A Brief Word in Favor Repealing of the 2nd Amendment

The 2nd Amendment is a dated law and 21st Century America should demand its repeal.

The 2nd Amendment of the Constitution should be repealed.

It reads:

"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."

The authors of this document were fervently against standing armies. So, a well-regulated militia was necessary for the security of the United States of America.

Now the United States of America has the largest and most well-armed standing military in the history of humanity with nearly a trillion dollars in annual spending.

Therefore, the 2nd Amendment is no longer necessary and should be repealed as soon as possible.

A new amendment, repealing the 2nd Amendment, should be put in place that matches the realities of the 21st Century.  Time has changed the circumstances of our world and the Supreme Law of the United States of America should change with it.

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Elizabeth August 01, 2012 at 08:37 PM
You're also 6% more likely to die in a crash on tax day. http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-04-11/news/31322653_1_fatal-crashes-tax-day-fatal-accidents You're 27% more likely to die of a heart attack if you own a tv and a vehicle. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2084926/Do-car-TV-It-deadly-combination-leads-greater-risk-having-heart-attack.html You're 47% more likely to be involved in a crash if your vehicle is black. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1288457/Black-cars-likely-involved-accidents.html You're more likely to die in a crash if you own these particular cars... http://www.autoblog.com/2011/06/09/certain-chevrolet-nissan-owners-most-likely-to-die-in-a-car-cra/ You're 14% more likely to die on your birthday. http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/06/11/people-are-more-likely-to-die-on-their-birthdays-study-finds/ When using guns in self defense, 91.1% of the time a shot is not fired. http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.0/Gun-Facts-v6.0-screen.pdf The statistic you quoted is from a single "study" limited to 677 instances in Philadelphia. The study doesn't indicate whether the victims were legal gun owners or criminals. Just a thought.
Karl Frank Jr. August 02, 2012 at 01:56 AM
Sheesh. I'm glad I drive a maroon truck. Anyway. 4 times more likely is the lowest number. 20 times more likely us the highest, but that one includes suicides as well. I guess they are trigger happen when sad. Either way, the 2nd amendment doesnt make sense anymore in 2012 and should be repealed and replaced with something that does.
Elizabeth August 02, 2012 at 11:40 AM
"the 2nd amendment doesnt make sense anymore in 2012 and should be repealed and replaced with something that does" Well, luckily, that is only your opinion and not actually fact.
Karl Frank Jr. August 02, 2012 at 01:31 PM
It is an opinion, but it is also a fact. As I've stated many times here, the writers of the Constitution were opposed to standing armies and believed the males should be armed in ready to be called up as militias in protection of the state. The fact is that now we have a $1 Trillion a year standing army so the 2nd Amendment is no longer necessary and needs to be replaced with something that makes sense in 2012 and beyond.
Raygun August 02, 2012 at 01:38 PM
"Stimulus money for illegal gun owners" that makes sense in 2012.
Karl Frank Jr. August 02, 2012 at 01:43 PM
You are correct. It does...as long as it accomplishes the task and provides the appropriate incentives as part of a comprehensive plan to get guns out of the hands of criminals.
Elizabeth August 02, 2012 at 05:12 PM
Um, no it is only an opinion based on your personal interpretation of the intent of the framers of the Constitution. Simply believing your own argument does not render anything a fact. It may be a fact that the military is $1T of the budget but that by itself doesn't render the amendment no longer necessary since there is more to the purpose of the amendment than just the existence of a standing army. I appreciate the fact that you have your own opinion even though it clearly differs from mine, but let's not pretend your opinion makes something a fact. 'k.
Karl Frank Jr. August 02, 2012 at 05:19 PM
Once again, the Amendment is one sentence. It says the following: "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." A well-regulated militia is no longer necessary, so neither is the 2nd Amendment. It's basic logic. Again, a new Amendment can be made to appease people who feel safer with their guns, as well as provide significant incentive to get the illegal guns off the streets.
Elizabeth August 02, 2012 at 06:17 PM
Columbia vs Heller....The Supreme Court held: ---The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The Supreme court ruled that the 2nd amendment covers individual rights to arms, that is a fact. Your interpretation ignores the original wording of the 2nd amendment by Madision who also submitted the placement of the amendment be included under the civil rights portion of Article I, section 9 and NOT section 8 that provided for military law.
Karl Frank Jr. August 02, 2012 at 08:38 PM
Elizabeth, I am aware of Supreme Court history on the 2nd Amendment. That's why I'm saying that instead of being modified, it should be repealed. It's a totally different process...just like prohibition.
Elizabeth August 03, 2012 at 12:57 AM
I'm sorry, I thought your reasoning behind repealing it was that it wasn't necessary because it applied only to militia and not citizens and is unnecessary via our military. Am I to understand that your opinion of the Supreme Court's ruling that it applies to individuals in a non-military capacity is irrelevant? Please clarify.
Karl Frank Jr. August 03, 2012 at 02:48 AM
Ok. Once again. The Supreme Court looks at laws sent to them to see if they are Constitutional according to the laws in the Constitution. Their job isn't to make value judgments based on the laws currently existing in the Constitution. So, when it becomes a matter of repealing an amendment (removing it from the Constitution) the the Supreme Court and their prior and current opinions don't matter. So, being against standing armies, a well regulated (meaning government) militia was necessary for the safety of the State (not the people). Because of that, the people had a right to bear arms and be prepared to fight if called upon. now we have $1,000,000,000 a year standing army and no militia is necessary for the safety if the state. therefore, the 2nd amendment is dated and no longer necessarY in the 21st Century and be repealed. A new amendment could take its place that makes sense in 2012. How many more times does this have to be repeated?
Gary Hill August 05, 2012 at 04:12 PM
I for one am not going to depend on the government for my protection and see no reason to change the amendment simply be cause there is such a large standing army controlled by present government officials that I do not trust. And just because the military has 1T of the budget how do you know its spent mostly with our protection in mind?
Karl Frank Jr. August 08, 2012 at 07:52 PM
Gary, not to belabor the point, but the 2nd Amendment states that the right to own arms is because of the necessity of the militia. Without the necessity of a militia, there is no right to bear arms. (Some credit given to 'StateofFear' for the order of Terminology used here.) Regardless, I know the Supreme Court has ruled differently on this issue over the years, but by repealing the Amendment, since it doesn't make sense in today's world, it doesn't matter what the Supreme Court has said. If you repeal something from the Constitution, it no longer matters. In its place, you add a new Amendment that does makes sense in 2012.
Karl Frank Jr. December 14, 2012 at 07:12 PM
Keep the shotguns and rifles. Charge $100 per round as an anti-massacre tax.
PaulRevere December 14, 2012 at 09:04 PM
Geez, this discussion has lit a fire! Excerpts"The Feds should start a substantial gun buy-back program of at least $5000". Yes! I hope the $5,000 is taxable. This way all those middle-class Gun-sucking owners will pay their fair share of Taxes. "The constitution time did not have AK-47's", so why now? My Response! Right on! so let's Ban the manufacture of all cars that go over 75MPH. No one needs that speed legally. Why would you need to have an "illegal car?" We didn't have big Tundra, Ford450, Trucks on our first highways, so people need them today , just to be on "EQUAL" safety grounds. True, we did not have AK's back then, but we DO NOW. "Right to bear Arms" is not a fixed definition. If a sword was the best weapon then, an AK is the best weapon today. Both are Arms. 125MPH limits are all legally allowed to purchase. Big trucks are not necessary to Travel. Going 125MPH is just like any dangerous weapon. IT KILLS EASILY. Going 125MPH in a Big truck is just like the AK. Confused? You cannot be half-banning "arms", if the rest of the world still produces AK's. Benghazi, Libya proves that even our President cannot be trusted to Save the lives of any American attacked with Big weapons. That Folks is why our Constitution remains the greatest Protector of HUMAN RIGHTS. FREEDOM to PROTECT YOURSELF from any HARM starts with the best weapon (Arm) available TODAY. TODAY. TODAY. The musket has evolved into AK. Don't you all believe in "EVOLUTION"?
PaulRevere December 14, 2012 at 09:09 PM
Any Banning/or control of Guns should start with TV. How about banning any Hollywood producer from using any Large guns and bombs to make their movies? Let's start there. It would be a good starting point to see how sincere the liberals are about truly banning Large guns. I'd say about 95% of movies would be banned from production.
PaulRevere December 14, 2012 at 09:34 PM
Karl: Who Had the "Majority of States" in year 2000? Rep= 30 Dem=20 There is indeed a middle-America, they are your middle-class.
PaulRevere December 14, 2012 at 09:56 PM
Karl: a repeal of the 2nd amendment is effectively Banning the "RIGHT" to bear arms. (Once that right is gone,Opens door that any local Government can legislate Banning any gun ownership a.k.a. Gun control a.k.a Gun bans) Small or large. Why are you so fixated on the Constitution. We are the same Human beings with same sex drives and same Bodies we had back then. Technology has changed. Our Teachers and what they teach has changed. "respect" and "Work ethics" and "RESPONSIBILITY" has changed. ARMS will continue to technologically change. That is technology. Actually, I believe the "internet" is the biggest weapon we can carry. The cellphone/internet (instant communication) is the Biggest "Arm" we can carry. It has saved many lives. "Arms" is indeed a Moving Target.
Mike Stevens December 17, 2012 at 04:46 PM
While I am not in favor of guns (I believe only police and military should have them) the sad reality of this school tragedy is that the guns weren't the main problem, the monster who did it was. There needs to be more support for mental health, more resources provided to parents who don't know what to do with people who are on the edge, more dedicated to prevention, more dedicated to anti-bullying programs, social skills training and social activities. Sadly, our culture today breeds people who lack social skills---we can text or email rather than talk face to face, we can play video games all day instead of going outside, we have parents who arrange play dates instead of kids figuring out how to make friends on their own, we have people who would rather post on Facebook than talk to someone in person. Parents often encourage a lack of social skills by lacking them as well. Go to a restaurant and count how many parents are on their own phones, sitting right next to their kids and not talking to them. Parents also are scared to let their kids fail at anything--go to a park and watch how many parents are on the slide with their kid or on the equipment with them. I recall a story about an easter egg hunt that was canceled because too many parents got into the field and were picking up the eggs for their kids. All of this creates anti-social people who lack problem solving skills and who don't know how to fail and recover---main ingredients in most school shootings
Karl Frank Jr. December 17, 2012 at 05:00 PM
We are partially on the same page: http://www.callnewspapers.com/Articles-i-2010-06-30-245573.112112-Another-View-A-childs-safety-education-only-as-strong-as-support-of-community.html http://mehlville-oakville.patch.com/articles/offset-district-budget-cuts-by-turning-off-your-tv
Mike Stevens December 20, 2012 at 10:02 PM
Thanks for re-posting links to those two posts. I agree that kids need more time outside, less time in front of TVs, games, phones, etc. and more time to be social and understand how to get along with others. We hear an awful lot about how Autism and Asperger's syndrome (an Autism spectrum disorder) are increasing, yet we don't look at our own society and how we allow kids to become anti-social (a hallmark of Autism) and how we don't teach them how to get along and develop social problem solving skills. This monster in Connecticut did not have any social problem solving skills, had access to firearms, and went on a rampage. We need to realize that gun control is only one aspect of these shootings, and that how kids are being raised and the expectations put on them are another aspect. Now please don't think I am construing all kids who play video games as future gunman, because I'm not. I'm only saying that constantly playing video games can lead to social maladjustment, and it is that maladjustment that can lead to evil acts.
Rod Wright April 16, 2013 at 02:47 PM
There are really two distinct issues here. One is what public policy should be on the ownership of guns. The second is the confusing language and intent of the 2nd amendment. I think the verdict on the second issue is clear — the amendment is (1) very confusing with its bizarre wording, and (2) was intended to accommodate the needs states (not individuals) had to maintain an armed militia. Viewed from this context, the 2nd Amendment is hopelessly out of date and useless when it comes to a current discussion of this issue. I've linked an article about the role of the 2nd Amendment with respect to the slavery issue. This article is fascinating. Any understanding of the Second Amendment should also take into account Shays Rebellion and other political issues of the day relating to the perceived need for this amendment. Here is my take on this: (1) the amendment, as written, had nothing to do with the right of an individual to own a gun; (2) until very recently, the Supreme Court confirmed that history in its opinions; (3) the amendment's wording and history make it completely useful in terms of today's public policy; (4) we need a smart discussion of what public policy should be without confusing the discussion with this obsolete amendment. http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery
Rod Wright April 16, 2013 at 02:49 PM
I meant "completely useless" not "useful" in the above comment.
Karl Frank Jr. April 16, 2013 at 03:40 PM
Couldn't agree more, I think the slavery aspect of the 2nd Amendment is fascinating.
Rod Wright April 16, 2013 at 04:32 PM
Elizabeth, I won't agree or disagree with your position on gun control laws. But they have little to do with the intent of the 2nd Amendment. What you WANT that Amendment to say, and what you WANT the intent of that Amendment to be, has little to do with actual historical reality. That is Karl's point. The 2nd Amendment, with its tortured grammar, is as outdated as the 3rd Amendment ("No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."), the big difference being that few people are going around using a make-believe understanding of the 3rd Amendment to influence today's public law. The 2nd Amendment is all about states controlling slavery, states controlling Indian affairs on western borders, states concerns about civilian uprisings against taxation and other matters, and STATES (not individuals) possibly rebelling against a tyrannical government. It is a fascinating history that should be viewed through the lenses of the 18th century, not the 21st century.
Rod Wright April 16, 2013 at 04:38 PM
Elizabeth, the Supreme Court has said over and over that the phrase you quote must be understood in the context of the first phrase ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State) . . . if you won't believe me, look it up. You can't understand the intent of the people who wrote the 2nd Amendment without understanding the historical context leading to that first phrase. Again, what you want it to say is not the intent of what it does say.
Larry Lazar September 19, 2013 at 10:34 AM
Karl, I agree with your very well argued original piece, but would expand it to the ENTIRE Constitution. It should be replaced and re-written for every generation (~22-28 years) Thomas Jefferson came up with this idea, not me. Although he said it should be replaced every 17 years, however, life spans were much shorter than and 17 was pretty normal start for young men to begin having children. He wrote that the Constitution is for the living, not the dead. Personally, I think using the 230 year old Constitution is like the MLB using Abner Doubleday's original rules for modern baseball games. It would be nuts, and a horrible game too. The game has changed a lot in 230 years and the "rules" for the game should change with it.
Karl Frank Jr. September 19, 2013 at 11:00 AM
I mostly agree. Part of the problem of why I think we don't do that, is can you imagine the Constitution that would have arisen out of the Bush era? Good grief. :) Politics waxes and wanes. One thing I like about just have the original constitution as a living document is that, like Lincoln said, it is written when the better angels of our nature are not under stress. It's a reasonable and rational, secular document, that keeps us in check when our more animal nature wants to take over. That's not to say the limits aren't occasionally pushed. The movie "Lincoln" is a perfect example of this. (avoiding the swamps by not heading true north.) However, I love the baseball to government analogy. I use it all the time. I often say capitalism is like baseball. It's a great game, but without rules and honest umpires, it's a free-for-all that would be incredibly boring to watch and wouldn't last very long. (Baseball almost failed for that reason in the 1870s.) As a side-note, from what I understand, Doubleday had little to nothing to do with the origin of baseball. (I know. I was surprised when I learned this myself.) If you have Netflix, Ken Burns does a great job on 'Baseball'
Karl Frank Jr. September 19, 2013 at 07:39 PM
Funny you mention that. Gun deaths will surpass vehicle deaths in 2015. People choose to drive or ride in cars. Innocent people don't choose to be shot by psychopaths with easy access to guns. Cars=invented for transportation. Guns=invented to kill. BTW, I no longer allow anonymous comments on my blog. Use your real name or be deleted. You have 12 hours. Any additional anonymous comments will be deleted.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something