Should the United States consider conducting a national referendum on changing the Second Amendment?

Question

Before you say no, think about this. The status quo is unacceptable and a significant portion of Americans are urging action, including the next group of adults, so some form of action must be taken.

I'm not offering a comprehensive solution. I have always supported the right to own a gun and will do so until the law is changed. I imagine many people, particularly center-right, also feel that the law must be respected, so if the Second Amendment changed, they'd respect the change. They'd grumble but comply.

I don't want to ban guns, but we can't continue as we are. We can't.

Answer 1

yes, WE SHOULD. and like you, I know of NO LIBERAL, who even in their wildest wet dream, is calling for the ban of ALL GUNS.



99.9% are asking for GUN reform, and the ban of ASSAULT type weapons.



Even an ex-military republican congressman has now come out and said that the average Joe Blow, should NOT be permitted to buy the same weapons he was given to use in a War Zone.



There is no NEED or place for these kinds of weapons on our STREETS, Why are people who would NOT qualify for the Military...........allowed to buy MILITARY weapons?



There has to be some LOGICAL and Comprehensive change, that we can ALL agree on, as Americans, to stop these weekly mass murders.

Answer 2

I'm sure your too young to remember when there was a shooting in the U.S. capital house chamber in the 1950's, it hasn't happened since! We protect our politicians but politicians really don't care about young children, now do they!

Answer 3

NO, the second amendment is fine the way it is written. There is no need to changes or an amendment or to rewrite the amendment..



Do cars kill people?? Do guns kill people?? There are people killed by cars on our streets and roads each year. by a wide margin. the latest statistics I have are listed.



#1 2014 34,744 people killed by cars



#2. 2015 35,485 people killed by cars



#3. 2016 37,461 people killed by cars.



I do not see a single solitary person advocating the citizen of the Untied States to abolish cars. Why is this?? One of the leading cause of killing in the United States and no one want to abolish this killer, called an automobile. Where is the public outrage?



Why is this.



Why, I do not down play the mass killing. committed by these insane, individuals, many people want to blame the gun for the killing, not the person that pulled the trigger. Whenever there is a mass shooting, you can always bet the gun control freaks would crawl out of the woodwork.



This is like the Black lives matter group. Many black people are killed each year in Chicago, Los Angeles, Baltimore and other United States cities, the only ones that matter to this group are the ones shot by police officers.



The only time gun control is on the forefront is when there is amass murder. then all the gun control freaks make their appearance and want to make it more difficult for law abiding gun enthusiastic to purchase and own guns.



Inmost instances these guns are stolen from legal gun owners. These that steal guns from legal gun owners commit the crime of stealing the gun and the violet act of shooting others..



At one time those that were considered not mentally able to take care of themselves, they were placed in mental facilities. Many of these individuals were placed in these facilities by family members and close friends. The liberal segment of our society decided that the placement of these mentally unbalanced individuals were being denied their freedoms. Laws were changed that made if very difficult to have these individuals placed in a facility to be protected.



Individuals with the same mental situation are now on the street and are shooting individuals. Three stand out very vividly in my mind Sandy Hook , The shooting in Arizona and the latest. If these individuals were off the street, these shootings would not have happened.



Don't penalize law abiding gun owners for the action of a few crazy individuals. Find a m,eans of getting these individuals off the street.



I have two hobbies and in no particular order



#1 Gun collecting



I collect guns from the civil war, WWI and II as well as guns from other countries that were used in wars of that country. I prefer the ones that were actually in combat.I restore these guns to their original condition.



I also make it a habit to make sure the gun is operating the way it should, therefore I fire each weapon I place in my collection. There are guns in my collection that for the right price and to the proper person I would consider selling.



#2. Cars



I collect cars from the 1950, 60 and 70 era. I make sure each car is drive able by driving each car in my collection. There are some that I might consider selling for the right price and to the right person



I purchase these cars and completely restore them to their original conditions.



I could live without either collection, however I choose not to. I would use every legal means and funds in order to keep my collection if a law was enacted where i would be required to give up either of my collections.



My grandfather gave me my first gun when I was 9 years ole. I was taught and required to clean my gun, make sure it was always in a safe place and never aim it at anyone. The only time I was told to aim a gun at anyone was when I or others were in danger.



I personally think all the laws that have been passed are illegal. If you read the second amendment



Who would have guns if guns are strictly controlled? Come on, you admitted it your statement. The law abiding citizen would comply with any legal law of the states and United States. Who would not comply, yep your basic criminal. They would be the only person that would have a gun.



If you want to enact laws find a way to penalize those that steal guns and put away the ones that are not mentally able to take care of themselves.



I hope this has been of some benefit to you, good luck



"FIGHT ON"

Answer 4

You need 2 thirds of the house and 2 thirds of the states to pass an amendment to repeal the second. All I have to say is good luck with that.

Answer 5

No. I don't care about anyone who says, "We need to do something" but can't come up with a workable suggestion. Putting criminals in jail is "something" but libs like to cry that prisons are "too full already". We've seen that passing more laws doesn't work since most of the 20,000+ gun laws already on the books are not enforced and were passed just to make some pandering politician look like they were actually doing "something". No one calling for "something" can tell us what enforceable gun laws would have prevented the last or next shooting, except a total ban which won't work. Tell me how you will get the guns from the criminals who, by definition, don't obey laws. If you want to cry, "If we save just one life!!!" tell me you support banning automobiles and abortion to "save just one life", too. A person intent on committing a crime will find a way to do it regardless of what is banned and what is not. The Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City was destroyed by a legal substance.

Answer 6

I would vote against it, and YOU indicated why. YOU stated, "The status quo is unacceptable and a significant portion of Americans are urging action... ...some form of action must be taken." Firearm ownership cannot and must not be eliminated. We have far too many RESPONSIBLE law-abiding firearm owners in America. The most prudent and viable thing to do is what the students/victims of the recent mass shooting are advocating for: increased, consistent, stricter and more effective background checks to filter out those with criminal backgrounds and a history of emotional/psychological disturbances easy access to firearms.



HOWEVER, the NRA through LePieerre (lePiew), a puppet and lapdog for the firearm manufacturing industry, firearm sales industry that pay off crooked politicians in Congress to ignore their duties and responsibilities to American taxpayers and voters to work toward for best interests and safety of Americans; these demagogues betray our trust and live off of the public by quietly passing bills to entitled themselves with luxuries they're unwilling to tell us about. They are MORE interested in avarice, greed and self-enrichment than for human life or human safety or for the lives and safety of our school children. The refuse to act on our behalf, then let's vote them out of office!



They've run out of excuses and NOW they want to talk about mental healthcare when they have been consistently, fanatically, historically, perniciously, systematically, tirelessly to defund healthcare, mental healthcare and education since Reagan was Gov of California, with every wealthy GOP President and GOP-dominated Congress???



I AM pro-firearm ownership... RESPONSIBLE firearm ownership.

Answer 7

Yes!



But the gullible Who love 💘 WON'T cow to reason. their HATRED of their fellow mankind IS greater. Far Greater!



Like 🐑 sheep they will ensure their WILL will prevail!



Those can't trust themselves aren't going to place their faith in others!

Answer 8

No. Just follow the normal Constitutional Amendment process, if changes are needed.

Answer 9

No need to.

We can initiate gun control measures without changing a thing about the 2nd Amendment.

Even conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia stated, “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” “Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” “We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ” States do have the right to create and enforce their own gun regulations. And like all state laws those will be reviewed.

Answer 10

Declaration of Independence:



“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”



These inalienable rights:

To act in self-defense

To own private property

To work and enjoy the fruits of one’s labor

To move freely within the county or to another country

To worship or refrain from worshipping within a freely-chosen religion

To be secure in one’s home

To think freely



are part of the Bill of Rights.

Answer 11

there is nothing in the constitution about national referendums



you would have to amend the constitution to actually hold one

Answer 12

You mean, in an advisory capacity? It’s unprecedented. I don’t even think it would be a good barometer.

Answer 13

If it comes down to mental evaluations for gun owners, then yes, I agree on changes. Otherwise, no.



There has to be some sort of "policing" of the gun owners who must comply with an evaluation if questionable behavior is observed. That simple action could have possibly saved all of those high school students in Florida. Everyone turned a blind eye to what that deranged shooter's persona showed to be dangerous. I only wish the bastard shot himself so we would not have to deal with his sorryass ever again.

Answer 14

Unfortunately, if the U.S. did have a national referendum on changing it the liberals would scream and want a recount as the results came in if they lost. We had an election and Donald Trump won. They haven't accepted him yet.

Answer 15

NO!! we should do all we can to protect the children but so far we haven't done anything but

argue about the only document that has protected us all for over 200 years and that includes the children..

Answer 16

This may not go down well with all readers, but because I believe the country needs to get rid of ALL of its guns (except for the police), and because there is not enough support to change the constitution through the route the constitution requires, I think an exception needs to be made - one big national referendum, about whether or not to introduce a big package of house by house searches and repeat searches to get rid of all guns and all drugs and fine those who do not hand it in on the deadline. I have seen enough slaughter of humans, deer, bison, rabbits, birds, and more humans and more deer ... I say: let's hold and win a big full special binding rule-making national referendum, after which the country is to be cleaned up and made nice and gun free - down with all guns (except for the police who should be allowed to shoot knife-armed (legally) and gun-armed (illegally) robbers and other nasty crooks on sight)! Down with, guns, hunting and criminals. Up with us good folk? Let's do it? Roar.

Answer 17

They should but they're not going to get it. Everyone can tell that fewer guns on the streets of the US mean fewer things to open fire and kill people with. Look at the murder rates for the UK where guns are controlled (1 per million) compared with the US (44 per million).



The trouble is though that there are many many people in the US who are making a lot of money from guns. Everyone from the flinty-eyed cowpoke with a rifle, to someone sellin billions of dollars of weapons to foreign regimes has a vested interested in relaxed gun laws. This brings in taxable income for the government in spadefuls, and a lot of the NRA association are wealthy businessmen who go to shooting and hunting clubs.



People who log roll for politicians at election time and bring them in votes.

Answer 18

The Constitution should be interpreted as written, and I encourage all citizens to own a muzzle-loading black powder musket.

Answer 19

more chance of it giving itself away to Russia and becoming a vessel state . the mindset of majority of americans brought up under its flag will be too outraged to consider such a move unless not just school kids murdered by the dozen but every city and town has random mass slaying using guns. only then would enough bodies pile up to have them not look past the deaths and misery it causes and begin to work on a sane resolution towards reducing or banning access and use of weapons.

have to admit when I visit countries such as France and USA we do feel very nervous when we see an armed police officer.

will assume opposite is true of citizens of those countries.

Answer 20

There already exists a legal process for amending the constitution that does not involve a national referendum.



Addendum:

Could the people who gave me thumbs down on this answer please explain why. I was simply relating to the questioner a simple fact. I hardly see why that is controversial.

Answer 21

The second Amendment is something to protect and keep in case the need arises for the people to overthrow any government that would destroy the constitution. Certainly muzzle loaders were used during the time it was written but the citizens need the same weapons as the military to keep on par. There are those that say there is no longer a need but the truth of how our government runs proves otherwise. No one or group in this country has the right to take away a basic right. We have already been infringed as we do not have military weapons but we do have massive numbers of patriots interspersed among the population that would be impossible to defeat. That is what the new world order fears.

Answer 22

I think the US should consider executing liberals ASAP.

Answer 23

No. That is contrary to the Constitution, which provides two means for amending the Consitution.



In any event, we need firearms for self-protection against so many immigrants.

Answer 24

That would be unconstitional

Answer 25

I think the 2nd amendment needs to be reworded to more accurately describe what the founders had in mind. Changing a constitutional amendment is not an easy or quick process. Remember that only hand pistols and rifles (single shot) were around then, so that needs to be taken into consideration. Part of the amendment speaks of voluntary militia, since states did not have state police, or a national guard, etc. We had an army and a navy only. Those who hunt and those whose jobs require weapons would, of course, have them, and small arms should be allowed to normal citizens for self protection, but guns that can be used for mass murder need to be eliminated.

Answer 26

there is no Constitutional mechanism to conduct a "national referendum". America is a representative republic .. the majority does NOT get to override the rights of the minority

Answer 27

That's not how you amend the Constitution.

Answer 28

No. Your premise is wrong, it's working backwards from your conclusion. The status quo is neither acceptable or unacceptable, because you haven't yet defined what an acceptable level of anything would be. A significant portion of Americans are also urging inaction. How are their wishes less legitimate? You think that the respect for the law, is only the responsibility of some? Guns have predated school violence by several centuries, why do you assume that the variable for risk rests with guns. Maybe the next group of adults is just too violent or emotionally unstable? The correlation for violence is with prescription drugs and their misuse, not guns.

Answer 29

There's no procedure for a national referendum and it would be non-binding anyway. There is, however, a procedure to amend the Constitution. Just propose your amendment and see how far it gets (not far, I predict; but who knows?).

Answer 30

Sure if you want to start Civil War II.

Answer 31

There is nothing to think about. There is no constitutional provision for a national referendum.

Answer 32

yes

Answer 33

They should

Answer 34

The US should consider educating its dumb@ss citizens on American History instead.

Because Americans are clearly too stupid to know one of the obligations of US Citizenship is respecting & obeying all laws.

Which they can't do when the lazy f*cks never get off their sorry @sses to ever read any of them.



If only they had, they'd know their Founders legally defined "arms" in their 1792 Militia Act.

And that definition's NOT (and never was) any right to keep & bear any & all weapons that citizens feel like owning.



There's no point talking about amending the Second to include modern guns until all Americans realize it doesn't.

Which they have no excuses for not knowing since ignorance of the law is no excuse under the law.



Like the man said:



“Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.”

--James Madison, Founding Father, Father of the Constitution, and 4th President of the United States.



That's how you know who the backstabbing traitors to America are.

They're the ones pretending they have the right to any guns they want and hate anyone telling the truth they were too lazy to learn.

Answer 35

No.

Answer 36

The very moment you begin to change the bill of rights, it becomes easier to change ALL of them or DENY them. THAT one decision is the door way to a dictatorship. Have at it at your own peril.

Answer 37

If it was possible, then yes. Or some form of survey. But I think that the 2nd amendment is the problem. The 2nd amendment simply gives citizens the right to bear arms to defend themselves. You could still own guns without it. In the UK, much to some people's misunderstanding, we can own guns (granted some are not allowed), the same would apply for the USA. Getting rid of the 2nd amendment would only make it illegal to buy a gun for self defense. It wouldn't stop shootings. What would is if you banned high capacity magazines and maybe banned AR-15 style rifles.

Answer 38

Even if passed many will stand by (you can have my gun when you pry it from my dead hand) if the Jews has guns Hilter would not have killed most of them think that can’t happen again your wrong.

Answer 39

No. Actually I don't 17 deaths unacceptable, considering there are some 300 million guns in the US and they are NOT going to disarm, because they've seen what has happened to a large swath of Britain. It's a tragedy but tragedies cannot be prevented by legislation.Also, there is a process for amending the Constitution and a referendum is NOT it.

Answer 40

Yes and also referendum on abortion, same-sex marriage, etc..

Answer 41

No

Answer 42

No, period the end.

Answer 43

There is a process to amend the Constitution and that ain't it for a very good reason.



It would fail pretty badly anyhow.

Answer 44

No, if anything it should be easier to get guns legally

Answer 45

No. And Besides that Hell NO.

Answer 46

The second amendment is a license to kill, should be abolished

Answer 47

You'd have to amend the constitution to have a national referendum. And you'd then have to pass a referendum to amend the 2nd Amendment.



It would be quicker to just amend the 2nd Amendment.



Why on earth would we choose to try to amend the constitution twice rather than once?

Answer 48

Not exactly. Right wingers, who claim to be so loyal to the constitution, have distorted the 2nd amendment..

Many treat the constitution as they do their bible. They pick and choose what they want to believe.



"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."



making war weapons available to civilians, and teenagers, is not being well regulated.

Anyone who thinks they should have the right to an assault rifle, that is not apart of a well regulated militia, is mentally ill.

Answer 49

A national referendum on changing the 2nd Amendment would be a good start, and I think it would pass. The real tricky part is to figure out what are the right changes. Increasing gun control in some ways id the easy part, banning guns would be almost impossible at this point. It is a tough situation, and calm and deliberate thought will be required for it to work well.

Answer 50

And the 14th amendment too.



No more illegals and no more anchor babies.

Answer 51

no anyway

Answer 52

Will not help in any way if you do change the Second Amendment. There are more Guns in Circulation then there are people in the United States. Say you ban the sale of the AR15. So what. That just means Gun Shops can't sell them. But there are so many AR15/s in circulation that private sales and black market sales will continue. Three Weeks ago I passed through a small town in Arizona and it was Saturday and there was a FleMarket in progress. One table was selling guns.

Answer 53

No. And I say no for 2 reasons:



1. That is not how you amend the Constitution.



2. I firmly believe a strong 2nd Amendment is in the long-term interests of this country and our freedom.

Answer 54

It will not be tolerated. Our rights are inalienable, which means they came from God and cannot be legally over ruled by man, barring tyranny. The globalist agenda to merge all nations into one socialist nation with no guns is being held up by America's rights. That is why they do these false flags.

Answer 55

To remove that first part about the militia, I'd agree. It's caused too many people to become confused into thinking the right to bear arms is limited to muskets and only for joining their state's national guard. All it really needs to say is...



"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."



If we could reword it to say that, then I'd vote for it.

Answer 56

the only action you will be satisfied with is the elimination of guns. Of course, you will need people with guns to enforce the ban....

Answer 57

Poll, PRINCETON, NJ -- A solid majority of the U.S. public, 73%, believes the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the rights of Americans to own guns. Twenty percent believe the amendment only guarantees the rights of state militia members to own guns.

Answer 58

yes

Answer 59

Nothing

Answer 60

I doubt it would succeed as too many Americans own guns. There are 111 guns for every 100 men, woman and child including babies in the US. President Trump needs to grow some b@lls and do what Australia s Prime Minister did over 20 years ago and forced the issue after one very bad gun massacre where 35 people were shot at a tourist site. He forced a law through ordering a buy back of all semi automatic and automatic guns. We have not had a mass shooting in Australia since so why doesn t the NRA in America think it would work there. We have mentally ill people here as well but we have no mass shootings or schools. The US has had several bad Mass shootings in the last 2 or 3 months, but in Australia, Canada and the United kingdom which does not allow people to own assault rifles, automatic guns, and handguns to be owned by the general public has not had a mass shooting in years. Guns do kill people so stop letting the NRA make excuses so they can keep what they basically see as toys. Better screening of gun purchasers does not stop a teenager taking screened Dad s gun to school and shooting a heap of students.

If the US will not face the fact these guns must be removed from citizens then they deserve all the child killings that go on in their schools. No other civilized country allows its citizens to own such dangerous toys. President Trump is again saying stupid things about arming teachers. I am sure there will be teachers who would lose it and pull put the gun and start shooting the kids who were p!ssing them off. No other civilized country needs armed teachers or armed guards in schools. Perhaps the USA over rates itself believing it is a civilized country

Answer 61

Leave it alone. It gives you the ability to say and write stupid things that the 1st amendment allows.

Answer 62

Contact your Senator or congressman.

Answer 63

Even the Governor of Florida (Republican) backs tightening gun laws. The one reason they won't is because the NRA and Republican Party are holding hands.

I have faith the number of casualties will persuade people to change their minds. Everyone always says change is impossible, the next thing you know, it will happen. Polls consistently show a slight but definite majority in favour of background checks & bans on civilians owning assault weapons.

Answer 64

I’m going to speak frankly; so I hope you won’t take this personally:



I think you’re a big, fat liar, and that you really DO want to repeal the 2nd Amendment!



If you’re still reading, let me ask you this: How would you feel about the 1st Amendment ALSO being altered so that the American news media and individuals in the US don’t get to keep the status quo of faked and omitted news, and of misrepresentation (lying)? In other words, they’d be required by law to report or speak ACCURATELY and FULLY or face felony charges for lying by falsehood or omission.

Answer 65

The second amendment doesn’t give everyone the right to bear arms. It states “in order to maintain a well ordered militia”. Now back in the day, this was all able bodied men. Today it means the National Guard. I’m not trying take away anyone’s guns. What I am saying is the second amendment can be restricted to keep crazy people from getting them. Will this stop gun violence? Only in the movies with a happily ever after. But we have to start somewhere to say it is unacceptable to allow our children to be murdered.

Answer 66

NO.Aside from the fact that its not how our legal system works,the referendum would be run and conducted by fascist liberals in only liberal areas where they could be sure of the outcome before starting it.

Answer 67

A referendum merely "refers" the result of the vote to the relevant legislature(s). It isn't legally binding. It can also be badly skewed by the way the question is worded. In that way, what is truly being asked can be difficult for the electors to understand. That can cause them to vote in a way contrary to their actual desire. (For examples, research the disingenuous wording of the questions posed by the Quebec government in its 1980 & 1995 referenda on separating the province from Canada.)

What is required is a plebiscite which asks an unambiguous question. Prior legislation could form an amendment to the U.S. constitution to include this "direct democracy" method of resolving an issue.

As an outsider looking at the U.S. gun addiction problem, I think the solution can be found in adopting an amendment similar to the S. 1 of Canada's Charter of Rights & Freedoms. This "...guarantees the rights & freedoms set out ... subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free & democratic society."

With such a clause, legislation can be enacted that places limits on various rights & freedoms in certain circumstances. The U.S. Supreme Court has already leaned strongly in this direction by acknowledging that the freedom of speech does not extend to such acts as shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.

Personally, I think the Second Amendment outlived its usefulness (assuming it ever had any) many decades ago (as a minimum.) Those who think any government jurisdiction is at all impeded because he or she has a gun or even an arsenal in their possession are risibly mistaken. Think of the Branch Davidians at Waco in 1993. Guns vs. armour = no contest.

Answer 68

Yes. Get rid of so many guns.

Answer 69

No need. Nothing in the 2nd Amendment confers the right to own or possess a long gun. The Supreme Court just declined to review a case where a State banned the sell and/or possession of long guns such as the AR-15, so other States are free to write similar laws - we just need lawmakers with the guts to do so.