Repealing the Second Amendment would seemingly be an impossible task. But the left will not so easily give up.
But if the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges teaches us anything, it’s that the age of judicial supremacy means that five justices can amend the Constitution far more efficiently than Congress and the state legislatures. And right now there are clearly four Supreme Court justices who are committed to the absurd view that the operative clause of the Second Amendment — “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” — doesn’t actually mean “the right of the people” and therefore doesn’t encompass an individual right to own a weapon, even for self-defense. More of this theory on the next page:
It is extremely hard to amend the Constitution. I am not too worried about it.
Sadly, I’m starting to believe that they can do whatever they want, with absolutely no consequence. Look at both Obama and her husband Hillary
With all of the brainwashed idiots out there, I wouldnt be surprised. For God’s sake, just a few months ago, 3/4 of this country was chanting “hands up, dont shoot” even though IT NEVER HAPPENED!!! I wouldnt put anything past todays demented society, or their cult leaders (Obongo and her wife Hillary)
They ratified obamacare by calling it a tax.
Viva revolution.
Not TRUE! Before you start “spouting off” READ & STUDY civics! To repeal amendments you NEED 2/3 majority’ of BOTH houses!
This is a lie, it’s not possible
I would rather hear “we are one vote away from washing the slate clean, removing all Supreme Court justices, and starting over from scratch”.
Its congress and 48 out 50 states must ratify it, not gonna happen
First of all, The Supreme Court can not repeal an Amendment, it takes an Act of Congress, 2/3rds majority vote, in both The House and Senate, and a 3/5ths approval by the States Legislatures.
Only Justice Stevens thought the Right only belonged to The Militia. 3 decisions in that case. Breyer, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor said in their dissenting opinion… unusual there where 2 dissenting opinions in this case…
The Second Amendment says that: “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.” In interpreting and applying this Amendment, I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes:
(1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. See, e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting).
(2) As evidenced by its preamble, the Amendment was adopted “[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of [militia] forces.” United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 178 (1939) ; see ante, at 26 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting).
(3) The Amendment “must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.” Miller, supra, at 178.
(4) The right protected by the Second Amendment is not absolute, but instead is subject to government regulation. See Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 275, 281–282 (1897) ; ante, at 22, 54 (opinion of the Court).
It was not a 5-4 decision the right belongs to the individual, it was 8-1.
Look it up on Cornell.edu. And also read…
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm