LeadershipNews and PoliticsPennsylvania

2nd amendment repeal: political mission impossible

1) The US Constitution did not intend to protect the rights of mentally deranged individuals to own modern weapons with massive firepower.

2) The only possible way to effectively address gun violence is to repeal the second amendment. Anything else is a band-aid.

3) I have been a NRA member and gun owner but now support disarming the population. More people are coming to this same conclusion.

4) The political possibility of 2nd amendment repeal happening within our lifetime is slim. The New York Times calls it “political mission impossible”.

5) Eventually old gun technology (hurling little pieces of metal through the air with the intent to cause harm) will be obsolete and we will have far more dangerous threats in our lives. God help us.


These are the five conclusions I come to after everything that I’ve read on the gun topic over a lifetime.

I’ve owned guns from a BB gun at age 7 through a few shotguns used on the farm and a handgun for protection as a young adult. Now the only gun I own is a family heirloom fept more for sentimental purposes. We now protect our houses and businesses with other non-gun equipment but I occasionally find the legitimate need for a gun at the farm or marina (to put down an injured or possibly rabid animal, for example).

I was trained in gun safety through a NRA course as a child in rural Pennsylvania in the 1960s. Back then we believed that responsible gun ownership was the most important factor affecting guns’ role in society. The use of guns to create terror wasn’t a credible possibility in our thinking back then. But I recognize that this is no longer the world we live in today. Many, perhaps 40% to 50% of us, still live in this outdated perception of the role of guns in the world.

In the end, I expect to see much argument but little actual change in gun violence impact in my lifetime.

4 thoughts on “2nd amendment repeal: political mission impossible

  1. Is it really just this simple? This morning’s headline: “A top GOP donor in Florida is threatening to withhold contributions to candidates and political groups that do not get behind a ban on assault weapons”. When the dollars requiring banning guns is more than the dollars supporting guns then we will see legislative change?

  2. The 2nd amendment was born in fear and a healthy distrust of government. It is different from other rights granted in the Constitution. It ensures us the right to threaten to kill another person. It directly opposes the basic human rights proclaimed in our Declaration of Independence “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” . The 2nd amendment has outlived its useful purpose.

  3. I have been a gun owner, a supporter of gun rights, a Republican, a financial supporter of Republican candidates and a member of NRA. Now I would support: 1) a repeal of 2nd amendment, 2) a Supreme Court challenge to define “arms” as a weapon similar to what exited at the writing of the Constitution (small arms excluding weapons with ‘clips’), 3) technology that makes guns obsolete, 4) restrictive laws to limit, hold accountable, slow down, investigate and otherwise harass gun owners, 5) high taxes on guns, 6) activist groups organized to unseat gun rights supporters, 7) liability lawsuits against gun makers, sellers, and owners, and more. In other words, I would support candidates and civic groups willing to do whatever is necessary to disarm the nation and bring us into a state similar to what we see in other nations, I can’t see myself voting for a political candidate who says that gun laws should remain unchanged.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *