun control agenda that I think not enough people consider when discussing Second Amendment rights with people in the opposite camp. Whether it’s my background as a Private Detective or just my natural ability to read people and effectively respond to their concerns, I’ve had great success in getting my point across when I’ve had the opportunity to discuss gun rights with individuals who believe gun control is the only way to curtail gun violence.

The bottom line is this: nobody is encouraging gun violence. Not gun control groups. Not the gun lobby. Not gun owners. Not nobody. Everybody wants to spare families the pain of losing a loved one to a senseless tragedy. We just happen to have solutions that happen to be irreconcilable.

Watch Colion and I talk about one man’s mission to repeal the Second Amendment in Oak Park Township, IL:


  • Edited November 24, 2016 10:32 pm  by  EdGlaze

From: EdGlaze DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by host3/3/18 7:39 PM 
To: All  (6 of 33) 
 1205.6 in reply to 1205.5 

Democratic Dunce Bill Maher Pushes for Full Repeal on National TV 
by Andrew West
3 Mar 18

The leftists’ cruel campaign against the Constitutional right to bear arms has entered week number three in earnest, with a full repeal of the Second Amendment now apparently on the radar.

How did we get to this point in absurdity? Well, in part, we can look to the 2016 presidential election for answers.

The overwhelming sentiment of the democrats when that particular contest had ended completely set the tone for the political predicament that we find ourselves in today. The “resistance” and their vitriolic and violent Antifa wing have completely transformed political discussion on the left into a snarled mess of anarchy and chaos.

It is this disturbing trend that has allowed the Second Amendment to be thrown on the slab by progressive pundits the nation over, including the increasingly angry Bill Maher, whose HBO talk show has become the de facto dialogue of the radical left.

Maher recently pushed his anti-gun vitriol into the stratosphere, asking America why the Second Amendment shouldn’t just be eliminated altogether.

During a conversation with a survivor of the Parkland, Florida school shooting, Maher pushed back against the young man’s reverence for the right to bear arms, even in the face of such tragedy.

“Parkland shooting survivor Cameron Kasky said, ‘We’re not targeting peoples’ guns. My father was — my father’s a police officer. His [fellow survivor David Hogg] father’s former FBI. We have guns in our houses. We’re not trying to tear apart the 2nd Amendment. We are just kids begging for our lives, getting murdered in our classrooms.’”

“Maher responded, ‘I think that’s part of the problem in this country, is that nobody goes at the 2nd Amendment. Nothing is really going to change unless somebody talks about that. The reason why this country is different is because we treat guns as a right. Other countries treat it as a privilege. And every debate begins with even the liberal side just bowing down to the 2nd Amendment. And I don’t know if that’s the right approach.’”

Bill Maher, quite obviously, has never lived through a situation in which his life, and the dreams of his fellow countrymen, depended solely on the ability of the populace to defend itself against tyranny.

As a matter of plain fact, no living American has endured such conditions, rendering any argument against the Second Amendment moot. Our Founding Fathers were forced to face tyranny in the most brutal way imaginable, and their inclusion of the right to bear arms in the Constitution of these United States is likely the only reason the we have been spared that horror ourselves.

Bill, you simply have no frame of reference.


  • Edited March 21, 2018 6:39 pm  by  EdGlaze

From: EdGlaze DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by host3/28/18 6:15 AM 
To: All  (7 of 33) 
 1205.7 in reply to 1205.6 


Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens pens passionate plea to repeal the Second Amendment
by Travis Gettys
27 Mar 18

The nationwide protests inspired by the Parkland school shooting prompted retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens to call for the repeal of the Second Amendment.

Stevens laid out centuries of precedent on gun laws and explained that the National Rifle Association had twisted the long agreed-upon meaning of the amendment to promote individual gun ownership, New York Times opinion piece.

Rarely in my lifetime have I seen the type of civic engagement schoolchildren and their supporters demonstrated in Washington and other major cities throughout the country this past Saturday. These demonstrations demand our respect. They reveal the broad public support for legislation to minimize the risk of mass killings of schoolchildren and others in our society.

That support is a clear sign to lawmakers to enact legislation prohibiting civilian ownership of semiautomatic weapons, increasing the minimum age to buy a gun from 18 to 21 years old, and establishing more comprehensive background checks on all purchasers of firearms. But the demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform. They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.

Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment, which provides that “a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century.

For over 200 years after the adoption of the Second Amendment, it was uniformly understood as not placing any limit on either federal or state authority to enact gun control legislation. In 1939 the Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated militia.”

During the years when Warren Burger was our chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge, federal or state, as far as I am aware, expressed any doubt as to the limited coverage of that amendment. When organizations like the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and began their campaign claiming that federal regulation of firearms curtailed Second Amendment rights, Chief Justice Burger publicly characterized the N.R.A. as perpetrating “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

In 2008, the Supreme Court overturned Chief Justice Burger’s and others’ long-settled understanding of the Second Amendment’s limited reach by ruling, in District of Columbia v. Heller, that there was an individual right to bear arms. I was among the four dissenters.

That decision — which I remain convinced was wrong and certainly was debatable — has provided the N.R.A. with a propaganda weapon of immense power. Overturning that decision via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple and would do more to weaken the N.R.A.’s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option.

That simple but dramatic action would move Saturday’s marchers closer to their objective than any other possible reform. It would eliminate the only legal rule that protects sellers of firearms in the United States — unlike every other market in the world. It would make our schoolchildren safer than they have been since 2008 and honor the memories of the many, indeed far too many, victims of recent gun violence.

The retired justice said the only remedy was to repeal the Second Amendment — and he urged youthful demonstrators to call on Congress to do it.


  • Edited October 24, 2020 9:03 am  by  EdGlaze

From: EdGlaze DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by host3/28/18 4:56 PM 
To: All  (8 of 33) 
 1205.8 in reply to 1205.7 

President Trump Says NO WAY To Repeal Of Second Amendment
by Micah Rate
28 Mar 18

A recent op-ed in The New York Times by former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens that called for the repeal of the Second Amendment set off a firestorm on social media. The piece was not the first one the publication has published calling for the elimination of our right to bear arms. New York Times columnist Bret Stephens called for doing away with the amendment just a few months ago. Second Amendment supporters decried the suggestion, while progressives either endorsed the idea or reiterated that they are not coming for Americans’ guns. Amidst the discussion around guns, gun culture, and gun control, the president tweeted his unwavering support for the Second Amendment.


Tweet from: Donald J. Trump
4:52 AM - Mar 28, 2018

As much as Democrats would like to see this happen, and despite
the words yesterday of former Supreme Court Justice Stevens,
NO WAY. We need more Republicans in 2018 and must
ALWAYS hold the Supreme Court!


Though the president drew sharp criticism for saying “Take the guns first, and then go to court” when talking about taking firearms away from troubled individuals, and despite supporting a bump stock ban, he has stood by gun owners.

With midterm elections almost seven months away, Republicans may have an uphill battle to keep the House but have the opportunity to put pressure on Democratic senators who represent red states. In an attempt to thwart further gun control laws, the president is correct in saying more Republicans need to be in Congress in 2018. As for the Supreme Court, the president is also right.

If conservatives want to preserve the Second Amendment, they need to ensure constitutional originalists fill future vacancies. With President Trump nominating Justice Neil Gorsuch to the bench, he has affected future court decisions for decades to come. But what would be better than merely holding the Supreme Court would be adding more originalists to it. Rumors have been going around for some time now that Justice Anthony Kennedy may retire. If those rumors were to become a reality, the president would have yet another opportunity to change the court. To confirm his nominee, however, Republicans would need to control the Senate.

Historically, midterm elections have low turnout compared to presidential cycles. But this time around, will threats to the Second Amendment and the potential of adding another originalist to the Supreme Court drive conservatives and Republicans to the polls?

  • Edited March 28, 2018 5:00 pm  by  EdGlaze

From: EdGlaze DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by host4/17/18 5:01 AM 
To: All  (9 of 33) 
 1205.9 in reply to 1205.8


Americans, I’m watching the protests from Italy. Take a European’s advice:
Last century our governments disarmed us. Now, in Germany & the UK they arrest you for Twitter & FB posts.
If the gov’t takes your 2nd Amendment, one day it’ll take your 1st.

...[Message truncated]

  • Edited April 17, 2018 5:02 am  by  EdGlaze

From: EdGlaze DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by host9/1/18 10:16 PM 
To: All  (10 of 33) 
 1205.10 in reply to 1205.9 






Related discussions:

Infringing on guns we already have

No one wants to take your guns!

  • Edited March 7, 2019 6:48 am  by  EdGlaze

Navigate this discussion: 1-10 11-20 21-30 31-33
Adjust text size:

Welcome, guest! Get more out of Delphi Forums by logging in.

New to Delphi Forums? You can log in with your Facebook, Twitter, or Google account or use the New Member Login option and log in with any email address.

Home | Help | Forums | Chat | Blogs | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
© Delphi Forums LLC All rights reserved.