Why We Can’t Repeal The Second Amendment

When our founding fathers framed our constitution in hopes of establishing a “better America”, it was ultimately necessary to make several amendments to its language. Of all the amendments passed to date I am going to provide a bit of information on the second one. If you search google right now for the terms “states trying to repeal the second amendment” the results are startling. I’ve written previously about how the mainstream media is little more than a corporate propaganda machine, and looking at some of these articles one can see what they are trying to get Americans to agree with:




The second amendment text reads as follows: “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.” Often arguments are made that this text only provide protections for the states, or organized militias. The other side of this too will typically point out that the commas used are of high importance. Recently some states have found some rulings on gun bans overturned due to being unconstitutional. To understand a bit, one may be inclined to also read the 14th amendment. Section 1 reads as follows: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” It was the Bill of Rights that mandated States to provide citizens with specific rights, and the 14th amendment elaborates on this by stating states cannot write laws which will effectively take any rights from a citizen. Another reason for adding this amendment is also because for years it was believed these rights only applied to the government, then the states, and we are still in the process of “selective incorporation” where state supreme courts are still deciding which amendments to bring in.





The 2nd amendment has been argued for generations now, and before we saw the passage of “Brady laws” in states to bar citizens from handgun ownership, we saw reversals begin to happen. In the 2nd amendment it talks about a well regulated militia, and at the time this was understood to include average citizens capable of fighting. In the case of US v. Miller, the Supreme Court upheld the ruling that states could require a registry for a sawed off shotgun, and the reasoning was that it could not be substantiated that the type of firearm was implicitly necessary to secure the militia. At the same time, they reiterated that the intent of the constitutions second amendment was to ensure citizens would provide their own firearms when called to defend the nation, and of the common type then. Later, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act was passed which extrapolated off of the Miller ruling and barred handgun purchases in some states.
In 2008 the case of DC v. Heller overturned this ruling, interpreting it much differently. The “individual rights theory” approach had been utilized, finding that handguns were a common method of securing a home and that was the new interpretation of the second amendment. Furthermore it ruled that guns could not by law be rendered inoperable in the home as it would directly impede their purpose, and the rights provided by the constitution. In the case of McDonald v. Chicago courts officially ruled the second amendment is incorporated through the 14th amendment and enforceable on the states. It was noted that the amendments purpose at first was to guarantee ex-slaves the right to bear arms and defend themselves, and later too to minorities to defend themselves FROM state militias. To simplify the point that is often made these days, the second amendment was written so that the citizens can be armed to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. When laws are written to take guns from average law abiding citizens, they leave open exceptions to groups like police, government officials, etc. Albeit the laws that are proposed in relation to the second amendment only ensure that an overreaching government is the only one with the guns. When taking the 14th amendment into account it defines how citizens may need to defend from state governments in the like, and the law should be interpreted the same way for the federal and state governments. If one were to repeal the 2nd amendment and take all the guns from the citizens, it would be the exact opposite of what our founding fathers intended. Had there been no guns at the time, America likely wouldn’t exist today; and furthermore had Hitler not taken the guns from citizens prior to the Holocaust, that too may have happened differently.


Gun Rights and the 14th Amendment


Currently a law that was already passed in Ohio has caused quite an uproar over the same amendment. The law as written was said to be aimed at providing an allowance for the “stand your ground” law, but at same time align with the federal laws on shotguns under a certain length. It has been stated to be a mistake, but the language included would actually make it possible for a very wide range of rifles to become a felony to sell or possess. After reading the law myself, I concur that this is written in a way that could be interpreted to say it is illegal to carry almost any gun on ones person for any reason. Section 2923.12 of Ohio HB228 states:
“(A) No person shall knowingly carry or have, concealed on the person’s person or concealed ready at hand, any of the following:
(1) A deadly weapon other than a handgun;
(2) A handgun other than a dangerous ordnance;
(3) A dangerous ordnance….”
and also elaborates:
“(C)(1) This section does not apply to any of the following:
(a) An officer, agent, or employee of this or any other
state or the United States, or to a law enforcement officer, who
is authorized to carry concealed weapons or dangerous ordnance
or is authorized to carry handguns and is acting within the
scope of the officer’s, agent’s, or employee’s duties…”
Many people intend to exercise their first amendment rights in Ohio to demand the law be corrected. In my personal opinion it to me does not look like this was a mistake at all, frankly it seems like a back door was left open so that guns could be taken from people in such a way that would prevent future ownership. Also, it appears in my opinion to also be written in a way that could ensure any hearings at the judicial level would go smoothly. The law in its entirety is 81 pages long, and I would encourage anyone to read the whole thing. I am no legal scholar myself, but I do know that supreme court cases really come down to arguing at the end of the day. I could absolutely envision these small breadcrumbs be the equivalent to groundwork for a plan to disarm citizens, and Ohio isn’t even the only state trying something like this.



In Hawaii, Senator Chang is attempting to pass resolution SCR42, which would repeal entirely the 2nd amendment. A lawyer who studied under Senator Warren, he has never been happy with the Heller ruling. Even though Hawaii has always had some of the toughest gun laws in the nation it is his standpoint that this law need be passed in his state. The text of this law is much shorter, but after clarifying a bit of terminology states:
“BE IT RESOLVED by the Senate of the Thirtieth Legislature of the State of Hawaii, Regular Session of 2019, the House of Representatives concurring, that the United States Congress is urged to propose and adopt a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution pursuant to article V of the United States Constitution to clarify the constitutional right to bear arms; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the United States Congress is requested to consider and discuss whether the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution should be repealed or amended to clarify that the right to bear arms is a collective, rather than individual, constitutional right…”

Hawaii lawmakers want Congress to weigh 2nd Amendment repeal


We have seen something similar to this in history too, after WW1 the Germans were required to surrender their guns and ammo to the allied forces after signing the treaty of Versailles. In the 1930’s due to the rise of communism, these same measures eased a bit. Eventually Hitler was able to permit gun ownership again but due to his citizenship laws the Jews were still not included. When Hitler loosened the gun laws for his allies, he made it very clear that his enemies (the Jews) could not ever carry a gun. In many ways this, without delving into the balance of the man’s career choices, one could make a comparison to the tactics used. If a government wanted to enact a massive scheme against the wishes of the people, it would be far easier had the citizens been disarmed.


Did Hitler Ban Guns?

The Nazi’s werent the only group that utilized these tactics, in fact most violent dictatorships in history were prefaced by citizen disarmament. Russia is another prime example of this, and the history of their disarmament begins in 1684 with minor laws restricting gun usage. In 1845, these restrictions were further expanded to limit where guns could even be used. In 1918 the free use and ownership became completely prohibited during the Bolshevik revolution. These laws allowed the government to seize all the firearms, outlaw possession, and jail violators up to 10 years. After the revolution concluded and scores perished, the citizens thought for sure they would regain the right to bear arms. As we all know how Russia is currently, I ascertain that a government like that has only persisted as long as it has due to the citizens not being able to adequately defend against their rulers.
Likewise, following World War 2 a group of democrats and communists led by Laszlo Rajk also disarmed citizens during the lead up to communist takeover stating “it protected their system of governance”. In 1981 Poland’s dictator, General Jaruzelski ultimately too seized all weapons from their limited ‘citizen’s militia’ and jailed anyone who favored democracy. In 2007, a Harvard study actually found that the crime and murder rates in Russia were at times triple that of America within the recent past. The crimes enacted ON citizens grew to be far worse than what was seen here, and many fell for their misinformation too. The same was true in the 1959 communist revolution in Cuba, once the citizens were disarmed they fell victim to their rulers and it was not long before their freedom was gone. Throughout history strong correlations are made between freedom and the ability of good people to own guns. If they take all the guns in America, I truly fear for what they plan to do next.




-Adam Rice

Leave a Comment