Hey, let’s repeal the Second Amendment
Because the Second Amendment is an incomprehensible mess, because too many lobbyists have argued that it is an absolute protection of actions and items never considered at the time of our nation’s founding, and because there is a clear state interest in protecting the lives of its citizens, the words must be removed from the Constitution.
But, and this is the important part, the right to bear arms must be preserved.
This is not a contradiction.
Once the Second Amendment is gone, a new amendment, one that takes account of the realities of modern times, should replace it. I think such an amendment should read something like this:
The people retain the right to keep and bear arms, subject to reasonable restrictions deemed necessary by the Congress and the President to secure the lives and well being of others…
But here’s the restriction I really want to impose: force all gun owners to purchase liability insurance. That’s required for owning a car, despite the fact that such a rule could be deemed by the unreasonable as being an impediment to constitutional protections of interstate commerce. And, unlike government, the one thing insurance companies know how to do is assess risk.
You want a semi-automatic assault rifle? O.K., says the insurer. Where are you going to store it? Who else will have access to it? Your insurance won’t apply if someone else is firing it. Have you been trained? Do you have a license? You want another one—well, your rates just went up. And by the way—you have to notify us if you have been deemed to have any psychiatric problems, because we might cancel your policy. Then, just like with a car, people who want to carry around their gun have to have their insurance card on them at all times. And folks who have a gun without insurance? Well, that’s when the government steps in and deems it a felony.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
No.
JeremiahJohnson on January 4, 2013 at 9:18 AM
How about we repeal the 1st amendment and start imprisoning journalists who publish stupid things instead.
forest on January 4, 2013 at 9:19 AM
Yeah that’s going to fly.
gophergirl on January 4, 2013 at 9:19 AM
Once the thought gets into the echo chamber, it’s only a matter of time before they try something.
nobar on January 4, 2013 at 9:20 AM
While we’re at it, why don’t we just repeal the whole bill of rights? No one knows what “due process” means anyway. It’s an incomprehensible mess!/////
gryphon202 on January 4, 2013 at 9:22 AM
I really do hope that the left makes this their cause this year.
gwelf on January 4, 2013 at 9:22 AM
A few lines in the constitution … Incomprehensible mess
Three thousand pages of zerocare … Perfectly reasonable
Twenty thousand pages of tax laws … crystal clear
Lost in Jersey on January 4, 2013 at 9:24 AM
Sure, then mandate that every citizen be forced to purchase a firearm.
I also believe we should repeal the 13th amendment as few men are created equal. Why should the state have the monopoly on slavery? We have a nation of idiots who are not worth more than what their physical abilities can provide. It is such an incomprehensible mess that the founders never could have envisioned at the time that their precious, infallible Constitution could empower half the citizens to use the police power of the state to confiscate the property of other citizens for their personal gain.
ClassicCon on January 4, 2013 at 9:25 AM
I oppose the idea – but at least it is a more honest approach to gun control and actually takes into account the Constitution.
If the left wants to control what guns can be purchased and who can purchase them, it should honestly and forthrightly pursue repealing the 2nd amendment rather than simply ignoring the constitution.
Monkeytoe on January 4, 2013 at 9:25 AM
Amend the First Amendment too:
petefrt on January 4, 2013 at 9:26 AM
People don’t get it.
First, by the Constitutional Amendment process, it’s almost impossible to repeal an Amendment such as the 2nd.
Second, and much more important, is the fact that the 2nd Amendment is specifically designed so that its repeal is unenforceable.
Sure, take away our right to bear arms. All that does is convert, instantly, a great portion of the citizens of this country into criminals.
Even amending the amendment would touch off an instant civil war in this country, because that is the exact purpose of the Second Amendment.
Given: Criminals ignore laws.
Given: Some people want to restrict the ability of (other) people to have guns.
Therefore: Some people want to restrict the ability of (other) non-criminal people to have guns.
Therefore: The purpose of this restriction cannot be to protect non-criminals from criminals.
Scott H on January 4, 2013 at 9:27 AM
The idea is that men are created equal in the rights they have and are equal before the eyes of the gov’t – not that all men are born with equal abilities and talents.
Monkeytoe on January 4, 2013 at 9:27 AM
Because our benevolent overlords can be completely trusted to do what’s right! For the children!!!
Naturally Curly on January 4, 2013 at 9:27 AM
Good luck with that!
thebrokenrattle on January 4, 2013 at 9:27 AM
Ever tried to read the actual Constitution? It’s a hodgepodge of archaic, flowery language that at times can be confusing. I say repeal the entire thing, write up a new document under the guidance of a bipartisan but majority liberal committee, and move on into a new age.
We also need to license and insure people who own hammers and other bludgeon devices, because as has been noted, more people are beaten to death with hammers in the U.S. than are shot with rifles.
Bishop on January 4, 2013 at 9:31 AM
The people retain the right to keep and bear arms,
Everything following “subject to” invalidates everything before it.
Nick_Angel on January 4, 2013 at 9:32 AM
This moron makes a false equivalency in that you DON’T have to have car insurance to own a car, you just have to have car insurance if you want to operate your car on public roads. How does that apply to a firearm stored in the house for home protection that is rarely used, or the heirloom rifle that your grandpa gave you that’s been sitting in the gun safe for a decade?
Just like all of the other hair-brained things being pushed by the left lately, this idea stinks and is filled with unintended consequences.
Chuckie on January 4, 2013 at 9:33 AM
The chorus will only grow.
Bring it.
artist on January 4, 2013 at 9:33 AM
Indeed.
visions on January 4, 2013 at 9:35 AM
The author is a five year old, or has the mental processing power of one.
dogsoldier on January 4, 2013 at 9:39 AM
p.s. the problem with the hotair bitmap on headline threads has returned.
dogsoldier on January 4, 2013 at 9:40 AM
Wow. This writer has no understanding of the Constitution. What other enumerated ‘right’ is bestowed by the government? There aren’t any. The 1st Amendment doesn’t give you the right to free speech, you have always had it. The 1st Amendment prevents the Federal Government from infringing on that right. HUGE distinction.
Same for the 2nd Amendment. Doesn’t give you the right to bear arms, you have that right. It prevents the Federal government from infringing upon it.
If your rights come from government, and not some higher authority, then government can take away those rights. Con Law 101.
This is idiotic. The Constitution didn’t envision the internet. Ban the internet and reword the 1st Amendment so the right flows from government, right?
Meric1837 on January 4, 2013 at 9:41 AM
I actually think the Bill of Rights itself was a mistake, though I can’t think of how else it would be done – I don’t claim to be a scholar on this. I read that there was a debate initially about whether or not to make such Amendments because it sets up the fundamental premise that the government gets to tell us what our rights our, when it’s actually the other way around. The Constitution creates a government from the free people and outlines what the boundaries and rights of government are. If anything we should flip the entire thing on it’s head and just use the enumerated powers.
pecan pie on January 4, 2013 at 9:44 AM
It’s not, actually.
It’s quite clear.
Good Lt on January 4, 2013 at 9:45 AM
Somebody made a great comment in the article’s comments, I’ll just quote it here:
The UN action in 1995 is typical of what the UN does.
Axion on January 4, 2013 at 9:46 AM
Vanity, Vanity, all is Vanity, but not all is Fair.
The Rogue Tomato on January 4, 2013 at 9:46 AM
Why don’t liberals understand that the Bill of Rights doesn’t GRANT rights, but it enshrines them. It documents a fact.
The rights you are born with (no granting required) SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
What’s difficult about that?
Washington Nearsider on January 4, 2013 at 9:47 AM
incomprehensible = “I disagree with it…”
Drained Brain on January 4, 2013 at 9:49 AM
These people, Seidman and Eichenwald, are not Americans. This propaganda does not stop until the mass media that gives soapboxes to these totalitarians is boycotted and their advertising $$$ bled dry.
And speaking of anti-American, anti-Rule of law rhetoric; Hannity has lost over half of his viewers since coming out for amnesty post-election:
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/sean-hannity-big-loser-2012-election-article-1.1228269
I know I’m not tuning in anymore.
Punchenko on January 4, 2013 at 9:52 AM
Concur, and I really like the idea of liberals wasting their efforts on this.
Frankly, we should be encouraging them about this.
blink on January 4, 2013 at 9:53 AM
We will lose this battle to if we just whine and don’t fight.
Ballot boxes are not enough.
The media and education system are the battlefields.
Organize and fight or be destroyed.
Our soil is not magical. If you listen to many on the left they are already saying they want to round us up and kill us. Perhaps we should believe them.
GardenGnome on January 4, 2013 at 9:59 AM
Excellent post.
dogsoldier on January 4, 2013 at 9:59 AM
There are some legal 300 million firearms in the hands of about 100 million law-abiding, responsible legal owners. Something about cold dead hands?
As for Hannity, he’s on the verge of a cold, dead audience. And deservedly so.
Rixon on January 4, 2013 at 9:59 AM
Let’s repeal only the “freedom of the press”. They’ve long ago forsaken their duty and integrity. I’m all for arresting the vast majority of “journalists” and charging them with treason.
darwin on January 4, 2013 at 10:01 AM
let’s repeal the amendment that gave blacks their freedom.
no seriously.
tom daschle concerned on January 4, 2013 at 10:03 AM
Howz’at???
How about we repeal the Great Society and War on Poverty and re-emancipate American blacks?
Rixon on January 4, 2013 at 10:06 AM
Moral questions aside, it would likely do far more to lower the crime rate than anything involving guns or the Second…
JohnGalt23 on January 4, 2013 at 10:10 AM
Constitutional sloppy seconds?
Bmore on January 4, 2013 at 10:13 AM
There is no need to touch the second amendment. It only deals with guns, and the guns that were in existence at that time used lead shot, musket balls, or minie balls, crude projectiles, and they needed reloading after each shot.
Either the government bans the sale of weapons to the public that use cartridges, or they ban the sale of the cartridges themselves. They can do both without infringing on the right of the people to own a gun. Let gun enthusiasts have their guns. Let them have their muskets. They would be forced to use a gun that fires a non-cartridge projectile which requires reloading after each shot. That would eliminate mass shootings, while still upholding the Constitution as written.
If gun nuts think we need to live as we lived two hundred years ago, then let them have at it. If the Constitution is not a living document, and it is frozen in time, then let’s freeze it in time. They can’t have it both ways.
keep the change on January 4, 2013 at 10:13 AM
During the time of the framing of the Second amendment, were any improvements, however incremental, made to the firearms of the day?
OldEnglish on January 4, 2013 at 10:17 AM
How about all dems be required to purchase liability insurance for all the criminals they push to let run free in the streets?
Yeah … it all ends up being a race to the bottom with these despicable, lying scumbag leftists, which is why I just want a national divorce and to be free from these errors of evolution. Let them nanny each other to death and destroy themselves in the hell they are constantly pushing but I want nothing to do with any of them and do not want to be bound to them in any nation. They are death, as is the basis of nihilistic leftism. Let them die together, the way it should be. I want self-determination for free Americans from these anti-American, self-hating scum.
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 4, 2013 at 10:17 AM
Hmmmm. You know, that seems … familiar somehow. Like I’ve read it in a book or something. The name “Concord” keeps popping into my head when I try to remember it…….
Somebody needs a sarc tag.
GWB on January 4, 2013 at 10:19 AM
You are really stupid.
The Constitution is NOT a living document, and it’s language must be upheld or amended.
If you want to amend the language, then use the process that it provides.
Otherwise, shut up.
blink on January 4, 2013 at 10:19 AM
You’re dangerous and an idiot.
darwin on January 4, 2013 at 10:20 AM
This has got to be one of the most incoherent, inchoate and infantile posts I have ever read.
Rixon on January 4, 2013 at 10:20 AM
Fine. Then we ban all manner of ‘speech’ that isn’t printed using a manual movable type press or spoken from a soapbox. Videos, the internet, even modern newspapers can just be regulated away – since none of that existed at the time of the Consitution’s writing and no one could have foreseen any of it.
Let’s do that one first, k?
GWB on January 4, 2013 at 10:21 AM
Is it in the wording of the amendment? There is no mention of a right to incremental improvements. You get a gun. So take it.
keep the change on January 4, 2013 at 10:22 AM
By your logic, the 1st Amendment does NOT apply to the internet. So, free internet speech can be denied, or I’ll force you to live without the internet since it didn’t exist 200 years ago…
…or something.
Your brain isn’t good at the whole logic thing.
blink on January 4, 2013 at 10:23 AM
Great idea! And force all pool owners to have liability insurance too since they cause more accidental deaths. And force all people with hands, knives and feet to buy liability insurance since they cause more deaths than guns. Lets keep this going while I buy more shares of AIG.
elfman on January 4, 2013 at 10:24 AM
You idiot. The word gun isn’t used in the amendment, either. Wow!
blink on January 4, 2013 at 10:24 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »