Repeal the Second Amendment

Bump this thread every time you feel like repealing the 2nd Amendment

or post any links/resources relevant to achieving this goal

since when do we pay attention to the Constitution? Take the fuckers' guns.

I knew I could count on your support

Karl Rove agrees

somehow I doubt he will support my new Repeal the 2nd Amendment lobbying group

Still think some billionaire should blanket the media with this ad:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LORVfnFtcH0

take down the nra. take down the gun manufacturers. obliterate them like they did the cigarette companies. stop pretending this is just about people's opinions instead of paid corporate shills profiting off human suffering. flood the media with nra rhetoric coupled with pictures of mass killers from all over the world. why the hell should we let geraldo rivera do our talking for us?

this is one of those issues that makes me wish i was rich enough to matter politically

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-second-amendment-is-a-gun-control-amendment

so many factors involved in that "solution" - it's basically "let's wait until we have a better Supreme Court that may eventually rule on a hypothetical case that would allow the gov't to then enact crippling gun control laws in the face of overwhelming opposition from arguably the most powerful lobby in the country!"

Would rather be proactive and more direct about it and just go straight to amending the Constitution

yes there are only a small number of factors involved in doing that

^^ I've always appreciated your take on this issue fwiw

both are uphill battles but one seems to require more fortunate happenstance than the other idk

well the thing is if you propose an amendment that same unbelievably powerful lobby can then fight against it. god, look at what happened to the era, and schlafly was nowhere near as powerful as the nra is. if you want to do anything, you have to break the balls of the lobby first.

I mean it's not as simple as just adding an amendment saying the 2nd is no longer a thing. Any such amendment is going to end up being a "clarifying" amendment and who knows what kind of insipid sauce could wind up in that. So idk too. I mean idk either. whatever.

obviously the NRA has to be broken - I'm open to suggestions.

the constant-cowering-in-fear the Democrats currently resort to is obviously not a good strategy.

I did look up the history of the ERA a bit (interesting to note it was first written in 1923). Obviously there's some lessons to be learned there.

OBVIOUSLY I say

it irritates me to no end that the left is really disorganized and/or completely demoralized on this issue, it's ridiculous.

Inevitable baby talk from Democratic Party types "oh the ERA failed so.....we never reintroduced it. Because waaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh. Because if anything we do loses, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah. Let's sell out so we never have to lose again."

I apologize for characterizing Democratic Party types as people who emote in long vowels. Anyway:

HEY!!! I'd support "repeal the 2nd amendment." But absolutely nothing less than that. (That is, sure, I'd vote for gun control measures, but I think it's relatively dopey to invest a lot into them.)

When gun control laws get overturned judicially --- and they do --- it means all that investment of effort into making the gun control laws turned out to be a complete waste of time. So why exactly should the left not be "disorganized or demoralized" when this is the true situation?

But yeah. Go big. Go Constitutional Amendment. If you are going to do it, really do it.

The fundamental problem IMO is that the USA is basically flooding the entire world with guns and other weapons. The gov't is cozy as fuck with gun makers so why would they ever shut the party down?

Yeah, my endorsing repeal (or) redraw of the 2nd Amendment does not constitute endorsement of fantasy scenario where all the guns are rounded up, because wow is that ever a fantasy scenario, not to mention a bloody and totalitarian one.

I could easily imagine the first place everybody would go would be minority neighborhoods, while the suburban whites would be left alone. You know, like in the drug war.

because wow is that ever a fantasy scenario, not to mention a bloody and totalitarian one.

let's have it. All the gun nuts get to live out their fantasies of resistance, the army kills them all. it's a win-win.

even if the 2nd amendment isn't repealed, i think it's important for there to be a powerful voice (lobby) arguing for its repeal, since that establishes one pole of the conversation and would make those advocating for extensive gun control seem like...not the scariest bunch?

of course people will still say "but this reveals that they really want to take away out guns!" ... except that this is /already/ the argument that the NRA et al make, every day.

repeal or revision, i suppose.

have we talked about this?: http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-second-amendment-is-a-gun-control-amendment

argues (as does my S.O.) that it's not about the 2nd amendment but about its interpretation. i'm a little incredulous at the argument that this radical interpretation of the 2nd amendment is a recent phenomenon, since the antipathy to gun control is pointedly /not/ a recent development.

but i'm not a constitutional scholar. (though i'm a little skeptical of anyone who points to a stevens dissent as the best place to find a legitimate constitutional interpretation. i thought his interpretations were generally thought to be fairly flaky.)

thoughts?

this article makes a similar argument. the idea that the second amendment protects an individual right to a firearm was rejected by most legal scholars until the '70s. the amendment basically means nothing at all anymore since state "militas" are not much of a thing these days.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856

No, appoint justices who interpret it correctly (as per my former boss - http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856).

Predicate: elect Democratic President next year.

The court being perhaps the biggest issue of the next election...
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/the-enormous-unbelievable-stakes-for-supreme-court-in-2016
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliot-mincberg/why-november-8-2016-is-ju_b_8189702.html
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/court-685471-justices-supreme.html

xp

apparently the author of the politico article wrote an entire book on the second amendment -- anyone read it?

No, appoint justices who interpret it correctly (as per my former boss - http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856).

Predicate: elect Democratic President next year.

The court being perhaps the biggest issue of the next election...
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/the-enormous-unbelievable-stakes-for-supreme-court-in-2016
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliot-mincberg/why-november-8-2016-is-ju_b_8189702.html
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/court-685471-justices-supreme.html

― it's not a tuomas (benbbag), Friday, October 2, 2015 7:06 PM (11 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this reasoning appeals to me more than the "repeal 2nd amendment" argument even if i think the latter should be part of the conversation

radical move by ILXORS in "vote for whatever Democrat wins nom" plan

"It's a big shift, usually we'd just vote for the Democratic nominee, whoever that is, and I do mean WHOEVER that is.....but this time if the dem wins.....eventually......maybe....if somebody dies or retires or something....we will help shift the balance on the Supreme Court in favor of gun control."

you say "radical move," dripping scornful sarcasm, as if we thought we were proposing anything radical. try playing chess with someone else.

also note your rhetorical move othering "ILXORS" -- as if you aren't one. or i guess you just aren't part of the hive mind, right?

radical!

radical move by ILXORS in "vote for whatever Democrat wins nom" plan

"It's a big shift, usually we'd just vote for the Democratic nominee, whoever that is, and I do mean WHOEVER that is.....but this time if the dem wins.....eventually......maybe....if somebody dies or retires or something....we will help shift the balance on the Supreme Court in favor of gun control."

― Vic Perry, Friday, October 2, 2015 8:11 PM (8 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

also...this is not a question of "eventually...maybe." the judges appointed to the supreme court have a direct effect on how laws are interpreted, passed, and enforced. that's been proven... all the time.

i'm not sure what your intimation of superiority is implying.... do you think we think the limit of political activity is voting in a presidential election?

actually i'm not sure you care what we think, so long as you can feel superior to this imagined ILXOR gradualist hivemind.

happy friday!

actually... why am i bothering to argue with some patronizing dipshit on the internet? sorry folks! off to the movies...

I feel like part of what's needed is some kind of really hard-edged stigmatizing shame campaign, like enough with the hand-wringing "OH WHEN WILL THE SADNESS END?" attitude. The question is, do you stigmatize ownership or just manufacture -- does stigmatizing ownership backfire, and otoh is stigmatizing manufacture not enough. But some kind of massive pushback on the "brand" of gun ownership is needed.

Juxtapose a guy saying he wants to protect his family with a couple of terrible stories about kids killed by handguns kept in the house, then show the stats.

ok fair points in the first couple posts.....lots of invective in the later posts. You are forgiven. I hope that didn't come off too patronizing.

Just want to say I'm all in favor of REPEALING THE 2nd Amendment and I don't care whether it's hard or not. I don't know why people pick political positions based on whether it will be hard or not. It's pathetic for anybody who is not a professional politician to do such things, does anybody get what I mean here or am I just totally out there for this crowd....wait, there are about 20 people logged in right now, this isn't a crowd....

But seriously, you were going to vote for whoever the Dem is anyway, right? If not, say so. I question whether adding "Supreme Court Justice Picking" to that basic default position constitutes "action", whether described sarcastically as "radical" by me or not.

I think voting for President MAINLY on the issue of "who the Supreme Court Justices the P would appoint" is just awful. Talk about low expectations: I'm gonna vote for somebody because maybe they will appoint somebody to some lifetime position where we have no control over them.........

I've heard people say vote based on the SC pick for 35 years so I'm extra cranky on that subject. And you know how cranky I am anyway, so we are talking extra cranky.

No hard feelings? REPEAL!

Do something to eat away at the "responsible gun ownership" myth. Make people feel more uncomfortable about owning guns.

go hard with TV ads juxtaposing mass gun violence with a politician or NRA spokesman subsequently making a "let's not be hasty"/"we can't cut back on guns"/"banning guns will accomplish nothing" or something similarly tone deaf, show the date, show the number of deaths, show faces, pile one quick segment on top of the previous, show the callousness and just shame them hard.

xpost yeah show the actual FANTASIES bandied about by the right and libertarians about the government taking advantage of a more unarmed populace, or the fantasy of how many "bad guys" have been stopped by "responsible" gun owners. show the reality of the blood on the ground vs the paranoia.

I don't know why people pick political positions based on whether it will be hard or not.

there's a difference b/t positions and actions, though. you can think "x" is the best position in the abstract but "y" is the best strategy for achieving something closer to it.

i mean that's just... life. you can't always get what you want, etc. i don't know that to acknowledge this basic truism of life is necessarily to be defeatist or whatever.

I definitely think the left could learn from the right about persistence in just plugging away at a position that seems "unrealistic." I feel like they're a little more adept at moving the center, although maybe I'm not giving the left enough credit for what seem to be recent swings back in the other direction on some issues.

"I've heard people say vote based on the SC pick for 35 years so I'm extra cranky on that subject."

when has it been untrue? and when has it been inconsistent with your choice?

did the supreme court not give us the george w bush administration?

Basic truisms of life include "the possibility of losing." For example, you try something and it doesn't work, so you try something else.
You apply for a job you might or might not get. You write a book that maybe nobody will read.

With politics, suddenly everybody is a fucking outcomes specialist. Oh dear, this might not work? Let's not then. Hey, let's try something that will slowly crush our souls and make us not want to keep going --- many pundits say it would work though!!!

was a majority of that court not appointed by reagan, bush pere, and nixon?

You know, the saddest thing about the lost Gore administration is that VP pick of his, who was that again. He was awesome.

"I've heard people say vote based on the SC pick for 35 years so I'm extra cranky on that subject."

when has it been untrue? and when has it been inconsistent with your choice?

― it's not a tuomas (benbbag), Friday, October 2, 2015 8:45 PM (3 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

srsly I'm tempted to go dig out all the 5-4 decisions that went our way that would not have with republican apointees in lieu of Kagan and Sotomayor. Gay marriage is an obvious one that comes to mind but there are probably dozens.

"For example, you try something and it doesn't work, so you try something else. You apply for a job you might or might not get. You write a book that maybe nobody will read."

this is about as applicable as the gop bullshit about balancing your checkbook being equivalent to balancing the budget. you don't get a second option here, the first one goes for 4-8 years, and it has secondary effects that can last for four decades.

but that would be pretty funny

"his fam"

He has kids?

he has a teenager, a happy and well-adjusted kid thank all that's holy. but if our family goblins of alcoholism and mental illness pop up when the boy's older, or if he gets radicalized, or the right kind of brain tumor, he'll have been trained and provisioned to kill the fuck out of lots living things.

i was there when he got his first rifle on christmas morning when he was 8, even had the honor of being one of the first people he ever accidentally pointed it at

yikes! i guess he goes hunting a lot? or the firing range?

Paranoia that there won't be any ammo at some indeterminate point in the future because of the government/cost/etc.. After 2008 ammo prices pretty much doubled (or was unavailable) so gun nuts buy it up like shopping addicts just because it won't be any cheaper tomorrow by god.

xp What could possibly go wrong?

dang i'm parched, gonna get me a cool cup of

https://i.imgur.com/bauZ6VJ.jpg

The atomic clock has stopped.

hey has anyone seen my xbox

https://i.imgur.com/HbhkifH.jpg

is that the sweet smell of freedom?

https://i.imgur.com/Bu4jjxI.jpg

No offense, your brother's a fucking slob lol

u r preaching to the retching choir

ok i'll bite: what's the deal with the squirrel tails?

i do not recommend biting the squirrel tails.

preserving a trophy from your kill endows u with its power; my bro now has the strength of many squirrels

The dark gritty Squirrel Girl adaptation no one asked for.

How To Tell If Your Cat Is Secretly Trying To Kill You

One of those *responsible gun owners* we always hear about

a true yeoman of our republic

i mean, like, freal tho

not that there’s anything anyone can actually do to make it happen. this pot of frog water became frog soup became frog sludge became frog leather many moons ago.

but still

i would like for people to stop being murdered like this

i would like for it to be incredibly difficult, grueling, as close to impossible as possible for a random person to kill lots of other people

it doesn’t make sense that this isn’t everyone else’s default opinion

somehow i’m still not used to things not making sense

cat otm

o misbegotten amendment

SLATER SCOOP: Exclusive video of road-rage shooting in Miami from in-car camera.

The shooter seen here was arrested and is awaiting trial. He told cops the other driver fired first.

(Warning: Language and gunfire) pic.twitter.com/10vDVEwBbw

— Andy Slater (@AndySlater) January 28, 2022

The Miami-Dade State Attorney’s Office has dropped charges against Eric Popper, the driver who pulled out a handgun and shot at another driver through his own car on I-95 in Miami-Dade County. The road rage incident occurred in June 2021 but took a wild twist in January 2022. Dashcam footage from Popper’s Toyota Venza was given to the media. Popper’s attorney said the footage showed his client’s actions were in self-defense. The state attorney’s office agreed.

In 2021, Eric Popper cut off another driver while driving to work on I-95. The other driver began tailgating and honking his horn at the 30-year-old. Popper brake-checked him. The other driver pulled up alongside Popper, and this is where accounts diverged. The Florida Highway Patrol stated the other driver threw a water bottle. Popper claims it was gunfire, and he returned fire in kind. Whatever struck Popper’s crossover SUV can’t be seen in the video footage.

Eric Popper faced charges including aggravated assault with a firearm after the road rage incident. However, the Miami-Dade State Attorney’s Office recently dropped the charges against Popper. Popper’s attorney Robert Gershman has said that the charge was dropped because of Florida’s Stand Your Ground Law. Gershman told WPLG, “I think under the stand your ground law, Mr. Popper was perfectly reasonable and justified in his actions. There was no question when you look and listen to the facts of the case, Mr. Popper was shot at.”

Popper has told the media that he wants to move on. He told WPLG, “Hindsight is 20/20. There are always things we can look back and say we wish we could have done differently. Definitely, I would have done —would be to not have pumped my brakes. I would have taken another tactic. Definitely try to de-escalate a little better.” Hopefully, Popper wishes that he would not have pulled a handgun in traffic.

There was no question... Mr. Popper was shot at.

Here's a question. Any bullet holes in Mr. Popper's SUV?

so weird that at the very beginning of all this, he's singing "doot doot doot doot! gonna suck my d. gonna suck my d!" one minute later he's trying to kill someone

What is the source of the video?

his own dashcam, i think, given to the media in january 2022

throw the book at this fucker what is the question exactly

fucking violent psychopath loser, go to jail thanks

pulling a gun because you’re mad at traffic, has to be one of the easiest tests for dangerous terrible people

yeah. didn't even get charged, in the end

He had his gun out and ready before the guy ever came up even with him. And he was spraying bullets. He's a danger to himself and others.

it seems really obvious to me, too. i don't know. repeal the second amendment

there’s cool laws in the cool states that say you can just blast away however much you want if you feel bad that day or whatever, what are you gonna do

Jeb should be charged with thousands of manslaughters for signing SYG into law.

I know it's merely semantics, but how is this even considered road rage? I get the impression, given how disturbingly calm this guy is throughout the altercation, that this is not the first time this has happened. Pretty fucking chilling

A Black teenager was shot in the head in Kansas City, Mo., after showing up at the wrong house to pick up his siblings, lawyers for his family said.

Family members identified the victim online as Ralph Yarl, a 16-year-old high school junior.

Kansas City Police were called to a residence shortly before 10 p.m. on Thursday where the teenager was shot by a homeowner, Police Chief Stacey Graves said in a news conference Sunday. The teenager was transported to a hospital to be treated for his injuries, Graves said. She did not name the victim.

Police said the teenager’s parents asked him to pick up his siblings at a residence on 115th Terrace, in the city’s northeast, but that he instead went to a residence on 115th Street, the Kansas City Star reported.

Civil rights attorneys Ben Crump and Lee Merritt, who are representing Yarl and his family, said in a statement that Yarl “is alive and recovering” but that he has severe injuries. They said he was “shot twice and struck in the head and arm by an unidentified white male assailant,” and that Yarl was unarmed. The Washington Post could not independently verify those claims.

Yarl rang the wrong doorbell and was shot twice. how could this be understood as anything other than the homeowner, hearing a doorbell at night, grabbing their gun and prioritizing "kill"

Asked whether the shooting may have been racially motivated, the police chief said, “the information that we have now, it does not say that that is racially motivated. That’s still an active investigation. But as a chief of police, I do recognize the racial components of this case.”

no, i don't think you do

if it was truly still an active investigation, you could have simply said "we are investigating all possibilities", not lead with "it doesn't look like it". I'm sure this will be an unbiased, fair investigation.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/accused-shooter-in-kansas-city-shooting-of-black-teen-who-went-to-the-wrong-house-is-white-man-in-his-80s/ar-AA19WVkR?ocid=iehp&cvid=f95cbb1b28204e0889f6331eedef8dba&ei=9

“White man in his 80s” being invited for a speaking slot at the Republican National Convention.

Picking up siblings while black. Yes, the U.S. is a dystopia.

Judge Carlton Reeves has issued his decision in the felon-in-possession case. He rules that, under Bruen, permanently disarming people convicted of felonies violates the Second Amendment. The 77-page decision is absolutely fascinating. https://t.co/aVLee5se3s pic.twitter.com/quWEM5iwXQ

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) June 28, 2023

this is so grotesquely bleak lol

is there a left wing troll out there ...trolly enough to take this all the way?

so can anyone parse this development for me?

"Hawaii Supreme Court handed down a unanimous opinion on Wednesday declaring that its state constitution grants individuals absolutely no right to keep and bear arms outside the context of military service. Its decision rejected the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment, refusing to interpolate SCOTUS’ shoddy historical analysis into Hawaii law. Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern discussed the ruling on this week’s Slate Plus segment of Amicus; their conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity."

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/02/hawaii-supreme-court-guns-case-rebuke-scalia.html

I wish Hawaii and Puerto Rico could gain total autonomy away from the States

as usual, your posts suck and are unhelpful

I think what's being said is that from a legal perspective it has limited reach, but it's part of a beginning trend of state Supreme Courts rebuking SCOTUS and ruling the opposite of Federal precedent, while also calling out SCOTUS's bad reasoning.

In this case, it won't do much legally because the SCOTUS interpretation still supercedes, but in cases like abortion, where Federal law states something isn't a right and state Supreme Court says "well, it is in this state", it can have more impact...even if temporary.

Really feels like mostly a protest, and one I wholeheartedly support

it's part of a beginning trend of state Supreme Courts rebuking SCOTUS and ruling the opposite of Federal precedent, while also calling out SCOTUS's bad reasoning

The entire southern tier of US states ignored Brown v Board of Education for a couple of decades. The rest of the USA didn't do remarkably better at school integration, but they didn't have state segregation laws they kept actively enforcing like the southern states did.