Are there those in the USA who think there should be a 28th amendment to the Constitution?

Question

Ther have been 27 amendments, should the 28th be the repealing of the 2nd, and that the "the right of the people to keep and bear arms", "being necessary to the security of a free state", is now rather outdated?

I mean with 27 amendments, the US admits they have had to update their original charter on more than one occasion. One more to reverse this outdated precedent, from when the US was a nation of different collectives, to what it is now, surely must be on the cards.
I mean the 27th in 1992 was to limit congressional pay rises, so c'mon more forward thinking here people. What do you think?

As to a regulated militia... is that not what the armed forces and police forces are for?

Answer 1

Here's a list of proposed constitutional amendments.

http://www.usconstitution.net/constamprop.html

Answer 2

I'd say the 2nd Amendment is as valid today as it was when it was written. And since the Constitution was ratified only after several states were assured that a Bill of Rights (BoR) would be incorporated into it, would removing an article of the BoR render the ratification invalid and thus the Constitution null and void?

I agree, however, that we need to repeal a few misguided amendments which were incorporated *not* in the BoR. I'd start with the 16th and 17th providing for direct taxation of the people and direct election of Senators. (A lot of bad stuff was foisted upon us in 1913, not just Constitutional amendments.)

As for what is the militia, US Code Title 10 Section 311 states that the militia is made up of all able-bodied males between 17 & 45 years old (60 if prior military) and female officers of the National Guard. This is divided into the organized militia, which is the National Guard and the Naval Militia, and the unorganized militia which is everyone else. The armed forces and the police are the standing army, which the founders found anathema and which they promulgated the militia to protect us *against*.

Answer 3

No one in my family has or uses a gun but I would never repeal that right. Crooks can always find guns and in many areas police take too long for various reasons and/or excuses.

There was a movie called AMERIKA back in the mid 80s that kinda gave you an idea of what could happen if there was no right to bear arms.

Say there was a terrorist attack in several locations or even a huge natural disaster like Katrina. The government can only do so much & is sorely lacking in it's ability to respond to more than one emergency at a time. W/o law you see instances like New Orleans where the criminals and seedy element were able to almost take over. How much more so if there are several disasters at once involving hundreds or thousands of people.

They should keep the 2nd fully in tact and obey the 27th. I pray to God I never have to get one but I sure want that right if I ever do.

Answer 4

What does the number of amendments have to do with it? Are you suggesting that we need to average so many amendments per year or something? I'm not sure I understand your thinking.

As to a repeal of the second amendment, I say no. Though I agree that the "well-regulated militia" portion is outdated, I do believe that citizens should also have the right of self-defense (NOT vigilantism, self-defense)--which may include being armed.

BTW, I am a Democrat (leaning Green) and progressive on most issues--but I have to disagree with my fellows on this one.

Answer 5

Leave the second amendment alone. It's perfect. Perhaps it could be reworded a little so the NRA would be less confused about what it says but the premise is fine. I would like one more amendment though. Oops, make that two. One would give the line item veto to the president. The other would allow naturalized citizens here for at least twenty years to run for president. The terminator for prez in 2012.

Answer 6

Um NO!!!!!! The right to bear arms is a constitutional right that causes a lot of passion in people's hearts. Having been through Hurricane Katrina, when there was NO electricity, NO phone to call the police for assistance if you were in trouble, No one available for law and order. If you did not own a gun, at that time, you were the possible victim of someone who had lost everything and wanted to loot other people's belongings.
So, NO, I think being allowed to protect your life, your children's life, your possessions etc. is a Constitutional Right and Should be PROTECTED!
We should have the right to shoot someone if someone enters our house, with the intent to do bodily injury to us, or our family members, and we were not doing a thing, just minding our own business. I mean come on, they convicted a man in Georgia for kidnapping a 3rd grader, raping and sodomising her, then burying her alive in a garbage bag in his back yard. Don't you think we should have the right to protect our children? Obviously the Police can't.

Answer 7

I agree that it takes a Constitutional Amendment to regulate guns, I would not support it.

I would support a Constutional Amendment to Repeal the 17th Amendment and restore America to the Federal Republic it was created to be.

Answer 8

What country are you from? Clearly not the U.S. If we give up the right to have "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." We will begin to lose other rights as well.

Answer 9

why would you do that? its not outdated, its a good idea. if everybody has a gun, there would be less violence. hate to repeat what everybody says, but if someone wants a gun, they'll get one. meanwhile, the good, law abiding people have nothing to defend themselves with.

as i live in wisconsin, I have to say that the hunters here (myself included) would freak out if any such amendment was proposed. and anyways, if it's outdated, why does it matter if it is there or not? there are libel/slander laws so does that mean the first amendment is outdated? should we repeal that as well, seing as it is so outdated?

Answer 10

"If guns are outlawed than only outlaws will have guns"

Making guns illegal would destroy many American businesses causing an economic shock. As well, with all the guns currently floating around, with no way for the government to get them back, criminals would have guns and police wouldn't... Not good...

This has been proposed many times by extreme liberals/communists and thankfully the elected congress has never been brain dead long enough to pass such a ridiculous ammendment.

Answer 11

I agree completely. The 2nd Amendment has outlived its usefulness, and now stands between the people and the peace of our society. How many more loonies have to go on a public killing spree before we figure this out? How many more gun-toting crack addicts, pushers, and pimps have to be sent up before this madness can be eliminated? Apparently, we produce gun nuts faster than we can convict and sentence them, so we should go after the root of the problem.