2nd amendment, a theoretical question

[EagleKeeper]

I don't think that I am voicing anything that is a shocking or new question.

I think that most, if not all, understand that this question is coming down the pike.

I am also not asking this question from a left, right, conservative or liberal position. what I would like to begin to understand is what a serious attempt to reverse the 2nd amendment would look like.

I am not looking for a defense of the 2nd amendment, I'm more interested in what you all think the mechanics of the effort would look like.

[EagleKeeper]

I also would like to invite those members on this site that might not agree with the conservative opinion to take the measure of the question and offer an honest opinion.

Obviously I can't offer a safe route but I think if one would make a well reasoned response then one would receive a well reasoned answer in return.

Trolls will and should get cut off at the knees but I am interested in the DUers that are members of this sight.  

[DefiantSix]

Given how impossible it would be for an amendment repealing the 2nd to make it through the Congress, and the legislatures of at least 38 states, I don't see even a dick tater as full of himself as Obama is seriously considering going that route.  Given also the taste for ruling by executive fiat that Dear Leader has acquired over the past 2 years or so, I could seriously see a flurry of new regulations coming down the sewer pipe soon.  Things like:

• "Emergency" set-asides of legal requirements that all NCIC checks be destroyed within 24 hours of their being reported to the point of sale.
• Reinstatement of things like the 5-day waiting period
• Expansion of the list of things that BATF will be looking for in stepped up "spot checks" of gun dealers.
• Possibly even funding of state efforts to enter residences without warrants in order to ensure compliance with "safe storage" laws.

The whole object of these measures isn't to make it more difficult for criminals to acquire.  It is to make more legal gun owners into ILLEGAL ones, by increasing the number of hoops that must be jumped through to acquire a firearm, and penalizing more harshly anybody who misses a step in this great bureaucratic song and dance number.

[EagleKeeper]

Given how impossible it would be for an amendment repealing the 2nd to make it through the Congress, and the legislatures of at least 38 states, I don't see even a dick tater as full of himself as Obama is seriously considering going that route.  Given also the taste for ruling by executive fiat that Dear Leader has acquired over the past 2 years or so, I could seriously see a flurry of new regulations coming down the sewer pipe soon.  Things like:

• "Emergency" set-asides of legal requirements that all NCIC checks be destroyed within 24 hours of their being reported to the point of sale.
• Reinstatement of things like the 5-day waiting period
• Expansion of the list of things that BATF will be looking for in stepped up "spot checks" of gun dealers.
• Possibly even funding of state efforts to enter residences without warrants in order to ensure compliance with "safe storage" laws.

The whole object of these measures isn't to make it more difficult for criminals to acquire.  It is to make more legal gun owners into ILLEGAL ones, by increasing the number of hoops that must be jumped through to acquire a firearm, and penalizing more harshly anybody who misses a step in this great bureaucratic song and dance number.

So a challenge to the 2nd amendment is not a realistic idea?

[DefiantSix]

So a challenge to the 2nd amendment is not a realistic idea?

It will be a challenge to the 2nd; it just won't be so overt as an amendment repealing or hamstringing it.  The Holy WON of Chicago believes he is above such petty things as the Constitution.  He's going to "play the game" to what he perceives as his strengths, and following the rules laid down by the founding fathers isn't one of those strengths.

[EagleKeeper]

I guess I see the law here.


U.S. Constitution - Article 5

Article 5 - Amendment

<<Back | Table of Contents | Next>>

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.



It seems to me that they would have to change article 5 before they even thought about the second amendment.

[LC EFA]

We never had an enshrined "right" to own firearms here - but government thinks alike.

It will come as baby steps.

Mandatory licensing accompanied by or followed by mandatory registration of all firearms.

Then restriction of class / type / calibre of weapon.