Referendum on the 2nd

T

T-Rex

New member
I was just reading through some news articles, and from the looks of it, the idea of an armed populace isn't nearly as popular as it once was. It ocurred to me that a good strategy for the antis would be to force the issue onto a national ballot.
Even though there are 80 million gun owners in the country, there might be more who are swayed by the fear-mongering that's been going on, and would vote to get rid of the 2nd Ammendment, either through new legislation or regulation. I know it would be difficult to get it done procesurally, but there seem to be an awfull lot of antis arond these days.

I was just wondering, what would everyone do if the antis managed to get their way legally? If for example, the supreme court went blind, and misinterpreted the 2nd to apply only to the NG,then allowing England-style gun-control of civilians..... What options would remain?

I used to think "That could never happen HERE!", but I'm starting to wonder.
 
T-Rex, if 2A is repealed, it won't matter. In *principle*, none of the BoR may be repealed, since they simply affirm pre-existing rights inherent in all people. So, if the Supremes step on their d!cks, it doesn't matter. I still have the right to defend myself, regardless of method, simply by virtue of being alive.

If the Gummint says I can't have guns, fine. I'll have them anyway.

------------------
"If your determination is fixed, I do not counsel you to despair. Few things are impossible to diligence and skill. Great works are performed not by strength, but perseverance."
-- Samuel Johnson
 
the idea of an armed populace isn't nearly as popular as it once was

Doesn't matter. That's the point of freedom. The rights of one are not subject to the uneducated, wilfully ignorant, bigoted whinings of others.

what would everyone do if the antis managed to get their way legally?

They can't.

The 2nd is a recognition of a natural, immutable, pre-and-always-existing right, not a granting thereof. The anti's can only "succeed" by creating illegal law, which is by definition illegal and can/should/must be overturned.

Remember: the 2nd is a self-reinforcing right.
 
Correct on all counts up above. Even if noone in this "getting more rediculous" country everyday wanted to excercise their rights, they shall still be help "in escrow" for that one person yet to be born.

In theory, I guess the 2nd could be overturned within the bounds of the constitution - as in an ammendment to repeal.
But, I think it'll be the continued, incremental approach - no big hoopla, just the continued "death by a thousand paper cuts."

If that ever does come to pass, hope I'm "young" enough to still wield a weapon. Fact is, I'm already preparing a bag of anti-bait so I don't have to go lookin' for them. ;)
 
When the president was being impeached, I would tell those who disagreed that even if 99.9999% of the people of the United States disagreed with the impeachment, it doesn't matter because it is Constitutional mandate, not a matter of mob rule.

The same goes for the Second Amendment. If 99.9999% of the people of the United States were for confiscation of all firearms it is still a matter of Constitutional law, not mob rule.

By the way, 99.9999% of 260 million people leaves only 260 firearms owners in the United States, of which, I will be one.

------------------
Gun Control: The proposition that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own panty hose, is more acceptable than allowing that same woman to defend herself with a firearm.
 
Thanks guys,
I guess what I was really looking for was a "what if" case where the anti's were able to push a change to the BOR through the system by following the rules. I agree with you that such a case would be an example of illegal and immoral legislation. What I was wondering was, what could be done about it? The old "loyal opposition" idea doesn't seem to apply here, and it kind of scares me that we seem to be getting awfully close to the kind of situation where the DOI was written. I hope I'm wrong. I hope there are still enough individuals in the US to provide a ballance to the current trends I see.
 
I await the Supreme Court ruling. If it goes in our favor - then I breath a sigh of relief and work to get rid of all the BS gun laws.

If it goes against us - then the war has begun.

I am seriously thinking of voting for Bill Bradley to speed up the process and make this thing come to a head quickly. I'd rather fight now than later when I am old and useless.
 
If your question is of the legalities involved, then the answer is NO, a national referendum cannot dismantle the 2nd (assuming there IS a meaningful second in the eyes of the Supreme Court). The only constitutional way to remove and amendment is to repeal it under the constitutional procedure, which is the same as that of adding an amendment, which is:

1. Amendment is introduced into the House or Senate;
2. If passed, the usual conference committee/send to other house/amending the amendment stuff goes on, as with any ordinary legislation.
3. If passed by both houses by a TWO-THIRDS margin, then it's sent to each of the 50 states.
4. Each state's legislature must then approve or disapprove the amendment. If THREE-QUARTERS of the states pass the amendment (or repeal in your scenario), then the repeal becomes law, and no more second.

I'd like to see em try. This is precisely what burns me so much about the antis. Instead of playing fairly and trying to use the system described above to repeal the amendment first, they instead in essence are "cheaters" because they try to make end runs around the constitution by passing clearly unconst. infringements and suing gun manufacturers under bogus theories!
 
As the Second Amendment is merely an enumeration of a pre-existing right, the repeal of the Second Amendment would accomplish nothing beyond dissolving the implied social contract existing between myself and the federal government thereby returning me to a state of nature possessing full sovereignty under natural law.

My right to keep and bear arms derives from my right to self defense. My right to self defense derives from my right to life. My right to life is not subject to referendum or to the constitutional amendment process.

Take it a step further. Repeal it constitutionally with a unanimous aye vote in both the House and Senate as well as in the legislatures of every state. Let the President, Vice President, Cabinet and the entire Supreme Court jump up and down in favor of repeal. Then have a referendum with every registered voter voting yes with my one no vote. Come to take my guns. See what happens.

I try real hard to be a law abiding citizen. But I do not hold my weapons as a result of government permission. I hold my weapons as a result of being a free human. I will always do so.

------------------
Byron Quick
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top