Either that or a strongly worded memo to the ATF and other federal agencies. Steps simply must be taken to stop gun violence. We've not yet at the point where we can get the Second Amendment repealed, but I think the day may be coming.

The bill of rights grants no rights. It is a restriction on government, not the people.

It's right there in the preamble:

[div class='excerpt']The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

If you magically removed the second amendment the right would go from being explicitly protected to being implicitly protected via the ninth / tenth amendment. (See the almost all state constitutions that mirror the second amendment in one shape or form.)

I don't know what the Bill of Rights does -- or the Constitution, for that matter.

Do you realize that nowhere in the Constitution are citizens given the right to vote?

[Edit. By the way, federal statutory law limiting ownership and possession of firearms would supersede state constitutions and state laws. It's right there in Article VI of the Constitution: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land...."]

And yes, I'm aware of the right to vote not being explicit-- just as the right to travel.

When you say-

We've not yet at the point where we can get the Second Amendment repealed, but I think the day may be coming.

Congress could pass laws limiting the ownership and possession of firearms beyond what it currently can. Such laws would supersede state constitutions. Check Article VI of the Constitution.

No, the the Constitution's not granting the right to vote is not the same as its silence on the right to travel. The Constitution gives plenary power to the states to set their own voting criteria -- with the exception of constitutional amendments that limit what the states are permitted to do.

Furthermore, Article IX and Article X would be very unlikely to come into play.

Fucking duh. For someone who says they understand that the bill of rights confers no rights, you sure do seem to think repealing them removes impediments to infringement.

Derp.

the right to own and possess firearms exists under Amendment IX -- and how far it extends if they rule such a right exists. Regarding Amendment IX, "Failure of the Constitution to mention a specific right does not mean that the government can abridge that right, but its protection has to be found elsewhere." (Emphasis added.) Where else is the right to bear arms going to be found, absent the Second Amendment?

The result of the case you suggest would depend not on the Constitution itself, but on how SCOTUS was constituted when the case reached it. Replace one of the conservative justices with a liberal justice, and the "implied" right to bear arms under Amendment IX would very likely be determined to be a lot more restrictive than is currently the case given the Second Amendment. My desiderata -- essentially no private gun ownership -- would be a lot more likely to come about absent a Second Amendment than with one, hence my favoring repeal of the Second Amendment.

Furthermore, if the right to bear arms would be the same whether or not it was covered explicitly in the Constitution, why did the Founders bother with the Second Amendment?

By the way, you can take your smart aleck and non-contributory derp and shove it. Did you lie about being thirteen years old or older when you signed up? If not, how do you account for behaving in such a juvenile fashion?

Go get a book on the enlightenment philosophy, then a constitutional law textbook.

From your own link (that you didn't cite):

http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2014/02/ninth-amendment-non-enumerated-rights-retained-by-people-2/

Do you not realize that the Second Amendment explicitly mentions "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" and that that right "shall not be infringed"? My point has been and continues to be that Amendment II's explicit statement that a right to bear arms exists is stronger than any non-enumerated right that might be acknowledged under Amendment IX. How can it be otherwise? Given Amendment II, arguing that there's no right at all to bear arms would go nowhere. If Amendment II didn't exist and only Amendment IX existed, such an argument might have a chance of flying.

Thank you for helping me get my post count high enough to start a discussion on my own. Now that I can do that, I'm through with you. You're my first addition to my Full Ignore List. Please reciprocate in kind.

.. you might make the case that the right isn't what folks think it is.)

But having 200+ years of the right existing, repealing the second amendment wouldn't do jack shit to make the right go away.

It's that simple. You can huff and puff and wish that the right had never been protected- that's about all you have at this point.

I don't ignore. I think it's juvenile and idiotic.

Maybe not in my lifetime, but some day. Good god, repeal it already. Just ban guns already. Common sense.

Or a substantive change in policy direction, away from violence and war, and the worship of private profit above all?

Looking at various poll numbers it sure indicates that Americans love their guns, which is why I am asking it

possessing guns. Just as we have requirements in owning and driving vehicles such as a drivers license and test to determine if you are capable of operating a vehicle, the vehicles are registered, licensed, insured, and inspected. I would be more than happy to register my weapon. It is time for sensible rules for guns, we do not need more events like Charleston. We are better than allowing these events to continue.

though most of those polls are from 2014.

I think one of the arguments that those that want less restrictions use is that these controls would not have prevented most of the mass shootings that garner all the publicity. That really isn't the point, and unfortunately those who advocate reasonable legislation seem to get distracted with that, instead of focusing on the benefits of reasonable controls

What's the worst that could happen? It gets shot down by the Supreme Court? ... After enough action has been taken to save some lives. Maybe people who are on the fence about stronger gun control would change their minds once they see how well it works.

This is the 21st century. It's time to get over the notion that we need firearms in the hands of the average civilian individual to preserve our freedoms. We are not going to lose our freedoms if guns are taken away from those who have no business possessing them in the first place.

Maybe, in fact, if we had fewer guns out there, more people would be freed from the tyranny of the NRA and rightwing gun nuts.

issue.

When even very reasonable gun laws are proposed such as limiting gun clips, eliminating guns in schools, churches, and parks etc. it seems that it doesn't resonate with the majority, and that is quite disturbing

That is, for the large majority of gun control supporters, it's not a top-tier priority for them. It's something they support, but if they were to rank political issues in order of importance, gun control wouldn't be anywhere near the top. For a large portion of those who oppose most additional controls, however, it's a "hot button" issue, and support of gun control by a candidate is a deal-breaker.

The problem is that some of the people who have them should not have them.

Unfortunately, taking the guns away from the Bad Guys is harder than taking them away from the Good Guys.

If they wouldn't do anything after those 20 kids got killed in school, they won't do anything after some black people are gunned down. It's ugly, but it's the truth. I think we're going to have to see militia people gun down hundreds in a mall, or something comparably awful, before we see any meaningful laws on gun control.

stand a chance to even have it a reality is for Democrats to control both houses, and even then it will be difficult.

They split everything into Republicans, Democrats and "Independents" and give them equal weight as if they represent the total population.

Independents right now are mainly displaced conservatives who are pissed at the Republicans for not having another Ronald Reagan.

CNN refuses to do a real poll because it will fly in the face of their 50/50 country false equivalency meme. I saw one of their chosen polls with a sample of 1000 people. That works out to only 20 people per state. Samples can be skewed too by sampling 50% urban and 50% rural.

Gallop, Pew, PPP all seem to indicate that Americans want less controls, though most of those polls that I have seen are from 2014, and maybe things are different now.

They said it was because Democrats are lazy and don't vote.

They called the results "Likely Voters".

Enough people turned out to over whelm the crooked voting machines.

hoping for a new Reagan. Independents are disdained by partisans on both sides. But many independents are displaced democrats, who are way to the left of the centrist democratic party.

I will give this to you on the false equivalency. This is the business model that CNN has adopted, among many.

MSNBC and FOX have the exact same model, cater to either side.

but this meme that independents are mostly conservatives is quite wrong headed, which also leads to tactical and strategic mistakes by democratic strategists.

At this point it is quite entertaining though.

They should publish how many people hang up on them.

and why people do not vote, in oligarchies voting rates are quite low... unless you make it mandatory.

People have figured this out. The system is extremely broken. So why bother?

And yes, I have been told this. Quite frankly, I do not expect this to be fixed anytime soon and expect rates to go down as well.

Hell, the only reason I STILL vote is to remain in practice, because you know what? It does make zero difference.

not so much on the other side to actually have supports get off their asses to support gun regulations....why democrats keep losing those kind of votes....too lazy to mobilize. We allow a minority to keep the status quo in place

both houses of Congress, which might be a problem with the house due to Gerrymandering until the next census

for the simple fact that to get her bipartisan agenda passed she needs a republican anti-gun control congress. Obama likes to have a republican majority so he can get fast track passed, and I do think he would have liked a republican congress in 2010 so he could get fast track passed, and to raise the retirement age. I think she will be the same. It is also how her husband governed. He always ranks nafta the telecommunications bill, and welfare reform, as his crowning achievements and those were bipartisan things he did with a republican congress, that hurt liberal causes. He dropped the ball on health care, and gays in the military, and most everything else liberals liked.

Bernie has an interest in a majority progressive congress and that will help most liberal causes enormously. He will also reduce the power of corporate lobbysts and that will make it much easier to get gun control passed.

candidate in the election process. Until we get a progressive Congress, I don't think whoever our candidate is that they could get even reasonable gun control through the legislative process.

are like the ones who are anti ACA. The only thing that gets them to change their mind is for something to happen to bring the issue home for them personally. So if a child develops leukemia suddenly having affordable health care becomes a great thing for them.

I fear the only thing that will bring the need for sensible gun control will be something like a mass shooting at the NRA convention or a big gun show, but I doubt that will do it. It is a mindset that is rooted in the fact that they cannot see past their own needs and wants..
I am not sure how to move people out of their self interest to having a larger view of their near neighbors, much less a world view. As a political issue gun control is just one to divide and conquer. The winners will be the gun and ammo manufacturers who will drum up fear that Obama or fill in the blank is going to take your guns away, create false shortages so as to run the price of ammo and guns. You know, to follow the same pattern as the past 6+ years.

yuiyoshida posted this yesterday and it sums up the situation quite succinctly.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026879068

Will it ensure Florida goes Rep in the following Presidential Election? Very likely. Other battleground states are also conflicted over the issue. While popular in the urban and minority communities, whom have suffered a disproportionate number of fatalities from guns. The view changes quickly as you spread out into the exurbs and rural area's largely unaffected by gun violence.

On the whole I think it animates the right more than the left.

I could be wrong, but that's my read. I'm pretty out of sync with most of DU on gun control (I support background checks but oppose an assault weapons ban), though if it ends up resonating with voters I'm more than happy to ride an issue I disagree with to victory.

That said, my opinion still is that it costs us more votes than it gains us, and it costs us in particular the conservative Democrats we need in PA and OH

winning issue at least today, and regardless it won't even stand a chance unless Democrats control both houses of Congress

Congress? Only in states/districts where the Republican was never going to win anyway.

to take on the issue. Politicians are too afraid to touch it, assuming that it could cost them an an election.

concerned about it they had photo ops of Kerry hunting, I assume to satisfy the folks who believe in reasonable gun laws, because the hard core "NRS gun enthusiasts", I doubt will go for any Democrat regardless on their views

It's going to take leadership, but I think the time might be right.

as a moral issue.

by their absolutist doctrine...

Consequently, the issue has to be completely reframed.

I highly doubt any Democrats in my state of Minnesota will make gun control a key issue of their campaigns.

Right now gun ownership is at 23% and most Americans are still open to gun control. Now is the best time to take dramatic actions.

It is going to take something incredibly signficant.

I was dead sure, absolutely and completely nothing would happen after Sandy Hook, people were so sure that was a game changer and it didn't even more the needle a bit.

If that didn't do it ...

describing what I think our culture is like.

Expanded background checks might fly. The NRA had a hard time defeating it a couple years ago, and they had to blatantly lie. I think many people are now primed to disbelieve the NRA when it comes to background checks, and that includes many NRA members.

at the last minute.

Are now calling to remove the confederate flag from government buildings, which used to be political suicide in the south I thought, so anything is possible

He bought the gun legally

He had no mental illness diagnosis

It wasn't an assault weapon

It didn't have a high capacity clip

be no restrictions on the clips or weapon type I suspect.

Also, the mental illness item might be argued since there are those who have had issues with mental illness, and in many, and I would venture most cases are less violent than those that haven't been labeled as such

No more, no less.