A New Amendment to Repeal the Second Amendment


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

What prevents the Second Amendment from being changed or repealed?

I have been reading the threads for a while and a lot of talk about the fact that you can’t change the Second Amendment 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


Just like the 1st amendment could be repealed, changed.

A few questions for you.

If all guns became illegal tomorrow and all people were required to surrender their guns, what would happen?

If that happened and government decided to go door to door and search houses, would you be ok with that?

Do you think you could ever eliminate the guns in gangs, the cartel, criminals?


The National Rifle Association is primarily what keeps the 2nd Amendment from being changed or repealed. Republicans and the gun industry pump this organization full of cash and lawyers to block meaningful and common sense gun control legislation designed to keep our families and communities safe.

Having truly committed progressives in the House, Senate, White House, and Supreme Court. With Republicans skulking around these honorable institutions they will do all that they can to block legislation let alone an amendment to the Constitution. Don’t worry, the Republican party is completely falling apart thanks to Donald Drumpf. As much as I hate him, he is the best thing that ever happened to the Democratic Party.


Not trolling, ROTFLMAO.

And not 1 answer to the questions I proposed to you, just partisan BS.


The reason that the gun control crowd push the unconstitutional route is simple… they don’t have the numbers…


It is just a bit disingenuous to suggest we want to ban all guns so such questions are straw men at best laughable at worst. Because no one said that.

And the Constitution does clearly state bearing guns are for a organized militia i.e. the National Guard, but the courts have clearly chosen to interpret this under a LIVING Constitution and since I am also a REALIST supporting the Implied Powers of Government Doctrine then I guess I have to accept it when it is against me as well since I get the benefit on other rulings.

No, a large part of what we want though is to have a Congress that is not so stupid. That does not let people die because they are posturing.

Specifically background checks. Right now everyone legally undergoes a background check and the FBI has 72 hours to say NO. If the background check does not come back within 72 hours the application is automatically deemed APPROVED.

That is messed up.

My company runs BG checks on all new hires and usually if there is a delay it is because they FOUND SOMETHING!!!

We should wait until the BG Check is completed, sometimes it can take 2 weeks, so Jim Bob will have to wait 10 days for his freaking GUN too bad!!! Its not going to kill him.

Had we had this in place it may have allowed the FBI to stop the SC Shooter.

We also should look at large capacity clips why do we need 30 round clips when 18 will do?

Common sense gun control does not mean eliminating your access, it means being smart and not stupid. And a majority of Americans do want more controls in place.

Concealed carry for 10 years.


I don’t think the point is to make guns illegal, just eliminate the Constitutional right to own them. If some states or localities what to make guns illegal, then they should be able to. If others want to allow gun sales they should also be able to but it should be strictly regulated, especially concealed carry weapons.

Who would be going door to door? What agency? The military can’t do that as they don’t have the authority to operate domestically in such a capacity. The National Guard maybe? I don’t think that would go over well since the image of soldiers going door to door searching houses would violate search and seizure laws. So, this scenario is literally impossible without a warrant for each home.

No. That will never happen. I’m not illogical. That is why we have trained police officers. Civilians pretending to be John Wayne have never stopped anyone.


I don’t think the point is to make guns illegal, just eliminate the Constitutional right to own them.

Why is that such a problem if guns can still be legal?

As far as gangs, cartels, guns will always be available to them. The police are there to clean up the mess not prevent a crime.

  1. Marine opens fire in apartment parking lot

An Oklahoma City marine who was on leave suddenly began opening fire in the parking lot of his apartment complex late last year. Witnesses said he originally tried to go into the apartment complex’s main office, but after employees locked him out, he started to fire his gun in the parking lot. As he was firing, another citizen with a concealed handgun came around the corner and ordered him to drop his weapon. It worked and no one was hurt.

  1. Restaurant owner shoots, kills armed robbers

Just a few short days ago, 2 suspects walked into a restaurant to order food. When the employee opened the register, one of the men pulled a handgun and threatened the employees. The suspect then reached over the counter and grabbed the money. He then turned and pointed the gun toward the owner of the restaurant who was sitting at a table in the middle of the restaurant. The owner pulled out his own gun, shot the criminal in the chest, and killed him.

  1. Man killed in attempted robbery

In November 2009, career criminal Kevin Duane Dudley walked into an Alabama business with a sawed-off shotgun to commit armed robbery. Thankfully, some shoppers were able to distract Dudley long off for the owner of the store to retrieve his gun and defend himself. The owner ended up shooting and killing the criminal. Dudley had been tied to several other robberies in the area as well as a recent murder.

  1. Two armed robbers get shot during home invasion

When two masked men with guns broke into his home and pointed their weapons at one of the residents, Cody Buckler immediately took action. He retrieved his gun from upstairs and began shooting at the criminals. The crooks fled the scene, leaving a trail of blood behind them. The criminals were eventually apprehended.

  1. Mass shooting stopped by armed volunteer security guard

In December 2007, Matthew Murray pledged he wanted to kill as many Christians as he could. The 24-year-old went to New Life Church in Colorado Springs and opened fire, killing 4 people in the process. Thankfully, an armed security guard was able to get his her weapon and shoot Murray several times, stopping him from killing any others. However, in the end, it was Murray’s own self-inflicted gunshot that ended up killing him.

  1. School shooter stopped by armed college students

In 2002, a shooting at Appalachian School of Law left 3 people dead. However, the shooter was stopped before he could kill any more people. Thankfully, 2 students were able to run to their cars, get their guns, and use their weapons to halt the rampage.

  1. Grandma stops intruder

When 69-year-old Ethel Jones heard her doors rattling at 3 a.m., she grabbed her gun from underneath the pillow next to her. She ended up finding an intruder inside her bedroom, forcing her to shoot the teen in the abdomen. The teenager survived and faced charges of second-degree burglary.

  1. Pizza Hut delivery driver says his gun saved his life

An unnamed Pizza Hut delivery driver started carrying a legal concealed handgun to work after being robbed twice in the last 2 years. Just last week, he was robbed by 2 armed men inside the restaurant. The men pistol whipped him and as they started to lift the driver’s shirt exposing his gun, the worker pulled out his weapon and opened fire. He said he had no other choice but to act and save his life.

There are stories all over the internet about a crime being stopped by a person with a gun.

If this were 1776 you could easily remove guns from the populace. It isn’t with millions of guns floating around. There is no way to stop people from acquiring a gun of they want one. Perhaps better background checks, eliminating the buddy buys. etc. Elimination unlikely.


none of those stories justify the absurdity of the FBI background check 72 hour limitation.

none of those stories required a large capacity 30 round clip.

or an automatic weapon.


The right to protect one’s self, family and property is an inherent part of the second amendment and the natural laws with the constitution was designed to protect. Given the universal nature of the 14th amendment I would say that self protection should be universal and equal to the task. This is a new twist taking the constitutional right away from someone and allowing states rights… rich.

This is the only law between the people and active duty military on the street… if you have a congress that will revoke the 2nd amendment… I don’t have much faith that they will protect anything else…

Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

(Added Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, § 18(a), 70A Stat. 626; amended Pub. L. 86–70, § 17(d), June 25, 1959, 73 Stat. 144; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)


See… a slight of hand. I have always said that I would support any common sense law that protected the absolute integrity of the 2nd amendment… so far no particularly good ideas put forth.

As far as the 30 round magazine… the last time 'high capacity was defined as anything over 10 rounds … and what if the FBI just decides to stop doing checks?..


I listed 2 specific items that have been actually requested. some have asked for 10 rounds max but I bet if agreement was found on the BG Check (and who in their right mind would have a problem with waiting until the check was completed???) then I am certain meeting in the middle at 18 or 20 rounds would not be a difficult compromise.

there was no slight of hand from me and there is no slight of hand with this almost identical proposal that has been shot down in Congress.

the gun lobby talks out of both sides of their mouths. they are not interested in any common sense safety improvements.


Come on Steve… this is the anti-gun folks singing ‘if at first you don’t succeed’…

And you never answered the question… what if the FBI just decides to stop doing back ground checks… I mean the IRS decided to stop giving proper exemptions on a political whim…


I thought it was a preposterous question I didn’t take it seriously.

why would the FBI stop BG checks, why would we want them to???

as far as the IRS that may be another topic but they actually did not do as you say. They may have targeted 501c applications unfairly but if you look at the background you find a LOT MORE to it.

  1. 501c’s are supposed to be Social Welfare Organizations specifically NOT POLITICAL. that is #1.
  2. most of these organizations were NOT social welfare organizations they ARE POLITICAL. that is #2.
  3. they filed these apps so they could HIDE THEIR DONORS while doing their POLITICAL WORK. that is #3.

Meanwhile the organization I belong to Organizing for Action chose NOT to file for 501c protections until mandated by law, 24 months after our founding. OFA listed on its website ALL donors and members. If you looked it up at that time my name was there.

so you see @Scott the IRS situation has a lot to it though I would call what you just did there real slight of hand. the 501c matter is really insignificant. it didn’t stop ANYONE from operating as one in FACT anyone can CALIM 501c on their TAX RETURN you dot need the IRS to do anything you fill out a FORM POOF you are now a 501c!!!

you’re wiggling I think it is you that cant answer the question.

forget about bringing the IRS in or Obamacare or anything else you have in the kitchen sink.

why don’t you support reasonable BG Checks and a 20 round clip?


Listen, if the president can put a drone missile up the as of an American without anything we would understand as ‘due process’ and can then kill his kid who was traveling with no known terrorist then an activist president can and certainly does direct agencies to do what he/she says… When a top presidential advisor says of the kid ‘he should have picked better parents’ without rebuke, I have some doubt about the president upholding any laws.

As far as the limits on capacity goes… you will call this BS but I have watched progressives operate far to long. Progressives are in for the long game and the issue of clip capacity has been decided once… but if you can get a ‘reasonable’ law passed that is bipartisan, then you have precedent… and progressives love precedent ! That 18 round mag will be up for debate next session, sure as the sun rises…

As the old saying goes… fool me once, shame on you… fool me twice, shame on me…


I think the BG Check language is such a no brainer not doing it makes us look like we have no brains.

the right for every law abiding citizen to own a gun or several is settled law. The Supreme Court has decided it. It would take an Amendment to over rule them and an Amendment has such a high threshold to pass I simply cannot see any instance where it would.

but I hear where you are coming from.


The simple answer, as I’m sure you’re aware, is for congress to proceed with the amendment process to change it. Now, I read down the thread to @StevenSPHR, where he goes into its about the militia being the national guard. Now according to U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes: (a)
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32 under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the
National Guard or the Naval Militia.

The second amendment states: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.

One may forget that each state has its own separate constitution. A constitution that enumerates the power that state has ( see: 10th Amendment ). The federal government can absolutely say “no guns for all”! or “only firearms we approve”!. But the 10th amendment gives each state the power of nullification. Without the states consent, the Federal government would have no power to enforce any law.

So, in summation, my argument is this: Congress can amend the Second Amendment to limit or ban the owning or limiting the owning of weapons. But the states have final say whether or not they will follow that new law. There is also a convention of the states and a constitutional convention,

The Second Amendment wasn’t written for hunting. It was written for when our government oversteps its constitutional boundaries and and becomes despotic and tyrannical.


As a former Arizona Army National Guardsman (two OIF tours) and current Arizona Militiaman in the Praetorian Guard - I can’t tell you how many people get this mixed up. It’s a simple concept. The founders did not mean the “federal” militia as no such thing had been created yet. They meant the ACTUAL militia. There is a drastic difference between the two. Any able bodied man between 16-65 should join their respective state militia. Every state has one and it is a truly rewarding experience, that is if you believe in the Constitution.


First and foremost, Thank you for you service to our great nation sir. Getting to your post, All I can say is education good sir. America needs true education again.


I was thinking about this and thought it merited a further comment. It is no secret that Australian or French style gun prohibitions are on the minds of people at the federal level. The idea that this issue would be left to the states is ludicrous. The federal government has intervened so many times with so many different products when it is made or sold in one state and used in another. States themselves have filed federal suit against states like Colorado where pot is sold in Colorado to a Kansas citizen and that citizen carries the product back to Kansas to use…

Sorry mate, it is about outlawing guns… and have no doubt, it is about disarming the last large civilian population on this planet…