Second Amendment repeal is wishful thinking

Dear Editor: I am writing to you in response to Mr. V. Paul Reynolds’ “Outdoors in Maine” column regarding the Second Amendment to the Constitution in your May 17 issue. Mr. Reynolds writes that retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has called for repeal of the Second Amendment. Justice Stevens calls the Second Amendment a “relic of the 18th century.” New York Times columnist Bret Stephens has made similar arguments in favor of repeal. I have no doubt repealing the Second Amendment would have a profound impact on our country, some might even say scary, but I can assure you it won’t happen, and here’s why. To repeal the Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms, it would require another constitutional amendment. That would require a two-thirds vote in favor of repeal from both houses of Congress, 67 senators and 290 representatives, and then it would require three-quarters of the states to vote in favor of repeal. Each and every state would have a chance to vote on it, and that means the voters, not the state legislature. Can you imagine Mr. Reynolds, or any of the thousands upon thousands of other gun owners in Maine, voting for repeal? Neither can I. At the end of his column, Mr. Reynolds implies, although I’m sure it was unintended, that we shouldn’t trust government because of the multiple failures at many levels surrounding the tragic shooting at the high school in Parkland, Fla. I would remind Mr. Reynolds […]

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.