Repeal the Second Amendment

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.

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

― Vic Perry, Friday, October 2, 2015 9:49 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

the saddest thing about this post is... nah, i'm off to the movies too

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!!!

― Vic Perry, Friday, October 2, 2015 8:48 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Well maybe a better way to think about it is cost/benefit. The political process for amending the constitution is SO difficult in today's political climate to begin with, and until a pretty recent Supreme Court case, the Second Amendment wasn't the main barrier to effective gun control anyway. So I think it's REALLY not worth the kind of expenditure and effort it would take to try to repeal the second amendment, in part because even if we win it doesn't actually mean we get effective gun control!

Heller v. DC was only 7 years ago. Our gun problem is much older.

And meanwhile, yes, I literally think it's a better strategy to "sit around waiting" for a majority liberal court, which could easily be within 5-10 years, then to go through the circus of trying to amend the constitution. And if that court does materialize, you don't actually have to then "wait around" for the right case to come along. All that has to happen is a state or municipality passes a law that appears to violate Heller, and some chump takes the bait and challenges it in court.

*than to go through...

"So I think it's REALLY not worth the kind of expenditure and effort it would take to try to repeal the second amendment, in part because even if we win it doesn't actually mean we get effective gun control!"

Never mind the defeatist first bit.....what do you mean by the second part of the sentence?

Are you saying that gun control measures would have to be implemented by, say, Congress, along with the repeal? I believe President Obama said something to the effect that Congress should be involved in such measures yesterday.

no shit i will give all my bernie sanders money to this

xp The second part of that sentence was self explanatory. You realize that until 2008, the Second Amendment was effectively neutered, right?

"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.

― it's not a tuomas (benbbag), Friday, October 2, 2015 8:51 PM (12 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

You have excessive faith in the principle of safety of supporting the "least offensive candidate," while having excessive fears of what happens when your party doesn't have the presidency. Your party doesn't have the presidency quite often. Well, specifically, half the time, with one 4-year exception quite awhile ago.

But the main terrible thing that happens when your party doesn't run things is a sudden resurgence of interest among all the people who previously didn't really care. This groundswell of energy leads of course to your party running the White House for an....equal length of time.

American politics is a see-saw. Precisely 1 presidential election since 1952 didn't follow the 8 years for one party, 8 years for another party dynamic. It's a remarkably consistent pattern.

Expecting the Democratic Party to just win all the time and therefore contribute all the people you want to the Supreme Court? This is the big plan?

To use the biggest criticism this way of thinking could produce, this is "not realistic."

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

I'm sleepy too. Yet I don't hide behind it when I'm losing an argument.

G'night.

also

Precisely 1 presidential election since 1952 didn't follow the 8 years for one party, 8 years for another party dynamic.

lol this is wrong

actually sorry it is technically correct, but there was a democratic white house for 20 years straight just prior to the year you arbitrarily chose, and it's not exactly a large statistical sampling.

AH HA. I didn't go to sleep. I read a bad article on the Guardian instead. So there!

the surprise year was: 1980. Interestingly, this was one of the more historically significant political shifts ever, so there is that.

How exactly you claim that 60 plus years is "not exactly a large statistical sampling" ... I mean what do you think elections are, flipping coins? We're talking about millions of individual decisions leading up to each election outcome, and still it is almost always....8 years for D, 8 years for R.

Pattern getting more entrenched, rather than less, by the way. We are about to have 24 years with 3 presidents. I'll give you a hint on the last time that happened: one of them was Jefferson.

And this is not to say we couldn't just chuck it in 2016! Beat the pattern. The grass is always greener on the other side. So why not throw away your history and take the ride. (that's a quote......to bring it back to an ILM kind of place where I'd rather be anyway)

Wow that lyric (from 1983) is apparently so obscure it is not even available via a google search. If there is some kind of prize for being underrated and ignored...

you know, you can do a lot of things politically. you can have short and long term goals. in the short(er) term, you can think that electing a democrat will potentially allow for shifts in the supreme court that will in turn help to alter the way the constitution is interpreted for the better. hey, it's worked that way before (in that direction, and in reverse). i don't think this obviates some longer-term goals of making democrats more accountable to their base. or at least it doesn't necessarily obviate it. and even if it does... well....

things could always be worse. much worse. through most of human history, in much of the rest of the world, they are much worse. i'm really, really averse to the whole "things are gonna have to get worse so they can eventually get better" argument. for reasons i've explained many, many, many times on this board. above all, history just doesn't work in a predictable fashion. the dynamics of social and political change can't be mapped out decades in advance. we are never guaranteed the outcome we imagine or desire. to think otherwise is... i was going to write "hubris," but i don't think it's quite hubris, it's more just... deluded?

sorry i don't mean to say that anyone here's "deluded" per se.... just that given the choice between an option that will almost assuredly result in something better in the medium term and some other option that offers some faint hope in a very long term (but not before some serious harm is done).... i guess i'd pick the first one. if that makes me overcautious or whatever much more negative epithet you might cast, i guess the shoe fits.

Punctuated equilibrium happens in politics too. I tend to think 2008 might end up being a year that we look back in history as being the beginning of a new age for (certain) social democratic / progressive reforms in US government, so I honestly won't be surprised if the mass gun murders (and accompanying attempted gun murders) of the last few years, plus the pretty excellent efforts of that guy we elected in 2008 to put as fine a point on it as he thinks he can (he is sayin' what everybody else is thinkin'!), plus the pretty unbelievable efforts by the NRA et al. to be totally unacceptable in public outside of their little Charlton Heston echo chambers, turn into something like actual hard gun control and buy-back measures over the next few years.

We banned fucking booze in this country, that one time. When these things happen they happen all at once.

IMHO, and IANAL, and I Am Definitely Not An Elected Official, but it seems easier to turn the ATF into a regulatory juggernaut and gut the states' rights to regulate their own firearm-trading regimes than to enact a new, improved version of anything in the Bill of Rights.

Back to thread topic. If we want to do it.....How do we make this happen? Even if you don't think it's possible, let's handle it as a thought experiment shall we?

The only amendment ever to repeal an earlier amendment is the 21st --- 1933, the one that undid Prohibition. This is also the only amendment that was passed using the unusual method of "state ratifying conventions" rather than state legislatures.

fun fact: the 35th state to ratify the end of prohibition, and thus make it happen: Utah. That's right, bi-coastal urbanites, you can just knock the fuck off with the Utah jokes. I'm drinking to Utah as we speak, and I invite you to join me.

So this history provides clues as to political movement, yeah? I'm guessing that state legislatures are strictly for the well-connected. A bastion of bastards.

But the internet is letting me down on the details here - I may need to find an actual book or three to get to the bottom of this. I'd love to know the thinking behind the move to the state ratifying convention method rather than the state legislature method - it was obviously pretty innovative and probably involved some risk.

one, the idea that gun control advocates have nothing on their side is ridiculous. mass shootings are not acceptable to the people of america, and there is only so long they are going to take this whole "learned helplessness" thing. if there weren't gun massacres in america on a regular basis, then yes, there would be zero incentive to overturn the laws.

regarding state legislatures, the issue is that the entire principles of bicameral government have broken down in a number of states. whenever the republicans lose an election the democrats like to sneer at them as a "regional party", but being solely a "national party" is just as bad. "red states" or "blue states" are defined less by their political ideology than they are by the significant lack of political organization of one party or another. this is a pretty recent undertaking. the texas democratic party, for instance, completely imploded. so state legislatures tend to have poor legislators who do things like text videos of them cheating on their wife to their entire contact list and put terrible laws in place. and then they gerrymander to keep the other party weak. this isn't just a republican thing- look at maryland.

regarding a repeal of the 2nd amendment, i would argue that this structurally more closely resembles the 18th than it does the 21st. both movements are driven by moral outrage backed up by, well, hard facts. alcohol is a vice which claims the lives, in america, of many more people than guns do, and as much as we sneer upon the people who wanted to regulate it, they had very sound principles in wanting to do so. like guns, alcohol is also used, extremely effectively, to oppress minorities- case in point, native americans. according to the ken burns documentary on prohibition, one of the key failures of prohibition was a bait and switch effect- many people who supported it did not imagine that a law as draconian as the volstead act would result from the amendment. early advocates of the temperance movement suggested people drink beer, rather than gin.

which is to say, i would construe gun ownership as being somewhat similar to alcohol consumption or marijuana use- a vice which, in general, does more harm than it does good.

i don't wish to be defeatist here, only prudent. an outright ban on guns, particularly in this day and age where you can 3d print your own firearm, particularly given the massive number of guns already in existence in the us and in the hands of the drug cartels, seems unlikely to be particularly effective. (it will be interesting to see how this affects firearm violence in europe over the next 20 years.) sound and prudent regulation would treat firearms like americans treat cigarettes, like americans ought to to treat recreational drugs- as a vice to be taxed and controlled through regulation, rather than something we seek to totally eradicate.

incidentally, regarding the intent of the second amendment, most of the bill of rights historically deals not with the conflict of rights between the individual and the state, as we construe it today, but with the conflict of rights between the nation and the states which make up that nation. this can clearly be seen in, for instance, tocqueville. the 1937 constitutional revolution completely upended that paradigm, however, and since that time the second amendment has not been particularly meaningful in its original sense.

sorry, for "bicameral" i meant to say "two-party". the us states individually have never had meaningful bicameral legislatures like america has on a federal level.

I was trying to think yesterday how Repeal2 would actually play out. Repeal would allow the right to keep and bear arms to be infringed, but I don't think it would automatically, on its own, do the infringing. I wonder how likely it would be for the fed govt to stay out of the infringing part and leave the matter for states to decide -- more liberal states banning all guns (except maybe for extremely tightly-regulated hunting weapons), gun-crazy red states allowing the gun-craziness to continue. Maybe a ban on full-auto fire at the federal level so ultra nutty states could not legalize machine guns. The more I think about this the unlikelier it seems...

I don't think it would automatically, on its own, do the infringing

If enough votes could be mustered to refer the amendment that repealed or modified the 2nd and for state legislatures to pass it, then by definition there would be plenty of political will to implement it, too.

well, i mean would the new amendment just be "the second amendment is cancelled" or would it say something like the Congress shall have the power to regulate the private ownership of firearms and other weapons of deadly force? and possibly further language (likely, compromise language) establishing whether there are limits to said power, etc. i get that removing the "it's a constitutional right!" defense would go a long way, but even in the very hypothetical universe where this amendment passes, there would be states ready to stall it out for years, decades, or forever with dubious work-arounds to whatever law the feds actually enact. look at all the bullshit anti-abortion legislation since roe v. wade, or the age of post-brown segregation.

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

― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Friday, October 2, 2015

Yeah, last month. Good, but not as impeccably researched as the book published a couple years ago analyzing the Heller case. I liked, though, that Waldman gently criticized Stevens for legitimating Scalia's originalism by himself reviewing historical documents.

I'll retract that point: it IS well researched but the tone is that of a smart magazine article expanded.

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.