Opinion Americans can't handle their guns. Time to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

Link (Archive)

Americans can't handle their guns. Time to repeal the 2nd Amendment.​

We must repeal the Second Amendment if we want this country to ever be safe again.

Whether it's killings by police, like the 60 bullets fired into Jayland Walker, or by civilians like in Highland Park, Illinois, Uvalde, Texas, or Buffalo, New York our national record on gun violence is an international embarrassment. It can't be reformed without doing away with guns entirely.

States like California and New York that have tried to set restrictive gun laws can do little when guns are trafficked in from other states. What's more – legislative attempts at restricting gun rights were recently shot down by a Supreme Court gone rogue.

We're way beyond what the framers ever had in mind for gun rights already. And for a selective originalist Supreme Court conservative majority, it's hard to justify glossing over the history behind the Second Amendment.

Much like we did away with the 18th (prohibition) when it no longer served us, it's time to do away with the archaic constitutional amendment holding Americans hostage in their own country.

It's time to say, "Hey, hey, ho, ho, the Second Amendment's gotta go."

The problem: Americans can't handle guns​

Americans can't handle their guns. There were a whopping 692 mass shootings in the United States last year, according to the Gun Violence Archive, which defines mass shootings as having "a minimum of four victims shot, either injured or killed, not including any shooter who may also have been killed or injured in the incident."

In 2021, more than 45,000 Americans were killed by firearms. And while we have just over 4% of the world's population, as of 2017 we had over 40% of the world's civilian-owned guns.

There have been 2,069 school shootings in America since 1970, according to the Center for Homeland Defense and Security's Naval Postgraduate School's K-12 School Shooting Database. But after every shooting, all we see from most Republican lawmakers is idle talk about "locking doors" and the ever-popular "thoughts and prayers."

Meanwhile, other countries tighten gun laws after mass shootings, including Canada, which still has relatively high gun ownership rates but much lower gun homicide rates compared with the United States.

America's only option is to take drastic action and reform our antiquated Constitution.

The solution: Get rid of these 27 words​

27 words.

"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." We are often reminded of the last 14 words of the amendment but completely overlook the first 13. But those 13 words provide critical historical context, which our cherry-picking "originalist" Supreme Court has glossed over in favor of expanding gun rights far beyond what the Founders ever envisioned for the Bill of Rights, and at the expense of American lives.

In 1791, when the Second Amendment was adopted, the Founders had one thing in mind: To protect the people against a standing army, specifically, the muskets of theBritish standing army of King George III. The Second and Third Amendments, meant to be read together, were about protecting the people from the tyranny of professional, full-time militaries (much like the one we have now). They were not intended to protect the people from one another. They were not intended to protect the people from AR-15-style weapons.

Our Constitution is "the world’s longest surviving written charter of government," according to the Senate's website, but it is far from immutable: "The Constitution has been amended 27 times, most recently in 1992."

In order to get rid of the Second Amendment we'd use Article V of the Constitution, which sets out two options: Congress, through a joint resolution passed by a two-thirds vote, or by a congressional convention after petitions from two-thirds of the state legislatures, could propose the amendment.

I am not the only lawyer to point to the obvious solution. After 14 students and three staff were killed at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland in 2018, none other than the late Justice John Paul Stevens called for repealing the Second Amendment in an opinion column in The New York Times.

It took five decades of campaigning for conservatives to get the constitutional right to abortion overturned in the Supreme Court. Repealing the Second Amendment may look like a long shot today, but if progressives and moderates show up in full force to vote the right people into office over the next couple of decades, nothing is impossible.
 
Also:



Can I just point out just how retarded the argument of "We removed an amendment before" is? Why did we repeal the 18th? Because Prohibition

Didn't

Fucking

WORK.


So what makes this idiot think that banning something this time will do the trick?
Same people also wanted the War on Drugs ended for the same reason - "It didn't work and it only hurt the minorities"

But, yeah, surely THIS prohibition will work!
 
The passage of the OG AWB was the last time there was a realistic chance at absolute leftist gun control, as in, total blanket bans on private firearms, as there was not yet caselaw establishing the 2A as an individual right, and the good-times 90s really did seem like an End of History time where there would be no more great problems....with the cultural zeitgeist really beginning to view gun ownership as outdated and distasteful.
Even then the Democrats were forced to take an L. One of the CA nutjobs (Feinstein I think) outright said that if they had the votes it would have been time for Mr. and Mrs. America to hand in their guns.
 
Dear Carli Pierson, you should have meet ex-senator Leland Yee,for a anti-gun activist like him he would tell you lots of stories about his gun smuggling in the black market. :story:
Honestly that's probably why they do it, to drive up the profits of their own smuggling operations. Didn't that guy get only three years in a jail for rich people?
the bodies of journalists
And if politicians treated the first amendment the way they treat the second, let's just say they'll never admit that the jails are full enough already.
 
Even then the Democrats were forced to take an L. One of the CA nutjobs (Feinstein I think) outright said that if they had the votes it would have been time for Mr. and Mrs. America to hand in their guns.
Wonder how those people feel today?

The ones who entered Congress in the late 70's/early 80's with the expressed desire to have the entire 2A scrapped, that such would be easy, welcome and noble, and that a gun-free America (tm) would be their ultimate lasting legacy?

As they enter the twilight of their careers....with 40 years of trying everything they could think of, there are now MORE guns in the country than ever, MORE gun owners than ever, the most common gun in the nation isn't a pistol, but, a semiauto rifle, and that was a direct result of the AWB, their landmark law showing everyone how utterly ignorant they were when it came to common knowledge about firearms , their usage and their typical owners. And despite getting it passed, it was so useless it didn't have the required votes to renew itself and had to be left to sunset before their eyes. In fact, renewal was such a non-starter it never even got to the floor for a try. Meanwhile the Supreme Court has definitively said the 2A applies to the people and not the "militia" and told California and New York in particular to shove off with their gun-grabbing..... and, outside of the cities they rule with an iron fist, despite being "worse" in every metric they think matters ACTUAL gun violence is on-par or below levels last seen in the 1950's..... (IN said cities, literal hundreds die a week due to runaway gun crime in the ghettos that they have no solutions for and deny even exists)

So much for those who said they were on the Right Side of History (tm)
 
Última edición:
I need guns to protect myself. That's about all the reasoning anyone needs. If you have a problem with that, you're not only ok with removing the ability for the weak, and old to protect themselves, you're onto-logically against people having the power to defend themselves in general. You're also intellectually dishonest because if guns are necessary to fight a standing army, what happens if that standing army is your own army?
There's a reason they say "All enemies foreign and domestic." its because people inside the walls can be just as dangerous as people outside them.
But this is all academic. If you want to take away peoples ability to defend themselves with deadly force, you're evil. You're on the side of evil, you're protecting and enabling evil, and you are okay with evil being done to people to make you feel safer.


The leftist pretends to be a victim of violence that they want to cause you for real.
 
Last I checked the 2nd Amendment didn't say anything about being unable to handle guns.
I'd say there's better ways to fix this than trying to bitch at literally the only thing keeping our civilization together and trying to set it on fire when it says nothing.

But keep going. I wanna see what happens.
 
In 1791, when the Second Amendment was adopted, the Founders had one thing in mind: To protect the people against a standing army, specifically, the muskets of theBritish standing army of King George III.
Is that true though? I thought the right to bear arms was so that the people would not have an imbalance of power against any potentially tyrannical government, or force?
The muskets thing is such a daft argument. The right to bear arms is about equalising power - the people should have access to arms that will let them stand up to the powers that be. Then it was muskets, because that’s what the government had. Today the government tends not to use muskets. Neither do robbers and other violent criminals
People were legally allowed to own personal battle ships IIRC, which is like owning a jet these days.
 
Come and get em yourself, Carli.

Our guns have their own guns.

IN AMERICA.
 
Same people also wanted the War on Drugs ended for the same reason - "It didn't work and it only hurt the minorities"

But, yeah, surely THIS prohibition will work!
Same people get real squeamish when you ask if they are the ones who will go into black neighborhoods to confiscate their guns, or point out how, if german Jews had the 2nd amendment, then maybe hitler's plans wouldnt have worked.

Now that they have torpedoed the public's trust in both the legal system and the police force all these 2A calls are going completely unnoticed. Whos gonna listen to them now, other then the soyest of bugmen? Especially now that democrat gun ownership is at an all time high.
 
More importantly, the second amendment being repealed wouldn't prevent the police from using guns. I don't know where they get that idea.
in their retarded world banning guns wouldn't just stop normal people from buying it would bannish all existing guns to the shadow realm, univent ballistics and mankind would collectively forget how to create new guns.
 
Did this person actually write, and the newspaper actually publish, this sentence:

It's time to say, "Hey, hey, ho, ho, the Second Amendment's gotta go."

All politics aside, that is unforgivably embarrassing writing. I can't imagine how that made it past first draft.
Awkward isn’t it? They’re trialling slogans to see if any gain traction. A lot of ‘journalism’ and forum/board posts are this. People think glowing types lurk to nab posters but much more lurking is done by policy wonks who are putting ideas out to see what’s popular/what isn’t/ how people react to phrasing and ideas. The author of this piece and others will have been told to create a few slogans and put them out there. Trending of any of them will lead to it being more widely pushed. It’s just what focus groups used to do, only now they have the comments section and google trends for feedback,
 
Imagine simultaneously holding these ideas:
  • our last president was a literal nazi
  • the government and a large portion of the populace hate and oppress minorities
  • the government should have a monopoly on force
  • people should be unarmed and thus unable to defend themselves
 
Imagine simultaneously holding these ideas:
  • our last president was a literal nazi
  • the government and a large portion of the populace hate and oppress minorities
  • the government should have a monopoly on force
  • people should be unarmed and thus unable to defend themselves
Your mistake is in assuming:

A) That leftists are capable of (or even strive for) consistency of thought.
B) That they intend to take guns away from anyone but white people.
 
There are roughly 330 million people in the US, with every non-felon being able to own a gun with about 20% being 17 or under. Something like 20% of individuals are willing to disclose personal gun ownership. So let's say (very) conservatively there are 52.8 million legal gun owners. Major mass shootings are what they harangue about so much, and there tend to be about 0-3 per year. Let's be extra generous and say 3 per year. So, 30 in 10 years... now let's divide and see the percentage of gun owners who commit these crimes... an astonishing 0.00006 of gun owners in the last decade! Now, let's just ignore the fact a lot of it is done by non-legal owners and I kept the numbers conservative to favor gun haters so we can keep the numbers oh so high.

Gee, if .00006 is enough to significantly change everything maybe we should also look at crime statistics... crap, I've just been thrown in jail and sentenced to death for nazi racism wrong-think. The hypocrisy and flat out stupidity of these people is just off the scales. There is not consistency in any of their beleifs, only emotional outburst, seething hatred and authoritarian tendencies.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo