Is the time right for a repeal of the 2nd amendment?

[Rau]

so wouldn’t that mean we would have to amend the 2nd amendment to include those with mental illness…with criminal records…

Rather than add specifics to the Constitution, it would be more useful to amend it in a way that removes doubt that the legislatures may make law in this area. One might conclude there is no merit at all in a Constitutional provision addressing guns. [Yes, I know, the nation will explode in violence at just the thought…]

 

[Inisfallen]

Does the 2nd amendment say that those with mental illness or criminal records are to be denied their 2nd amendment right

Yes, according to the Supreme Court. From Heller:

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

(emphasis mine)

 

[Rau]

is everyone with some sort of mental illness going to be denied their right

It’s questions like this that beg the question whether owning a gun, carrying guns, etc ought to be a right that any person is free to exercise. I think we know intuitively that that is not so.

 

[Peebo]

nisfallen2m Peebo
Peebo:
Does the 2nd amendment say that those with mental illness or criminal records are to be denied their 2nd amendment right

Yes, according to the Supreme Court. From Heller:

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

(emphasis mine)

ok…thanks for that…“longstanding prohibitions”…is that a written law…or just a “tradition” ( not sure if that is the right word…I’m not a legal eagle) that could be challenged in a court of law if someone thought they were being denied their 2nd amendment right

 

[Sy_Noe]

anikins:

Maybe. But we can start with some common sense.

14 day waiting periods
No sales by private owners
No sales at gun shows
10 rounds magazine limit
No bump stocks (already in progress, thank you Mr. President)
No cranks
Licenses for all arms
Child lock requirements
Minimum age of purchase at 21
Universal background checks
Domestic violence ban
No fly list ban

The country will explode into violence if or when this happens.

It shouldn’t. First of all, a law abiding mentally stable person has nothing to fear with regard to longer wait times or more in depth background checks to better assure we get it right.

And secondly, if someone is such a poor shot that they need the sheer volume of some of these magazines that are available now to shoot a deer or an intruder, they probably shouldn’t have a gun in their hand in the first place.

 

[J_the_Centrist]

Amending the constitution? None of us will live to see that and I am in my thirties so even if I live to be 100 I doubt I’d see that. I’m only being realistic and even it does happen it’ll be a reactionary overreach that’ll take away rights from those that committed no crime and I am convinced that will be our nations undoing. Violence unlike anything this hemisphere has ever witnessed would be the result, from criminals and revolutionaries alike and yes it can happen here. Anything can happen anywhere. God never declared the United States exempt from the terrors that have occurred on other continents. This is exactly why I believe we have to begin to heal the many gapping wounds in our society and begin with unscripted conversations where people can actually come together, even if they despise one another. If we can amend the constitution in the matter you’re suggesting, without last minute insertions or piggy backed restrictions unintended in the intended legislation then yes let’s do it. Lamentably, as I said, none of us will live to see that.

 

[AlNg]

Hundreds of dead children is a price I’m willing to pay to be able to squeeze off some rounds with the boys down at the range.

Very sad to hear that some Americans think that way.

 

[AlNg]

I suspect I know the answer, but is Israel a sick society.

And the US is different?

 

[niceatheist]

Lev:

Stop romanticizing guns and that’ll curb the machismo that makes them the powerful manly solution to guy problems that they have become.

What are “guy” problems? And where, other than from Hollywood, do you ever see any kind of guns romanticized?

Maybe if the media stopped giving these shooters the moment of fame they crave, they would not be seeking it.

Is it realistic to expect that the name of the shooter isn’t going to be published somewhere? This is the age of the Internet. The shooter is going to end up in a court room, his name is going to be on the register, the trial is going to be in public, the records available for the rest of time. Of all the “solutions” to mass killing (whether mass shootings, terrorist attacks or otherwise) this idea, particularly in the 21st century, that if the six o’clock news doesn’t say the shooter’s name, it won’t be out there within hours anyways is hopelessly naive.

As to Hollywood, well, of course guns are romanticized. Schwarzenegger beats predators, robots from the future, Islamists, and just about everyone else with serious firepower. The number of Westerns with nice clean deaths is beyond count at this point.

I remember this interview of Zane Gray I read many years ago where he criticizes the Hollywood western of his era, in particular how gun fights were portrayed. In the movies, the shooter hits a guy in the belly and he goes down, dead by the time he hits the ground. Gray pointed out that a belly wound can take two or three days to die from, and is almost never instantly fatal, meaning a man shot in the gut can still keep shooting.

That sort of unrealistic portrayal of gun violence can be found in Westerns, war movies, and all sorts of other movies were extras often seem like they’re raining from the sky. So yes, Hollywood has long mythologized the gun and its effects. It’s one of the reasons I like Clint Eastwood’s Unforgiven. There’s a scene that he draws out for quite a while where a man is shot in the gut, and is bleeding out at something like an actual speed that one would realistically expect, and is crying out for water. It’s a hard scene to watch, precisely because it demonstrates that the way people die from gunshots is often not nice and clean, but rather often a terrible affair that can take time.

 

[Rau]

it’ll be a reactionary overreach that’ll take away rights from those that committed no crime

The writers of your constitution asserted it was a “right”. The only basis of the “legal right” exercisable in society is that it appears so in the Constitution. Only that latter fact is up for discussion and potentially revision. Some people will argue their “right” remains regardless of the Constitution. Or they may choose to accept the law of the land arrived at via due process.

You are certainly correct that many will object on principle to anything that says that freedoms they once had, are now to be controlled through legislation.

 

[upant]

The writers of your constitution asserted it was a “right”. The only basis of the “legal right” exercisable in society is that it appears so in the Constitution. Only that latter fact is up for discussion and potentially revision. Some people will argue their “right” remains regardless of the Constitution. Or they may choose to accept the law of the land arrived at via due process.

the basis for the legal right is that we are endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable Rights

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

Pope John Paul II’s encyclical letter, Evangelium Vitae summarizes the issue perfectly for catholics. (bold added)

There are in fact situations in which values proposed by God’s Law seem to involve a genuine paradox. This happens for example in the case of legitimate defence, in which the right to protect one’s own life and the duty not to harm someone else’s life are difficult to reconcile in practice. Certainly, the intrinsic value of life and the duty to love oneself no less than others are the basis of a true right to self-defence. The demanding commandment of love of neighbour, set forth in the Old Testament and confirmed by Jesus, itself presupposes love of oneself as the basis of comparison: “You shall love your neighbour as yourself ” (Mk 12:31). Consequently, no one can renounce the right to self-defence out of lack of love for life or for self. This can only be done in virtue of a heroic love which deepens and transfigures the love of self into a radical self-offering, according to the spirit of the Gospel Beatitudes (cf. Mt 5:38-40). The sublime example of this self-offering is the Lord Jesus himself. Moreover, “legitimate defence can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life, the common good of the family or of the State”. [The quotation is from # 2265 in the first edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.] Unfortunately it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose action brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

You “review it” by constitutional amendment.

2/3 of both Houses, 3/4 of the state legislatures

Yes, I believe that is the due process to implement proposed revision. Write your representative/senator/congressman!

Oh, I do. He’s working hard to defeyall of our rights, including the right to arms.

 

[JonNC]

A sick society is one that does nothing to prevent guns and abortion from killing innocent children, because a few marginal members claim it is their constitutionally protected right to have unfettered access to both.

So, let’s start by putting them on an equal footing. Killing innocent children with a firearm is against the law. Someone who does so either spends the rest of their life in prison or receives the death penalty (assuming they survive the event).
With Abortion , on the other hand, killing innocent children is legal, and in some quarters, highly regarded and defended.
In other words, there is no right to kill innocent child with a firearm, but there is a “right” to kill a child when committing abortion.
So let’s make sure both of them are illegal. There’s no reason to outlaw or ban doctor’s tools, just like there is no need to ban firearms.

Now we can go about the business of protecting our children, born and soon to be born, without destroying the rights of the innocent

 

[JonNC]

Very sad to hear that some Americans think that way.

It would be if it were true. It’s not, and the poster knows it. It is the kind of dishonest rhetoric that makes this issue hard to resolve.

 

[JonNC]

And the US is different?

In regards the point, yes. Israel has not had a school shooting in 40 years. Their schools are well defended.
Congress is well defended. Even banks are well defended. But schools, if they’re lucky, have an SRO. Otherwise, a school, like the one I work at, has zero defense, no defense, none whatsoever. A so called gun free zone is only gun free for good guys with guns.

 

[JonNC]

I hope they don’t have to witness any more brutality; they’ve already witnessed the brutality that has taken place when citizens are armed.

Which is nothing compared to when only governments have arms.
There must be something transformative in becoming a government employee. Private citizens are apparently evil when they have guns. But government employees, they’re good with guns.
Wait! That’s not what I’ve heard since Ferguson. I’ve only heard how bad police are.
And we all know that Trump is such an evil guy, so let’s make sure he has all the guns? :crazy_face:

The fact is people are people. Virtually all gun owners, with a tiny few exceptions, whether in government or not, do not harm others with guns. But that tiny few exists inside and outside of government. The problem with those inside government is they have power, too

 

[JonNC]

Any society that runs concentration camps is a sick society.

Governments that run concentration camps disarm their citizens first.

 

[Rau]

the basis for the legal right is that we are endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable Rights

We can all have views on the creator’s intent. However, the legal right flows from the words in the Constitution alone.

Pope John Paul II’s encyclical letter, Evangelium Vitae summarizes the issue perfectly for catholics. (bold added)

Nothing there gives us an assurance that the wide and unfettered availability of guns is a good or wise policy.

 

[Road-Worrier]

The 5th amendment discusses under what conditions Constitutional rights may be abridged.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

 

[lmachine]

how do you know cops and soldiers won’t be on the side of the 3%?

You’re adorable.

It would be if it were true. It’s not, and the poster knows it. It is the kind of dishonest rhetoric that makes this issue hard to resolve.

What’s dishonest about it? Americans’ unfettered access to guns results in about 30,000 deaths annually, many of them children. Our unfettered access to guns means I’m more likely to be shot dead by a toddler than die in a terrorist attack. Some people believe these deaths are worth it so they can own guns.

Wait! That’s not what I’ve heard since Ferguson. I’ve only heard how bad police are.

You may be shocked to learn that I believe police officers should not carry guns.