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:
What? By these criminals?
This would be the powder keg that sets off the 2nd civil war.
It’s not like the 2nd amendment was in its form as we know it today since the bill of rights was written. It was for states to create their own militia. It was only decided a long time ago in 2008 that the right to own arms also extends to the people. 2008, think about that.
It doesn’t mean people take arms …It means people should be alert all the time…When you take an oath it was for foreign and domestic…. Having that amendment was not only to take care of ones property but also from a a government that over steps its bounds Brother…
That’s why a citizen should think about who they put in power…..
What oath did I take? But what are the limits. Even Ronald Reagan said;
“I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.”
–Ronald Reagan, in a speech at his 78th birthday celebration in Los Angeles on February 6, 1989.
That could be in the eye of the beholder…. I personally don’t like the AK…But who am I to judge?….I hunt with an AR…its not an automatic… It’s a single shot….It works fine for me…I was trained on it in the Army and I believe it’s fine.
The scotus does not have that authority…
1776 …Look That Up !!! and Get Ready !!!
Constitution of the United States of America, Article V: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article, and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. So, An amendment removing an amendment is a repeal.