Quick question for all you American gun activists, and I mean this seriously, no jokes intended

Quick question for all you American gun activists, and I mean this seriously, no jokes intended.

What prevents the second amendment from being changed or repealed?
I hear a lot of talk about you can't change it because it's part of the Constitution, but it itself is an add on that was placed their after the fact because it was believed to be necessary.
What's stopping people adding on another amendment to repeal or regulate the second one, because it is deemed necessary nowadays?

Not trolling, just looking for an answer

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

They can do that if all branches were corrupted enough, but there'd be a shitstorm which could cause another civil war.

However, if they slowly passed more and more regulations and got to the point where almost no guns are allowed, and then took away the second amendment, there wouldn't be as much of an outrage. (this is what they're currently doing)

Alright, so they can make a new amendment, they just think that the majority of people would roit if they did?

Amending it or adding another amendment requires a specific procedure that's highly unlikely to occur today.

From Wiki:
> Article Five of the United States Constitution prescribes two methods for proposing and two methods for the ratification of an amendment. An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a national convention called by Congress at the request of two-thirds of the state legislatures. The latter procedure has never been used. Upon adoption by the Congress or a national convention, an amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures or by special state ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states. The decision of which ratification method will be used for any given amendment is Congress' alone to make.

Again, every branch would have to be fully corrupt. They'd have to make sure that no one would get in the way.

Besides, if they were going to take away an amendment like this, they'd take away the first amendment first, for obvious reasons.

Rioting is unlikely to happen unless life becomes uncomfortable (e.g. lack of food).

It's politically impossible to do via amendment because it requires enough of a majority that does not exist. So that's why you see them do end runs with the supreme court, regulatory agencies, local laws, cultural subversion, making ammunition expensive, taxes, etc. etc.

OK. So it's a difficult process that would never get through the senate, but it isn't an impossibility.
So people who only use the fact that it's part of the constitution as a defense (and I mean only) are idiots then?

In order to revoke or significantly alter an amendment, it must be incompatible with the rest of the constitution. Not only is the second amendment compatible with the constitution, it is integral for keeping the whole thing together. Unless roving street gangs suddenly emerge or gun violence sees a major and sudden increase (which is u likely considering it had been in the decline for the last thirty years), it is near impossible to make the argument that the second amendment is at odds with the rest of the constitution.

It's politcal suicide. Even most 'progressive' liberals wouldn't go so far as to actually attack the amendment itself.

Instead they just pretend it means something it doesn't or outright ignore it.

Yes, people who respond to "why shouldn't there be more gun regulation?" with "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" are part of the problem. Responding with arguments and statistics will do much more than just citing the constitution, albeit not that much more, since people will ignore it just the same.

It won't matter, go read Clinton's tweets. She has promised to make gun control her top priority.
We have so many guns (if I remember correctly enough that every man and woman in the U.S. could have one) that our government can't afford a "buy back program" like yours did.
More than likely she will just do like Obama, ignore the law and make declarations on gun control.
With her stacking the supreme court, it will all hold up, and gun ownership is in serious trouble.

What I find most ironic is she loves to sell arms to other countries, but doesn't want them in the USA. Thank god all mine were lost in a tragic boating accident.

To amend the Constitution, you need 2/3rds of BOTH houses of Congress AND 3/4ths of the states to ratify it. The South alone could block any attempt to repeal the Second Amendment.

The first 10 amendments are called the Bill of Rights, they are supposed to be set in stone, don't fuck with at all rights guaranteed to every US citizen.

There is precedent for crazy things happening. For instance we once had a constitutional amendment banning alcohol. How many people do you know want to ban alcohol? That's outright crazy.

And it didn't work. People just went right on distilling their own alcohol (such as e.g. my grandmother) and running speakeasies and fostering a tremendous black market. That's part of how the Kennedy's got into power, actually.

And then we finally passed another amendment saying "fuck that was dumb, alcohol is OK again" more or less.

The Federal Reserve Act was passed by a handful of people during Christmas recess after decades of the banksters booming and busting the economy to try to recondition the public to want another banker takeover, and even required an elaborate secret meeting at Jekyll Island. Did anybody really want it? No. So they have to do shady shit to get it by.

How many people wanted to go to war against Iraq except for the media telling us we had to go bust Saddam's ass because some CIA asset allegedly orchestrated 9/11 from a cave in Afghanistan?

Succession when?

It could cause a domino effect. If the 2nd goes, what's to stop the others from going too?

Shit I think like 40% of American millennials want to make hate speech illegal.

>Not trolling

You could do that but changing the constitution is, by design, not easy. Something like 2/3 of the states need to ratify the amendment and you need 66 votes in the Senate. They never even talk about it because it'll never fucking happen.

the last 4 words of the amendment

It would take a constitutional convention, and if that happened we would probably walk away with full autos and large bore becoming fully legal. It would be political suicide for the antis.

The strongest move they have is getting gun violence under the center for disease control. That's what pro gunners need to stay vigilant against.

It would be like when FDR debased our domestic gold standard in direct violation of the Constitution and made it illegal to hold physical gold coins outside of a few heirlooms or whatever. Only the abject idiots turned in their gold. Everybody else just ignored it. The government burned like one person over it.

You would not believe how many horrible boating accidents there would be if they touched the 2nd.

People use the "its in the constitution" argument to object to laws being passed, they cannot make laws that contradict the constitution.

Wheb the current king dies

Yeah, but surely it's down to interpretation whether gun control laws contradict that. Like, limiting what guns slightly, or making you have a waiting period (even of a day or two) wouldn't directly contradict according to most people. Not saying I agree with this, but it seems like it's possible

Because of how ubiquitous they are, it's basically impossible at this point.

There are more guns than citizens, how do you enforce it?

The other month they went bananas over that bit in the NICS check where you have to tic off the box that says you're not insane. The gambit was to try to use our line against us about the dangers of legal cartel doctor-pushed crazy pills -- surely we'll want to ban guns from crazy people to stop all the government-sponsored mass shootings so that the government-sponsored doctors can declare us all crazy and force us to take the government-sponsored crazy pills for our safety!

It was a flop. But they'll keep trying.

The US Constitution does not establish the right to keep and bear arms, just as it does not establish the right to free speech or free press. It enumerates these rights. The US government could indeed repeal the Second, or the First, or the Third for all it matters. These actions would not mean that our natural, God given rights no longer existed. It would merely de-legitimize the government.

It's more than possible, just extremely hard. Major changes to the US Constitution happen only
once every couple decades, and then take years to be put into effect.

just read the fucking constitution. it literally explains the process for doing exactly what you describe.

But the right to bear an AR-15 is quite debatably not a God-given right. It's something made by man, for man, and used by man. God doesn't come into it. Free speech, sure. But guns... not so much. Also, gun control doesn't mean repealing the amendment or taking that right. It just means the militia will be well regulated ;)

Definitely. Especially if Hillary is going to be elected. I'm learning how to use a bow, too, just in case. You never know.

>Yeah, but surely it's down to interpretation whether gun control laws contradict that.
"shall not be infringed" is not difficult to interpret. any judge, supreme court or otherwise, who intentionally and directly defies the constitution should be hung for treason. period. if they want to change the constitution, theres a process for that. ignoring it or pretending it means something it obviously doesnt is not part of that process.

It can't be changed or repealed because that would require 38 states to want to repeal it.

So think about that, can you find a scenario where there are 38 states that would could repeal the second amendment without every single member of that state legislature getting hanged?

Hell, as long as there are 13 states then there isn't shit the gun grabbers can do

>What prevents the second amendment from being changed or repealed?
a lot of responsible gun ownership, a politically active voting bloc, and several deep-pocketed lobby groups

>you can't change it because it's part of the Constitution
you can't "change" the Bill of Rights (the 1st ten amendments) but you can interpret them in as many ways as your law school (or political benefactors) deem appropriate

>adding on another amendment to repeal or regulate the second one
see the 18th (alcohol banned) and 21st (18th amendment banned) amendments. the right to get drunk is never directly stated, but at the same time nobody ever said "autonomy of one's mental state is an unenumerated right"

of course, the easiest way to ban guns is to simply apply a kafkaesque application process

>We have so many guns (if I remember correctly enough that every man and woman in the U.S. could have one)

Those are just the ones that we know about. There is something like .9 guns for every person in the USA, that we are aware exist. Meaning there are more guns that we don't know exist because they were old, home made, or smuggled into the country

>citing the most powerful law document of the land isn't an argument on its own

Actually according to our supreme court the only guns protected by the second amendment are those used in combat by militaries.

What that means is that if someone wanted to ban a 10/22 a .22lr caliber gun that would be legal for them to do because no one uses a .22lr as a combat weapon.

Whereas the AR 15 and other "assault weapons" or guns designed to kill as many people as quickly as possible are expressly protected under the 2nd amendment

>What prevents the second amendment from being changed or repealed?
I think an Article V Convention needs to be held to actually change the US Constitution. We all know the common citizen will have NO input on the new Constitution. Things could get ugly, especially today.
So to answer the following....
>What prevents the second amendment from being changed or repealed?
That would be....wait for it.....our guns. Would you give up your guns to psychopaths? Oh, wait, you already have, sorry.

>What prevents the second amendment from being changed or repealed?
The will of the public. You could have just googled this. This isn't really a discussion question.

>Thinking we gave up our guns to psychopaths.
Mate, I've got a half dozen in my safe, just waiting for somebody to break in.

Its too late Americans have too many guns. Civil War will happen if they try to take the ones we already own. So keep stocking up.

The seconded ammendment prevents any ammendment from being repealed. That's why we have it.

it doesn't need to be repealed because gun statistics show the overwhelming majority of people don't abuse guns.


Instead, we get foreigners brainwashed by the liberal media, like half of this country, into thinking everyone's shooting everyone else.


Thugs and gangsters and terrorists are all one in the same. Good luck disarming the law abiding folks, hundreds of millions of them.

>Actually according to our supreme court the only guns protected by the second amendment are those used in combat by militaries.
thats not only wrong, its stupid.

You a dum sumbitch. What is/was the 18th amendment

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

Second amendment doesn't protect hunting or fudd shit. US V Miller says that it is ok to regulate SBS because militaries don't uses SBS. It says only guns in use by militaries are protected

>Whereas the AR 15 and other "assault weapons" or guns designed to kill as many people as quickly as possible are expressly protected under the 2nd amendment
Is this why Hillary shit her pants?

>I know nothing but I'm going to pretend I do

I stand corrected. *tips hat*

It was the abolish mentioned of alcohol. You don't kill the government with alcohol, you kill them with guns. The second ammendment. You dumb sum bitch

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

try a supreme court case from this century

>Not trolling, just looking for an answer

Fuck off, you think you can just take Jim Jeffries bit and post it to pol and no one would notice?

You shame your fellow shitposters with your literal shit. 1/10

A .22lr isn't a self defense weapon. Legally they can ban 10/22 or deer hunting shotguns because those aren't guns used for militia or personal defense. They cannot ban Self loading rifles or handguns as those are expressly used for personal and militia defense

You *can* change it legally. To just pass gun control laws that ignore the Ammendment is unconstitutional, and therefore technically illegal.

In order to change, add on to, or remove from the constitution you need to hold a constitutional convention. In order for it to happen, the change needs to be ratified in 80% (i think, somewhere along the lines of that) of States (so 40 States) have to ratify it.

In order for a State to ratify the change, it may differ from State to State. For the most part it would pretty much be a plurality referendum.

If 39 States ratify it, the change is not made.

Again I may be wrong on the % of States needed, but that's the proces.

>US V Miller says that it is ok to regulate SBS because militaries don't uses SBS
And that decision was made around WWI and was also factually incorrect.
SBS cut down by troops were very common for trench warfare and the justices making that argument were oig ignorant of this.

Not to mention that this ruling should have lead to the entire destruction of the NFA since everything on it is common military weapons.

There's also the issue that the ruling itself is based on a false premise that the second amendment protects the militias which it doesn't it protects the individual's right to keep and bear arms.

People like to ignore this case because its holding is totally uncomfortable to their conception of what the Second Amendment is/protects.

.22lr is an extremely common self defense weapon, first of all. second, any gun can be used for self defense. it doesnt say that ONLY weapons COMMONLY used for self defense are protected. it just says that firearms are protected under the constitution for the lawful use of self defense.

Well yes and no.
The amendment should be interpreted to that to an extent. Allowing owner ship of hand held machine guns not like grenades. That would allow adequate arms to over throw the government. Which is the purpose of it.

SeeIt was an incredibly retarded decision not made on the text of the amendment but previous case law which isn't how the Supreme Court was ever meant to operate on.

All the shotguns used in WWI and WWII had longer than 18 inch barrels. They didn't fucking cut them down to sbs they cut them down to like 20 inch barrels.

But yea all the things on the list: SBS, SBR, full autos, suppressors, and destructive devices are used by militaries today and thus the NFA as it currently stands is unconstitutional

They're playing the long game. By molding numales and a gynocentric culture, subsequent generations will distance themselves from guns, especially if from a single mother household (ie: no fathers to teach them about guns). These are the people who don't mind "common sense" gun reforms.

They are coming for the guns from all angles. Even if it's a tiny restriction today, it'll pay off decades later as weaponry gets more advanced and citizens only have dated ones to work with. Never give libtards an inch, they're already scheming for the mile.

Even if the Second is repealed on paper, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms would continue to exist. The Constitution DOES NOT grant rights. It merely outlines them (our Inalienable Rights) in the Bill of Rights

>They didn't fucking cut them down to sbs they cut them down to like 20 inch barrels.
Standard barrel length on the"trench gun" was 18 and doughboys tasked with trench raiding routinely would cut their shotguns down to what was below NFA OAL and barrel length requirements.

Besides there's that whole issue of the entire ruling itself being based around the false premise of the 2nd amendment applying to anyone but the people themselves and the whole reasoning of "needed for the militia" is an utterly useless argument regarding it.

actually i believe more than that. something like 113 guns for every 100 people.

inalienable rights, not even you have the power to take away your own rights, only God can take them away.

The American civilian population owns around half of the entire world's supply of small arms

That is infringing on the right to bear arms..

Well, i bet that all this talks and rumors about repealing the 2-nd amendment is just for making profit. Gun-making companies can pay to some politicans just to speak about it, but never apply it, but muricans will go insane and byu all the guns that markets have. It will be very interesting to see, how the salaries changed when the second amendment become questionable. If someone have the info - please share.

>in use by
no it does not say that, it says firearms that have a military purpose, so as to exclude two extreme ends of the spectrum: weapons banned in war, and, those considered not relevant to force of arms.

Yes, comrade, we must seize the means of production! The workers of the world must unite against the profit capitalists! We must smithy our guns into plows!

It was all a capitalist conspiracy to arm the proletariat!

>What prevents the second amendment from being changed or repealed?

Nothing. It's been changed and adapted and modified almost out of existence already. To officially repeal the amendment would take 2/3 of the states, iirc.

Interesting question.

Academically speaking, (most of us who are current or former military, and some civilians) take an oath, which includes the clause "duty to not obey illegal orders."

However, I'm not sure if you understand how this works in real life.
To illustrate:
We have guns.
We know how to use them.
We know that us being armed is what prevents the government from taking complete advantage of us.
"We" includes the people who the government expects will blindly enforce their laws.
In effect, would you cut off your own finger if some paper-pusher told you it was the new law?

There is no difference in controlling unarmed and fully armed population. Really. Its just a question of time, Overtone windows and proper balance between different groups of people to prove that they will not attack you but will atack each other. Divide and conquer as is. Dont you ask yourself how you ended up so fucked? You already have a gay marriage on the whole territory, trannies, SJWs, feminazis, racemixing and fodstamps and dozens of illegal migrants.
Compare it to America of 50-th.
Did the gun owning help you?
Or maybe its not a question of owning, but the question of using? If so, your doomed, cause unkle sam knows how to fuck you slowly and make it that way that you will think that you're not the one who was fucked and will thank him after.
So enjoy your decay, cause you can do nothing.
If you feel angry now, then its time for you to become a man in charge.

Kek confirms it.

>well regulated

It means organized and in working order. Not regulated by the government.

Quads for truth. Guns don't really help with any of that.

Guns are just tools like any other. I can't fix any of that with my screwdriver, belt sander, my shoes, or my car. But guns, screwdrivers, belt sanders, shoes, and cars, are still important to have for when you need them.

Only the last 17 amendments were "add ons"... the first ten were all created in 1789 with the ratification of the Constitution.

please note all but one amendment provides for the liberty of the people. the alcohol one was the complete opposite and a total abomination to the basis of the document.

to turn over the second amendment it would have to be an amendment that somehow provides for liberty hwhile reducing.

>good luck

never mind the alcohol one was what happens when you let religion write the law

Several states have their own constitutions that prevent the federal government from ever taking their guns... people would just move to those states.

>What prevents the second amendment from being changed or repealed?

Technically nothing, in practice, however, gun ownership is too deeply ingrained in American culture to legislate away. Any attempt to do so would fail politically.

> it itself is an add on that was placed their after the fact

At the time the Second Amendment was ratified most states had laws on the books requiring able-bodied men to be armed and to register and train with their local militias. Seriously, it used to be illegal to NOT own a gun in the U.S. The early colonies were under constant threat of attack from rival European powers and savage natives. Non-americans really can't understand how deeply our culture was shaped by being a nation with a vast lawless frontier populated by vicious enemies.

Doing the official way, through a constitutional amendment is certain to lose, as just a few states could block it.

But Democrats have never actually believed themselves to be bound by the Constitution.

They believe in a doctring called the 'Living Constiution', which means that if a part of the Constitution falls out of favor with elites, it can simply be discarded by having judges adopt an interpretation that effectively nullifies it, no matter how contrived or unlikely that interpretation may be.

>complete opposite and a total abomination to the basis of the document.
Indeed. It's surprising how few people grasp the concept of negative law.

Back in 2008 there was even a clip of "constitutional scholar" Obama explaining it, and he did a pretty decent job of it to be fair. Of course then he went on to cite that as a problem.

>I hear a lot of talk about you can't change it because it's part of the Constitution
Anyone who says that is wrong.

Well, you will never fight your govt. You will defend your home, die on foreign battlefilds, but you will never fight the enemy within. Nor you neither all other groups, including niggers. But you will gladly fight each other thinking that he other group is responsible for all the shit that happened. SJWs will blame whites, whites will blame niggers and women, but never ask the question about the source of the problem. Youre like a water in the river - it does not choose its way, gravity and landscape rules you. Look on your laws and those who write it, on those who give you information about world and interprete it for you and you will find the source.
Its a common mankind problem. Crowd instincts and natural ability and curse of being human flock.
Once it was an evolutionary advantage, now it becomes a bug.
And Sup Forums is just a place where you just low down your steam preasure that gives you a false feeling of unity (with user, lol) and calms you down.

So wake up.

There is a process for doing so. It's just a huge pain in the ass to do so.

You need 2/3 majority of the house and the senate and you need approval of 3/4 of the states.

No, but I don't think it would be enforceable at this point.

>What prevents the second amendment from being changed or repealed?
Ignoring the obvious - the second amendment prevents such a thing

The bill of rights are considered inalienable. To amend them is to establish the Government as illegitimate.

needs a supermajority in the senate to change the constitution.

2/3rds i think

What do you propose? It would be pretty counterproductive to go shooting up the government.

On the other hand, blowing off steam can be pretty subversive. It's kind of been the go-to method for over a century for fomenting revolutions.

I have an answer, but you have to decide by yourself cause I respect freedom. Its your life and I don't want to to think and make decisions instead of you. You have to take your own responsibility.
Fix what is broken and cut what is rotten.

But still gun shooting and assasination is not the best decision. Not now, not yet.

There's nothing stopping the congress from repealing the second ammendment. It's just insanely hard to do.

The right to bear arms is considered as important as the right to free speech, freedom of religion, the press, petition, and assembly.

Repealing a constitutional amendment is almost unheard of and will in all likelyhood not happen because the process to do this is so long.

Also SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

>What prevents the second amendment from being changed or repealed?

The second amendment does.

All of mine went missing innawoods one night. Exactly fourteen hundred eighty eight paces from Cripple Creek to be exact. Never saw where they went. All of my pvc pipes were missing too for some reason.

Not as far as repealing the amendment, but they can effectively render it null and void.

>What prevents the second amendment from being changed or repealed?
It would validate the concerns of whoever really cares about it: they're taking muh guns.

It's the basis of the country, being able to defend oneself against tyranny through force.

If it is time to bury them it is time to dig them up and use them

i doubt people would riot. the right wing is mostly all talk. the left wing is the one who actually riot (ferguson and baltimore). When gay marriage was legalized nation wide the religious right did squat shit. Whats the point of owning a gun for tyranny if you don't actually go fight it? They are all talk.

Who said anything about burying them? The whole bag of guns and pvc pipe were stolen while camping, bud. Never to be seen again.

Because fags getting married does not equate to the loss of an unalienable right, you fucking mongoloid.

If guns were made illegal by some way or another shit will go down. I can name a dozen states that would not go along with that.

Greg Abbot, his national guardsmen, and the nuclear weapons in Texas won't go along with it.

>almost unheard of
21st repealed 17th amendment. Same can be done with any other amendment. That pandora's box was opened thanks to feminists and religious nuts banning alcohol.