120place
Propose Amendments to the Constitution All the ideas and discussions
3 votes Vote

Repeal the Second Amendment

Additionally, limit the size and budget of the military to quell the possibility of government oppression and limit police arms to non-lethal weaponry.

Josh Musket , 28.10.2011, 22:34
Idea status: under consideration

Comments

Edward Machnik, 10.12.2011, 21:16
A bad idea, a sure way to promote tyranny by the Central Government.
Josh Musket, 10.12.2011, 21:44
Sadly, more people seem to agree with you, which is good sign of fallacious thinking.
woodmantech, 04.05.2012, 18:46
Our founding fathers understood the basic concept that criminals don't obey the law and that people need to defend themselves against such criminals. Furthermore, when those criminals are elected into office, we need the ability to defend ourselves against the government. The Constitution is FULL of this idea, over and over again. The Article V Convention is one of those ideas. The 2nd Amendment is another. You repeal the 2nd Amendment, and you have just removed the right of citizens to defend themselves from tyrants. If you want to live under those rules, Russia will, no doubt, be glad to swear you in as a citizen.
Josh Musket, 04.05.2012, 20:52
I suggest you check Russian gun laws before claiming that they're free of guns.

As for firearms that Americans are allowed to use in defense, while they may be useful in defense against criminals, we live in an era where nonlethal methods of defense could be employed. Further, in defending against tyrants, if they truly have tyrannical power, they'll also have access to our highly advanced military. So unless our second-amendment rights allow us to own jet-fighters and rocket launchers, it's pointless to make that argument.

Lastly, there are many things we could do to eliminate criminality and ensure a safer society, but as things are now we live with such inequalities in society that criminality is guaranteed.
whatiswrongwithyou, 13.06.2012, 18:16
What is wrong with you. This will only take guns from the good guys. Don't believe me? Is marijuana against the law? Last time I checked it is and yet the criminals still get it, not only that teenagers do to. Outlawing guns only takes them away from the citizens who aren't willing to go around the law.
Josh Musket, 13.06.2012, 19:16
Actually, what's wrong with you, for making such poor analogy? Comparing something that's sole purpose is killing to something as harmless as marijuana is not appropriate.
Jeff, 03.07.2012, 21:15
Josh Musket, proving he is an idiot with every reply. This is a horrible idea and will never be adopted because there are fortunately more people out there smarter than you and believe in the right to bear arms. Go back to the brady campaign for idiots where you came from.
Josh Musket, 04.07.2012, 00:46
Oh I quiver at your stinging insults /sarcasm

Come with a convincing argument. You clear have no conception of what intelligence is, much less possess it.
Jeff, 05.07.2012, 01:43
Ok, dumb dumb, there is one genius in this conversation and it isn't you. There is a reason you only got 2 votes on this stupid proposal (from your home and work computers...most likely).

You want arguments, there are far too many to list here, do a little reading and educate yourself instead of going with typical gun-banning statements I have heard from every ignorant anti-gun person I have argued this with "it makes me FEEL safer". Start by reading about the decrease in crime in D.C. after Heller decision and more people got guns. Try reading about Chicago and how their strong gun bans aren't working to reduce crime. Read about Swiss and how their crime is in credibly low and every 18+ male has been trained and keeps an assault rifle. Read about how after Australia banned guns they say violent crime in general increase by 42%.

All of your responses show your ignorance on the issue and you are talking out of your ass about your "feeling" on how things should be or are and they are illogical. Take for example the tyrannical govt. example you say that they will be armed with more firepower so we should just not have any. Yeah that makes a lot of sense, they have planes, tanks and high powered rifles so we should all just have rock and knives since it's not worth fighting. What a bone-headed argument, with a large group of people with handguns and large hunting/sniper rifles which are currently legal you could easily organize a group to attack not the planes, tanks, etc. but attack members of the tyrannical party with guerrilla warfare techniques.

I could write pages and pages countering every illogical argument you responded with but it's much easier to say you are clearly an idiot who is speaking with nothing more than ignorant Brady or Violence Policy Center arguments that don't hold water.

Good day, puppet.
Josh Musket, 05.07.2012, 01:58
"All of your responses show your ignorance on the issue and you are talking out of your ass about your "feeling" on how things should be or are and they are illogical."

Right back atcha. And the ad hominem attacks, poor logic, and lack of actual cites is super-convincing /sarcasm

I actually have educated myself - you're full of it. You don't like this proposal, fine. Don't vote for it - but don't think your thin argument is convincing and bother to spew it at me. I am familiar with you faulty thought process already, you're not saying anything I haven't already heard.
Lisa, 15.02.2013, 23:09
Testing...
Lisa, 15.02.2013, 23:43
There exists no sound argument for repealing the Second Amendment. Guns will always be available and any laws banning them will only impact law-abiding citizens since law-abiding citizens are the only ones who would be most likely to comply with any bans. In my case, a gun ban would make me an angry felon because I'm not registering my guns and I'm not surrendering my guns. So, banning my guns would simply make me a criminal since I won't comply.

As for the argument Josh Musket makes regarding the citizenry being outgunned and outclassed by the military, that's completely irrelevant. The Taliban in Afghanistan is also outclassed up against the finest fighting force in the world — us. That didn't stop the Taliban from fighting the coalition forces to a standstill. We've even been persuaded to negotiate with the Taliban to cease hostilities. How's that for a successful insurgency? Not bad for a bunch of towel-headed, desert dwelling, Kalashnikov-waving primitives, eh?

History teaches us that fighting superior enemies isn't always an exercise in futility. Sometimes, all that is needed is a stalemate to bring about meaningful change. Consider the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against the British. That stalemate ended when both sides agreed to sit down and discuss their differences. The IRA was easily outgunned and outclassed by the British Army. But, that didn't help the British crush that resistance effort. Want more examples? Of course, you do...

Let's consider the case of our own War for Independence. The British Army easily outclassed the colonial militia fighters in training, combat preparedness, organization and equipment. That didn't help the British squash the patriot uprising in the Colonies. In fact, our Founders played to our strengths and drew the enemy British soldiers into a kind of combat where we would have an advantage. So was born a uniquely American flavor of guerrilla warfare.

History is ripe with successful rebellions against stronger enemies. Just because the American citizenry doesn't have access to nuclear weapons, stealth bombers and intercontinental ballistic missiles doesn't mean we cannot repel a tyrannical government in our homeland. I believe an insurrection in the United States against domestic tyranny would be rather effective. Besides, not all members of the uniformed services would be so keen to murder their fellow Americans. Some would join the resistance and fight against the traitors alongside their fellow patriots.

I'm opposed to a constitutional convention for the same reasons James Madison was when he was persuading the 13 states to embrace a Bill of Rights rather than a second constitutional convention to incorporate the content of the Bill of Rights into the Constitution. Madison was concerned that a subsequent constitutional convention would wreck the fine work that had already been done on the Constitution. Madison believed that the lingering concerns of the many states could be addressed with a block of amendments ratified to the Constitution. The Founding Fathers were wise men, who recognized the fundamental inequities of life and were not impeded by trying to enact in law mechanisms to implement unnatural social constructs like social justice and egalitarianism.

A constitutional convention today would produce a constitution replete with idiotic communist/socialist ideology. If you want proof, spend a few minutes reading through some of the dumb suggestions in the Suggest an Amendment thread. As if repealing the Second Amendment wasn't dumb enough.

Here's an idea... Instead of brainwashing children in government schools on how to excel at mediocrity and hate their country and Constitution, why not encourage children to do their best, recognize that some folks are smarter, prettier and more fortunate than others, and focus on feeling proud of putting forth their best effort at everything they try instead of complaining about unfair everything is? Life is inherently unfair. And, that's just tough. When I see people of means, I envy them and think to myself, "Good for them! I wish I had been so fortunate!" Heaven knows I don't like it, but that's the way it is.

In closing, any attempt to disarm American citizens isn't going to go well. Most may comply with gun confiscation, but just enough Americans won't comply to make gun confiscation a bloody bitch. Good luck with that!

Leave a comment