28th Amendment: 2nd Amendment Repeal
If it is really the case that a “vast majority” of Americans support certain gun control measures and it is also true that many people think the Supreme Court got it wrong in recognizing an individual right to own arms, why not override the Supreme Court by proposing an amendment to redefine, limit, or expunge that right?
We all know the reason why, it would never pass and the representatives that voted for such a thing would be figuratively crucified in the very next election cycle, an armed rebellion might even occur. It wouldn’t even be beyond possibility that significant numbers of soldiers and commanders would desert and take tremendous war resources over to the other side, including tanks, planes, and even navel vessels.
However, if you don’t agree with me, why not try to amend the Constitution? If the case against the 2nd Amendment is actually as compelling as some believe (and it isn’t) the people would dance in the streets upon passage of such an amendment.
I have a proposed text:
The Second Amendment is hereby repealed. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall be subject to restrictions such as the Congress may enact for the public good. Arms presently owned by non-governmental bodies shall be seized in a manner to be prescribed by the President and in accordance with the restrictions enacted by the Congress.
Ah, but we have a problem… It would be impossible to enforce as is, it’s not like the government could go search every building, yard and hidey hole. I guess we would need a 29th Amendment. Luckily, I have an idea for that one also:
The Fourth Amendment is hereby repealed. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall be subject to restrictions such as the Congress may enact for the public good.
There we go, now we can get those guns off the streets. However, we might run into pesky jury nullification, we should probably do something about that. We’ll need to restrict freedom of speech, of course, in light of such drastic changes to the Constitution a good writer or orator might stir up rebellion. The press will be an issue for the same reasons.
The free speech angle might be a stretch, but the search and seizure example isn’t. It’s never brought up that some of the reasons that criminals have easy access to firearms are the restrictions the government must abide when investigating crimes. I suspect a great many violent crimes could be linked to search and seizure limitations and just as many to protections against self incrimination.
People bring up other countries where gun control appears to have worked, but most of them are rubbish. In most cases, each country always had far lower rates of murder than we have, even before they enacted significant gun controls. Most of these countries also don’t recognize rights like we see in the 4th Amendment, the UK being a prime example. I think there are a number of things at play here. The US has always been a melting pot, and racial/cultural violence is an expected result of that, but it’s worth it, and it gets better with time. The difficulty we have convicting people of crimes, as I’ve said, is the expected result of a system that protects more against innocents being convicted of crimes they did not commit than it does against criminals getting away with crimes they did commit, again, that is worth it.
Freedom is not a term synonymous with safety, nor is it a term that means ‘utopia’. Freedom has costs and I’m tired of people acting like ‘safety’ and ‘security’ don’t have equal or greater ones.
So lets have it, gun control advocates, cross the Rubicon, let the die be cast.
Addition: To avoid further, understandable, confusion, my intent here is to shed light on the fact the the 2nd Amendment is not the reason most gun control efforts will fail here in the US. When you look at places like the UK or Australia, their gun control measures are often dishonestly set up beside their gun murder or suicide rates. For example, in Australia it is true that in the aftermath of a school shooting they enacted laws requiring the confiscation of most arms and since they did this they have had no school shootings of note. Unfortunately, before they enacted these controls, the school shooting that prompted them was the only one. Is it really likely that the laws now prevented further shootings? Of course not. You cannot enact gun control in a low murder rate country and claim those laws are now the reason for that low rate.
Looking at the UK, police are allowed to designate zones where people may be stopped and searched without a warrant or cause,with that being the case, it’s hardly surprising that the number of criminals that carry and use guns is low and has been lowered since they banned most arms. In America, we can’t do that. The drug dealer on the corner can have an illegal weapon in his pocket with little fear that he will be caught, as long as he avoid giving the police probable cause for a search.
So, it’s less the NRA and 2nd Amendment in the way of effective gun control and the ACLU and the 4th Amendment. Even things permitted under the 2nd are and always will be all but impossible to enforce because of the 4th. The question is not of the right to bear arms, it’s of the right of privacy against government intrusion. Gun control advocates need to accept and understand that fact and cut back the proposals they want, or they need to address the 4th Amendment. I suspect that would cause civil unrest as much as curtailing the right to bear arms would.