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: « Previous 1 2
Don’t give this genius any more ideas!
Doomberg on January 4, 2013 at 10:25 AM
I can’t understand you with your thumb in your mouth.
antipc on January 4, 2013 at 10:26 AM
The wording doesn’t say “guns”, you blithering idiot. It says “arms” which refers to the arms necessary to defend oneself and ones property against others and against tyrannical government.
You are truly stupid. I want a divorce from slimeball idiots like you. You deserve to drown in your own filth, as should happen to all leftists, who are about the most despicable people on Earth. You people are more dangerous than anything else that has ever appeared on Earth and the Constitution was specifically framed to preclude little tyrants and tyrant sycophants like yourself from getting any real power, since you people are so dangerous to civilized society and serve no good, at all.
No wonder you slime are so full of self-hate. You know how destructive and useless you are. Do everyone a favor and population reduce yourselves like the greenies are screaming needs to be done.
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 4, 2013 at 10:28 AM
You’re missing the point. If the framers had intended that a particular type/model only be allowed, they would have so stated. They said arms – open-ended, during a period where improvements were taking place.
OldEnglish on January 4, 2013 at 10:28 AM
I find it revealing how those who say that the constitution must NOT be interpreted, then argue that we need to interpret it.
You can’t have it both ways.
Certain types of ammo are already banned. And that ban is constitutional. So really, if the government really wanted to solve this problem, all they would have to do is ban the ammo – and leave the guns to the people. And the people can do what they did at the time, which was make their own musket balls. Then everybody is happy.
This is why playing the card that the Constitution is frozen in time will blow up in your faces.
keep the change on January 4, 2013 at 10:29 AM
Go crawl back under your rock.
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 4, 2013 at 10:30 AM
I have a black powder rifle that I can reload and fire every minute. I know a guy that can get off two shots every minute. We can both do that using measuring cups for the powder and powder horns. Using pre-measured packets we both can fire much faster. The Sandy Hook guy had 20 minutes to do his deed. That’s twenty or more shots for me so how does black power only restrictions stop spree shooting. Least I remind you this country was founded using black power arms.
Dr. Frank Enstine on January 4, 2013 at 10:31 AM
Somehow I think you’d rather it be considered an incomprehensible mess; that way you could still pretend it isn’t clearly an individual right. You’re just sore it’s finally been interpreted that way.
In fact, the “well-regulated militia” clause you think should limit ownership could be read to require military-compatible (read: “assault rifles”) to be available for sale. In the interests of fitting out and integrating those militias, of course. They have a “compelling state interest” being able to supply their infantry immediately with ammunition and spare parts, yes?
In any case, your prescription for limiting availability (insurance) is an exercise in patrician sniffery – it would attempt to eliminate gun ownership to the rich (and well-connected) and those who would flout the law to commit even more crimes. After all, you just can’t have the great unwashed with all those guns, can you? They’re not the right kind of people.
JeffWeimer on January 4, 2013 at 10:32 AM
Excellent. And while you are reloading, the people can run to safety. Like those kids. And the salient point is that the people who kill others with handguns, are not going to be experts with muskets, tamping rods, gun powder, and all that jazz.
Muskets for everyone! Remember, the British can invade at any time, and your homestead must be protected.
keep the change on January 4, 2013 at 10:35 AM
Ironically, the “living Constitution” crowd is playing that very card with their “framers never imagined semi-automatic arms, so they don’t count” argument.
Try that one with the Internet and the First Amendment and watch them howl.
JeffWeimer on January 4, 2013 at 10:36 AM
Except you’ve been repeatedly proven to have misread the basic wording, no “intepretation” needed. If anything, the only one doing bizarre “interpretations” here is you. Why don’t you apply your own suggestion to the First Amendment and quit using the internet?
Doomberg on January 4, 2013 at 10:36 AM
Don’t forget the supposed right to assemble, the founders had no idea how advances in stadium technology could support half a million people in such a small space. And don’t get me started on the unpredicted dangers of flash mobs!
Then there’s that pesky right against unlawful search and seizure. Considering that can all be done online and through other passive electronic means, it’s lived way past its relevance to modern society!
elfman on January 4, 2013 at 10:36 AM
Quit now, and don’t come back for a year. By then most people will have forgotten what a fool and utter moron you are.
darwin on January 4, 2013 at 10:38 AM
Your stupidity is funny. Again, the 2nd doesn’t use the word, guns. It uses the word, arms, which includes the ammo.
Again, the actual language of the amendment already provides the right.
Again, you must be forced to live by the language of the 2nd or use the described method for amending it. Those are your only options.
Again, you are an idiot.
blink on January 4, 2013 at 10:41 AM
In other words, the most advanced military weapons of the day.
I agree with you – we should all have access to the most advanced military weapons of the day.
Washington Nearsider on January 4, 2013 at 10:41 AM
You know what? I didn’t think I would ever utter this sentence, but… I have some respect for the writers at Vanity Fair.
I disagree with their premise, of course. But at least they are being direct and honest in that the Second Amendment is, in their view, flawed and needs to be repealed and replaced with a different amendment. That is a constitutional approach, and one the founders built into the system. Parts of the Constitution can be changed. It’s been done many times before.
The problem I have is with the left trying to twist the existing words of the Constitution to mean what they want them to mean. To claim that it is a “living” document. To have judges “interpret” its words. Most of those pushing for gun control are attempting to argue that the Second Amendment, as it currently exists, allows for such measures. I sometimes wonder what color the sky is in their world.
If we as a society have come to the point where we believe that strict federal gun control is necessary, then let’s be honest about it and amend the Constitution to give the federal government that enumerated power. Let’s not just ignore the parts we don’t like.
Shump on January 4, 2013 at 10:42 AM
Obviously, you’re clueless about the 2nd Amendment. It wasn’t included in the Constitution because of fears regarding British invasion. It was included because of fears of a tyrannic federal government.
blink on January 4, 2013 at 10:45 AM
Exactly! We already have the right meant to restrain the government- the 2nd just affirms that right.
BTW, does anyone get the inkling that besides destroying our right of self-defense, could the Oppressives be wanting to get the ‘Low-information voters’ to think that we’ve also somehow repealed or disposed of the 22nd amendment?
Galt2009 on January 4, 2013 at 10:46 AM
If keep the change is bringing the liberal A-game to this debate, then we obviously have nothing to worry about.
blink on January 4, 2013 at 10:46 AM
I can’t think of a better means of destroying the left than convincing them to run a campaign to convince a thirty-eight states that their citizens would be better off if they were helpless and harmless.
Go, Vanity Fair, go!
applebutter on January 4, 2013 at 10:49 AM
It’s also good to remember that the Bill of Rights was a requirement to get states to join the union. If the Bill is broken, that gives more than just a little rationale to break up that union.
applebutter on January 4, 2013 at 10:53 AM
Wow, you are seriously ignorant. Try reading what the authors of the 2nd actually said about why it’s there at all.
dogsoldier on January 4, 2013 at 10:56 AM
An insurance company might cancel a policy if too many claims are made on it, but risk itself typically demands only a higher (perhaps stratospheric) premium. Is it now VF’s haute-libertarian position that some Social Register lunatic (calling Mayor Mike!) may own an assault rifle if he or his doting mother can afford the coverage? That’s too rich for my blood.
Seth Halpern on January 4, 2013 at 10:57 AM
No compromise. Don’t give them one more inch. No no no.
juliesa on January 4, 2013 at 10:58 AM
Here ya go:
Galt2009 on January 4, 2013 at 11:01 AM
The hallmark of progressive Marxist useless idiots, is their staggering ignorance and astounding stupidity.
United States Constitution: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8. To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
Pay attention, because this is actually important. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 precedes the Second Amendment. In other words, (since you really aren’t bright enough to understand this without it being explained to you), it come before any of the Amendments.
What this means, is that the Second Amendment is subject to or falls under the jurisdiction of Article 1 Section 8, Clause 8.
Since quiet honestly, you really just aren’t very bright, I am sure this is still eluding your grasp. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 is generally referred to as “The Copyright” Clause. Placed in the United States Constitution to ensure that America did not remain a intellectually, scientifically or artistically frozen nation.
Read the beginning of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 very very carefully, it’s all right there… To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts Since, like everything else in the United States Constitution the words were chosen with great care it becomes indisputably clear that the Founding Fathers foresaw and included a provision in the Constitution that would promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, and that that provision makes it equally clear that they had no intention of the firearms later mentioned in the 2nd amendment being “Frozen” in time as museum pieces.
Contrary to what useless idiots like you believe, the 2nd amendment was not included in the Constitution to facilitate sporting events or hunting. It was put there very specifically for the purpose of allowing the citizens of the United States to defend themselves from all enemies both foreign and domestic. And what they meant by domestic was not just the criminal element of society, but more importantly, for the citizens to be able to protect themselves against a government that had overreached the Constitutional limitations that they had intentional placed on that government and had become unresponsive to the Citizens of the United States of America. In other words, to prevent the Government of the United States of America from becoming a tyranny.
SWalker on January 4, 2013 at 11:02 AM
The chances of two thirds of the states voting to repeal the Second Amendment are zero to none. Articles like this are silly.
Blake on January 4, 2013 at 11:02 AM
I agree, lets talk about this one. The important part starts in at about 2 minutes.
vegconservative on January 4, 2013 at 11:03 AM
Senator Dianne Feinstein,
I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government’s right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime.
You ma’am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.
I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.
I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.
I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.
We, the people, deserve better than you.
Respectfully Submitted,
Joshua Boston
Cpl, United States Marine Corps
2004-2012
Bmore on January 4, 2013 at 11:04 AM
Let’s ban GOVERNMENTS from having guns. If a lone nutjob individual gets his hands on a gun he kills maybe 20 people. If a nutjob government gets its hands on the guns, 20,000,000 or more usually get killed.
bitsy on January 4, 2013 at 11:06 AM
It’s interesting that in all the author’s rationalizing, twisting logic, and parsing phrases he never once mentions the phrase “shall not be infringed”.
single stack on January 4, 2013 at 11:14 AM
Hmmm I haven’t thought of this aspect before – thank you for pointing it out.
I would also mention that consider that our founding fathers were learned men of science and intellectual pursuit. They most assuredly would have been able have looked back at weapons development before their time and could have foreseen that it would proceed in the future – as with every other intellectual endeavor.
Yes, the 2nd amendment was put in the BOR as restraint on a Feral Government – not as guarantor of a recreation la activity.
Does the word ‘Hunting’ even appear in the Constitution?
Galt2009 on January 4, 2013 at 11:15 AM
You first.
CW20 on January 4, 2013 at 11:20 AM
What is with the new lefty hard-on for controlling people with ‘insurance’? Freaking psychos.
bitsy on January 4, 2013 at 11:37 AM
Let’s repeal New York City instead.
Moesart on January 4, 2013 at 11:37 AM
It was put in because the tyrannical British government tried to confiscate arms in the early days of the Revolution.
JeffWeimer on January 4, 2013 at 11:44 AM
There is a third option: keepthechange and all other similar useful idiots could just move to Cuba.
Stu Gotts on January 4, 2013 at 11:49 AM
I suggest that you read what the Founding Fathers said about firearms ownership before concluding that that was their sole reason for including the 2nd Amendment. Also, it bares mentioning that the United States Constitution was not ratified until 1788, 10 years after the Revolutionary War was over. The Founding Fathers had plenty of time to think over the implications of a government forcibly disarming it’s own population.
SWalker on January 4, 2013 at 11:52 AM
single stack on January 4, 2013 at 11:14 AM
That is the key language in the second ammendment – “Shall not be infringed”. What don’t people understand about that? As Ted Nugent once said, “The Second Ammendment is my conceal carry permit”.
rsherwd65 on January 4, 2013 at 11:55 AM
Thank you! And there is much more.
dogsoldier on January 4, 2013 at 1:58 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2