I also voted no, but would be in favor of some control. Do we really need to own semi automatic assault rifles that can kill so many so quickly?

 

*sigh*

No.

No .

The repeal process would be nearly impossible to accomplish, which is why the premise of this thread and accompanying poll is mostly bluster -- another opportunity for the gun crowd to thump its collective chest in the name of liberty. The $64,000 question is whether the Second Amendment would prohibit a widescale gun ban and buyback program like Australia instituted. I doubt it.

Are we talking about this again?

 

Nobody is EVER going to take your guns away. Relax. :ohbrother:

I guess there are a few extremists out there that would like to see the 2nd amendment repealed. We have a better chance of being struck by lightning while riding a unicorn than the 2nd amendment has of being repealed.

 

Not everyone who is in favor of exploring other options wants to take or ban your guns.

 

Not everyone who is in favor of exploring other options wants to take or ban your guns.

And herein lies the problem. The "pro-gun" crowd goes to this "you want to repeal the second amendment and take my gun(s)" rhetoric, and the "anti-gun" crowd says they want gun control but never say what that means because I honestly do not think they know.

I don't think the amendment's intention is as straightforward as many believe it is. It also is written in a strange, ungrammatical manner, which adds to the obfuscation.

 

The problem then is answering the question "what regulations may Congress place on the manufacturing, sale, and ownership of firearms according to the Second Amendment." I don't think that question is easily answered.

 

To wit, only in the last five years has the Supreme Court interpreted the amendment to mean an individual right to own a firearm. The Court has since refused to take cases on the constitutionality of the banning of specific types of firearms in certain states (e.g. the infamous "assault weapons" ban.) those decisions have now opened up.

 

So, it's possible future decisions could further limit or further expand Congress's power on the issue that would make some groups either very angry or very happy. Amending the constitution is a Hurculean effort that is probably impossible at this point in our country's history, but we would be better served by agreeing on language that is clearer, one way or another. But I have a better chance of riding a unicorn off into the sunset this evening.

I also voted no, but would be in favor of some control. Do we really need to own semi automatic assault rifles that can kill so many so quickly?

 

Saying something needs to be controlled because it isn't needed is a very dangerous precedent to liberty. Not quite a century ago we decided people don't need alcohol and passed a very stupid constitutional amendment which was fortunately repealed a several years later. Let's not make such a mistake again saying because something isn't needed, then is is OK to restrict. Otherwise, let's restrict people from red meat, cars with engines more than 120 horse power (who needs more than 120 horse power?, restrict it), etc..

I personally don't know anyone that wants to repel the 2nd amendment. I also don't think that there are very many on here that would do so.

 

Retired Supreme Court Justice Breyer basically said he was.

 

Many may not be for repealing but are for neutering so drastically with gun control that it no longer protects the rights it was originally meant to, just hunting and keeping one in your home under lock and key where it doesn't do much good when needed.

Retired Supreme Court Justice Breyer basically said he was.

 

Many may not be for repealing but are for neutering so drastically with gun control that it no longer protects the rights it was originally meant to, just hunting and keeping one in your home under lock and key where it doesn't do much good when needed.

 

I don't personally know Justice Breyer. I'm not sure what that has to do with my post, which was about who I know and BGPers.

I don't think the amendment's intention is as straightforward as many believe it is. It also is written in a strange, ungrammatical manner, which adds to the obfuscation.

 

The problem then is answering the question "what regulations may Congress place on the manufacturing, sale, and ownership of firearms according to the Second Amendment." I don't think that question is easily answered.

 

To wit, only in the last five years has the Supreme Court interpreted the amendment to mean an individual right to own a firearm. The Court has since refused to take cases on the constitutionality of the banning of specific types of firearms in certain states (e.g. the infamous "assault weapons" ban.) those decisions have now opened up.

 

So, it's possible future decisions could further limit or further expand Congress's power on the issue that would make some groups either very angry or very happy. Amending the constitution is a Hurculean effort that is probably impossible at this point in our country's history, but we would be better served by agreeing on language that is clearer, one way or another. But I have a better chance of riding a unicorn off into the sunset this evening.

As it should be.

The poll is where I expected 17-0. There might be someone, somewhere who is ok repealing the 2nd amendment - good luck finding them. There are very, very, very few people who want that. I believe if a national poll were done, it would be less than 5% of the populace. People want gun control, not a ban on guns.

 

Personally, I think you are mistaken here. I believe there are a quite a few people who, if a snapping of the fingers could make it happen would say take all peoples guns away, thus in essence doing away with the 2nd amendment. If answered truthfully I think it would be quite a bit more than 5% nationally.

Personally, I think you are mistaken here. I believe there are a quite a few people who, if a snapping of the fingers could make it happen would say take all peoples guns away, thus is essence doing away with the 2nd amendment. If answered truthfully I think it would be quite a bit more than 5% nationally.

 

I think that rather than WANTING the 2nd repealed, some would not care if it was. That's where I am. I'm not pushing that agenda, because it's a futile exercise. But if it happened, I'd not be upset.

 

The sticking point always is that what people in favor of regulations and controls list, those afraid of a repeal of the 2nd take as the first steps to repeal.

I think that rather than WANTING the 2nd repealed, some would not care if it was. That's where I am. I'm not pushing that agenda, because it's a futile exercise. But if it happened, I'd not be upset.

 

The sticking point always is that what people in favor of regulations and controls list, those afraid of a repeal of the 2nd take as the first steps to repeal.

 

Which to me (bolded) is no different than wanting is repealed...it's essentially the same thought process, in my opinion, which is why I say the number is way higher than 5%.