Do you think the Supreme Court should abolish the 2nd Amendment?

Question

The Supreme Court is about to decide whether or not we will have the right to bear arms anymore. They are trying to abolish our constitutional rights. Here is the definition from Wikipedia-- Second Amendment- of the United States Constitution’s Bill of Rights declares a well-regulated militia as "being necessary to the security of a free State" and prohibits infringement of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." So for people who argue the 2nd amendment does not give the people the right to bear arms, here it is in writing. So what do you all think? Would you give up your rights? Or would you fight with all you have?

I just went to wikipedia for a quick copy, I never said I used it for my research Genius!

Answer 1

Only if they wish to start the next American revolution. That would do it. The 2nd amendment is the only thing standing in the way of abolishing the rest of the bill of rights and many people know that. We the people are, and always have been, the militia. The national guard is owned by the federal government and so does not meet the definition of militia. Read the Federalist Papers to see what the founders actually meant when they included the 2nd amendment. Don't just buy the leftist propaganda. Read the last line. It says very plainly, "the right of the people." It doesn't say, "the right of the militia." And I don't care what some old fool in a robe who happens to be a lawyer, says it means. I can read myself. The way our police are acting these days, and the way our government has been acting, I will not disarm. That would be foolish to the extreme. Hitler disarmed the people too.

Those who say the supreme court cannot abolish the 2nd amendment need to study up on what they did to the 4th amendment. No knock, stop and frisk, drug sniffing dogs as probable cause, searching your car with one foot outside it, and on and on. Due to the war on drugs, we have lost our 4th amendment protection against searches by our out of control police. Now the supremes allow the police to forcibly take a blood sample from someone without consent. They will take the 2nd amendment out the same way, by rendering it worthless. These are lawyers we are talking about here.

Answer 2

The Supreme Court does not have the power to abolish the 2nd amendment - that can only be done through the Constitutional amendment process. Whoever told you that they were going to do so is either mistaken themselves or trying to rile people up.

What the Court does have the ability to do is interpret parts of the Constitution, such as the 2nd amendment. While they cannot just say there is no right to bear arms at all (and I'm not aware of any group that thinks that), the odd wording of the amendment could be interpreted to mean that some restrictions are allowable.

Answer 3

Actualy thought i'd come on here to a bunch of wako's.
The first thing hitler did when he came to power was take all the guns. The first thing Stalin did when he came to power was take all the guns. You can read a history book to find out the results. I'll give you a clue, it ends really bad and over 36 million people are dead.
An armed citizenry is all that stands between a tryanical Government. Govt that wish to consolidate power and rule through fear and intimidation don't want an armed citizenry. We as people with the right to bear, own, and purchase firearms are in essesance the ultimate check on the government.
Now to the issue of crime. Guns don't commit crimes, people do. The majority of all guns used to comite a crime are illegal. Cities where conceal to cary permits are avalible have lower crime rates. Now if you remove criminal on criminal violence you'd see these numbers. The 2nd amendment is the conrner stone of this country, the founding fathers were scared of a tyranical govt. So they put it in ink the right that citizens would always be able to over throw and oppose any govt that was not just.

Answer 4

First off the Supreme Court can't abolish the 2nd Amendment. They only have the power to interpret what it says.
Why do you assume they are "trying to abolish our constitutional rights"? This is the most conservative court we have had in a long time. It is more likely that they will strike down gun control laws and uphold the right to bear arms.

The case you are concerned about and that has been in the news is whether the District of Columbia's ban on handguns violates the Constitution. This will be the first time in nearly 70 years that the court will decide a dispute over the meaning of the Second Amendment. My opinion is that the ban in question does violate the Constituion and that the Supreme Court will do the right thing and strike in down.

Answer 5

The Supreme Court cannot abolish an amendment to the Constitution. Amendments can only be repealed by an act of Congress followed by ratification of repeal by 3/4 of the states. The likelihood of this happening with the second amendment is very low at the moment. I am not sure what case you are referring to, but the court cannot make a decision that would abolish the second amendment.

Answer 6

Matter of literal interpretation v creating rights. The 2nd ammendment starts out: "A well regulated Militia ..." 4 interpreted this as state militia or national guard. 5 interpreted this as individuals. The irony is that the judges placed on the bench to follow the literal words of the constitution and not make any up, are the ones that made this stuff up.

Answer 7

I must insist on keeping my right to bear arms. This right was given to the people to protect themselves. From being victimized by criminals, the government, or any other invading nation. The Second Amendment must remain intact.

I do not currently own a firearm but if I choose to I will weather the Constitution is changed or not

Answer 8

Definitely not. It's BECAUSE of the 2nd amendment that we still have all the others. This is really a non-issue, there is only one way for the court to find. All of the other amendments apply to individuals, you cannot deny to individuals only the rights you don't like. And anyway, if they rule in the wrong direction, it's time to lock and load, we're going to a war that BENEFITS US for a change.

Answer 9

They can't, they do not have the authority.
The SC can only rule if a law outside the Constitution is Constitutional. They have no authority (according to the Constitution) to make changes to the actual Constitution itself. The only way for something to be added or removed from the Constitution is for the people to vote for it. The SC has no part in that process.


The only way someone will take my guns is from my cold dead hand. Without guns, we have no way of protecting any of our rights (speech, religion, voting, etc.).

Answer 10

Oceaneye
Its really simple, If they abolish the 2nd amendment then only the criminals will have guns and law abiding citizens will have to use bow and arrow. That just wont wrk and I'll be damned if some politician is going to tell me I cant own a firearm or 2 or a dozen or more.