Quote:
Originally Posted by scotpens
That's not how it works. The only way to change or rescind a Constitutional amendment is with another amendment. A Constitutional amendment has to be proposed in either house of Congress, then it has to pass by a two-thirds vote of both houses. Finally, it must be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures (states may submit an amendment to a popular vote, but that's not required).
Voters may be able to amend their state constitution through the initiative process, but not the U.S. Constitution.
Like it or not, the Second Amendment is here to stay. It isn't going away anytime, ever.
|
What might change is the ritualistic deification of firearms and the assumption that all guns are legitimate in all circumstances and that the right to bear arms extends to anyone and everyone, including people know to suffer from dangerous mental illness and personality disorders. As far as I know the Founding Fathers did not intend the letter of the constitution to be a replacement for common sense. For example:
- The Colt AR-15 is a purpose designed murder weapon. Its' only practical application is to distribute up to eight rounds a second very inaccurately except at short range. For hunting it is far less practical than a bolt action 8mm hunting rifle, but it is an excellent mass homicide weapon. Since it does not serve any legal purpose as well as many other alternative forearms, it makes sense to ban this specific weapon and ban weapons which conform to the same characteristics. That would not contradict the right to bear arms.
- Background checks - does the right to bear arms really extend to armed robbers or rapists newly discharged on parole, people recently diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and so forth? If it does, then America is hopelessly screwed.
- The intent to utilise weapons as a method of resisting the elected government and the rule of law is not a legitimate purpose of gun ownership and this is clarified in the bit of the 2nd Amendment which the NRA never cites: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state". All discussions of the second amendment should include the recognition that it is subservient to a purpose, the purpose being the security of a free state. Letting people buy guns over the counter with no checks and no regulation undermines the security of a free state and we see this in the plague of mass shootings the USA suffers and which are so rare everywhere else in the first world except in the USA.
The NRA takes the position that any form of gun control or gun regulation by definition violates the second amendment. IMHO this is palpably untrue. Parents and relatives of school age children who do not want to put them at the disposal of deranged shooters looking for soft targets need to stand up to the NRA and insist that sane gun laws are consistent with the right to bear arms and are "necessary to the security of a free state."
I don't think America needs to change the second amendment. I think America needs to change her fucked up gun culture.