The words of the Second Amendment are more than 200 years old. In the 18th century the words had meaning, relevance, and purpose. In the 21st century they contribute to horror and hold the country hostage.
There comes a time when the meanings of words from a distant past are changed by the realities of the here and now. This is one of those moments. It cries out for courage and change. The Second Amendment needs modernization. It needs to change to reflect the threats of violence, the fear and the danger of this century. Surely, political scholars and legal minds of this era can rephrase the original wording and remind this country of the original purpose of the Founding Fathers. Amendment means change.
Comments
What do you suggest John, banning citizens from the right to bear arms. It's funny how you liberals ignore the crimes by illegal guns and gang murders. Illegal guns in chicago killed 502 people last year, 24 of them children. Any suggestion John what to do about illegal guns?
This writer seems to believe that if the 2nd amendment was removed, our problems would be solved. There are 300 million guns in our country, and rounding them up would be like trying to export all 11 million illegal immigrants. But even if we did, who would surrender their weapons, the bad guys?
Wow. Simply amazing. You want to change the constitution. I give up.
The second amendment was put in place for the exact purpose it is needed now.
Here is the first thing I would like you to consider, it is from the DC v Heller decision, I firmly believe that the Supreme Court Justices were a tad bit more informed than you on this matter, instead of having a terminal case of "tunnel vision", they took a wider view, enjoy.
"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."
Since Supreme Court Justices are legal minds of this era, they have examined the 2A closely and found no need to "rephrase" it, but they have interpreted it in a modern context. As to adding "political scholars"? There is no provision for those in the Constitution, I would never consider a politician to be a "political scholar" in my wildest dreams.
Secondly, to do what you suggest would require an Ammendment, not a simple "rewrite," or "rephrasing". That requires 3/4 of the states approval, 2/3 vote in the Senate and House. You would get some states here in the Northeast, California, maybe a few others and that would be about it. You will note that if Obama thought he could ammend the Constitution, he would have introduced it. Even something as a minor as legislation concerning the size of a magazine is highly doubtful and is questionable as to whether it will withstand SC scrutiny.
When the lunatic Westboro Baptist Church started showing up at soldiers funerals did you scream to change the 1st amendment?