Gun Control Advocates Should Call for Repeal of the Second Amendment


Its My Right Come And Take It - img:Tennessee Firearms Association
Gun Control Advocates Should Call for Repeal of the Second Amendment

Buckeye, AZ –-( You’ve probably heard about former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens’ recent editorial in the New York Times.

In it, he lauded the “civic engagement” of the “school children and their supporters” demanding additional gun control laws in marches around the country to “minimize the risk of mass killings.” He also called on them to expand their demands and not just settle for minor tweaks in existing law, but rather to make their goal the full repeal of the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

We at The Firearms Coalition wholeheartedly agree with him. We would love to see gun control advocates actually demanding out loud and in so many words what they really want, rather than pretending that they would be satisfied with just a few minor restrictions or some “commonsense reforms.” It would be refreshing to have them openly admit to their ultimate objectives, without pretending to support the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

From top to bottom, anti-rights groups are a sham.

  • They lie about their objectives.
  • They lie about their data.
  • They lie about their “membership” and funding.
  • Even their names are lies.

They use terms like “for gun safety,” “against gun violence,” and “violence policy,” but they have nothing to do with gun safety or violence prevention. Their single objective is, and always has been, demonization and criminalization of guns and gun owners.

Years ago, when most of these groups were founded, they were much more open about their intentions. The National Coalition to Ban Handguns, and Handgun Control, Inc. were pretty clear about what they wanted – a total ban on civilian-owned handguns, with exceptions only for police and specially licensed security guards while on-duty. Other civilians who wished to own a handgun would be limited to only certain styles, and even those, only in controlled range environments where they would have to store them securely, and never take them off the premises.

But in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the leaders of these groups began to realize that their agendas were not popular with most Americans. Not only were they not getting the traction they wanted for their legislative efforts, being forced to take less than they wanted, but they found that they were unable to garner many members or financial supporters either. They found themselves relying on funding from wealthy foundations, Hollywood celebrities, and New York and Silicon Valley billionaires.

While past leaders had openly described a step-by-step process of enacting stricter and stricter laws until their goal of a gun-free society was achieved, the new leaders adopted a whole new vocabulary of “gun safety,” “gun-violence prevention,” and “reasonable, commonsense measures to keep our children safe,” while denying their true intentions.

The new approach to gun control, or “gun safety” in the new parlance, included vehement denials that they wanted to ban guns or take guns away from people, while calling for the banning of certain guns, and campaigns to make more and more people “Prohibited Persons” who can’t legally purchase or possess firearms. In private, every now and then, one of them will quietly admit that total prohibition is still their ultimate objective.

We aren’t surprised that Justice Stevens would support repealing the Second Amendment, but we’re amazed at his candor, and would welcome the opportunity to have an open and honest debate about the right to arms.

While many Americans will say that they feel there is a need for some sort of gun control, that support wanes as they learn more about specific proposals.
“Expanded background checks,” meaning a prohibition on private transfers, is a good example. Polls consistently report that over 80% of Americans support the idea, but when these proposals have actually been put to the voters, the results have been much less impressive. In Washington State, proponents of the measure spent some $14 million dollars pushing their plan, while opponents spent barely $1 million. But even with the lopsided spending on emotional and misleading ads, voters approved the measure by an unimpressive 60%. When a similar initiative was brought to Nevada, the bill passed by less than ½ of 1%, losing in every county except one. When the initiative was brought to voters in Maine it was rejected, and plans to introduce the initiative in Arizona were shelved as the promoters realized that a win there was very unlikely.

Support for gun control wanes as people know and understand details about gun control proposals. So yes, please gun control advocates, do take Justice Stevens’ advice and drop the pretense.

Declare your real objectives, and focus your attention on repealing the Second Amendment. Stop avoiding the phrase “gun control” and hiding behind fake terms like “gun safety,” and let’s have an honest, open debate on the real issue: Our individual right to arms.

We think Justice Stevens is among the worst judges to ever wear the robes, but on this particular question, we fully agree with him: It’s time to stop obfuscating and go for the real prize.

So come on Bloomberg, Schumer, Feinstein, and Soros: Come and take it. We dare you.

Jeff Knox
Jeff Knox

About Jeff Knox:

Jeff Knox is a second-generation political activist and director of The Firearms Coalition. His father Neal Knox led many of the early gun rights battles for your right to keep and bear arms. Read Neal Knox – The Gun Rights War.

The Firearms Coalition is a loose-knit coalition of individual Second Amendment activists, clubs and civil rights organizations. Founded by Neal Knox in 1984, the organization provides support to grassroots activists in the form of education, analysis of current issues, and with a historical perspective of the gun rights movement. The Firearms Coalition has offices in Buckeye, Arizona and Manassas, VA. Visit:

Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Allen ryther

Look, here’s the thing. In order to pass an amendment, or repeal an existing amendment (either would be a way to do away with 2A), you need 2/3rds vote in both houses of congress, and ratification by 38 states (3/4 is 37.5, but you have to round up). Its just never going to happen. I can count 13 states, off the top of my head, that won’t ratify altering 2A. If we ever get to a place where both houses of congress have 2/3rds in favor of altering 2A, you wouldn’t want to live here, anyhow.

July Hunter

If anyone would like to send Mayor Harriet Rosenthal a love message, her email is [email protected] and her phone # is 847-945-3545. In case you didn’t know, she is the C**T who passed laws in Her town, Deerfield Illinois, to ban many firearms with penaltys of $1000/day if you don’t comply. This b**ch is bucking for the Kalergi Plan Award this year. She needs to hear from you soon, if you are so inclined.


I think the anti-gunners are too lazy to actually mount a campaign to amend the Constitution with regard to the 2nd. But if I’m wrong and they do try the legal route and fail, I believe they would just go back to an end run short cut strategy to accomplish their agenda. Still, doing it by the book is the only way forward to avoid harming the country when settling such an important question.


All these gun control advocates and “repeal the second amendment” seem to forget if you can alter one amendment then all can be changed or repealed. Where would that leave all of us? 1939 Germany, Russia, China? Leave the constitution alone and just enjoy your freedoms.


OldVet – we don’t need such a parallel universe, we ALREADY have many other countries that are EXACTLY the gun free ‘utopias’ they claim to want. Funny thing is, all of the ones who said they would move if DJT became president are still and still spouting their lies about guns and law abiding gun owners out of their pie holes.

Richard Hilton

The more I see police responding with shoot first and talk second the more I think it is time to disarm them. Never have I seen so many police shooting in my life ever since Obama start militarizing the police arming them with full automatic weapons and giving them immunity from prosecution for their actions allowing them to hide behind the blue screen of silence and allowing them to believe that they are the law not employee’s of the people to uphold the law they have started going rouge


So come on Bloomberg, Shumer, Not-So-Fine-Stein, Soros and Stevens. Come and take it. Sounds very much like an invitation to a Bolshevik birthday party. The names may have changed but the agenda is the same. It’s all about the safety of the children, don’t you know ?!?! After we get your guns it’s over the barrel and down the hole you go, hehehe ! John 8:44. And let’s hear a hearty one for good old Ex-Sen. Lautenberg the Bolshevik who made it his calling to disband the NJ Militia some decades ago before he did us all a favor and… Read more »



“…it’s the only way of getting them out of our misery.” sounds good in theory, but some younger and bigger ahoe would be waiting in the wings to replace them. The only sure way to get rid of all of them, is to invite everyone of them to the range for a BIG party where they could hold targets for us….;)


Why there has never been an actual effort to repeal the 2nd Amendment? First, it would require a constitutional amendment: 2/3 majorities in the House and Senate or a convention called by 2/3 of the states. Then approval by 3/4 of the states.

Finally, public and popular opinion would never, ever allow for repeal of the Second Amendment. It’s simply politically convenient to avoid discussing 2nd amendment repeal.


If more people were aware of (New Nation they would think twice about dumping the second amendment.


For some reason (perhaps ignorance) people believe the “Bill of Rights” is a gift from government that can be withdrawn by repeal.
The Founders believed that the rights enumerated therein were natural rights conferred by God. They were only included in the Constitution to remind government – in the future – of that fact, and because their experience told them that governments were untrustworthy.

Wild Bill

@WAV, Well stated!

Bill in WV

Read the Second Amendment carefully. It doesn’t give us the right. It states that there is a right, and bans the government from infringing on that right. Every gun law on the books is an infringement and therefore unconstitutional. And repealing the Second Amendment would not do away with the right to keep and bear arms, it just wouldn’t ban the government from infringing on it. The Supreme Court is as political as every other branch of the federal government or all these gun laws would be overturned.

David E. Young

Fact checking of former Justice Stevens’ Heller dissent train wreck of American history arguments against the individual rights intent of the Second Amendment can be found here:

Knowledge is power. Enjoy!


FMCDH, do you have enough ass in your pants to try?

Anton Stegen

I would not support any effort to repeal or modify the second. The enemy is devious and smart and do not forget Hillary won the popular vote.

Richard L

Mr. Stegen, it did not seem to be that popular with the Electoral College.

Rick Bunn

The anti-gun movment is full of those who see their fellow citizens as a personal threat. That get all spun up with the idea that they could be victims. Many of these people cannot comprehend the idea of responsible firearms ownership. They see themselves as the victim in every TV cop show. They do not think objectively. If guns are harder to get they figure they will be safer.


Just like the laws against prayer in public…. they NEVER are observed in foxholes when under fire.

What it will take is for some number of these hoplophobes to face evil on two lags, head on, and survive by\ut barely. then realise that had they BEEN armed and skilled, the score would have been Victim One, Perp Zero. As happens some two millioin times per year, most of the time without any noise above normal voice level.


Tionico – one of the witnesses at San Bruno said exactly that – he wished he had been armed and had been able to stop the shooter before she injured anyone. But, since it was in the san fransicko in kalypornia, he was (and still be) unable to. In fact, I’d be willing to place a gentleman’s wager that he is now on some type of watch list……………….;-(




The point being is they lie about everything!


Legislate-whores & other lib-tards promote gun control because they don’t want their constituents & relatives to get shot up while car-jacking, home-invading, etc. As with abortion-supporters, they like their victims defenseless.

Missouri Born

I wouldn’t trust the idiots in congress to attempt any changes to the constitution, they have proven they aren’t smart enough to make a balanced budget or even do the countries business in a timely fashion.
Leave it alone!

Marc Disabled Vet

No Worries there !
Washington doesn’t work long
enough to get anything done period .
Their already done till September .


The constitution is our base for Freedom, without it, we have no freedom!

Wild Bill

, Not true, The first three articles of the Constitution outline how the three branches of government will be conducted. Only the Bill of Rights portion concerns our freedoms. Those freedoms are pre-political and do not depend upon that document for their existence. If the US Constitution were repealed, our Rights would remain. If the Chinese defeated us and we were occupied, our rights would remain. If David Hogg made himself dictator for life, our Rights would remain.


if that last were to happen, we WOULD retain our rights… and the day he ascends the throne just might become Opening Day of Hogg Season. No license no limit.


It would not be difficult at all if the current move toward a Con-Con succeeds. The entire Constitution could be scrapped by a runaway Convention.

James VJ

But it would be VERY DIFFICULT to pass a constitutional amendment.