In the wake of the two mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, over the weekend, Sen. Ed Markey reiterated his calls for the Senate to pass “common-sense” legislation to address gun violence, such as universal background checks and bans on military-style weapons and high-capacity magazines.

One of his Democratic primary challengers, Shannon Liss-Riordan, thinks Congress should go further — and repeal the Second Amendment.

“I am tired of half steps, old ideas and fake urgency around the problem we face: the presence of guns in our communities,” Liss-Riordan said in a statement Tuesday morning. “Enough is enough. It is time we take real action and repeal the Second Amendment.”



The Brookline labor attorney, who launched a 2020 bid to unseat the 73-year-old Massachusetts senator in May, said she agreed with the late Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, who argued in a New York Times op-ed in 2018 that the Second Amendment should be repealed. According to Stevens, the concern about the potential threat posed by a national army that led to the adoption of the amendment, which states that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed,” was “a relic of the 18th century.”

“We need leaders in Washington who understand that, and have the courage and the will to fight to repeal the Second Amendment,” Liss-Riordan said.

Markey’s campaign did not (nor did his Senate office) immediately respond to a request for comment Tuesday.

His website says he supports “universal background checks for all firearms sales, reinstituting the ban on assault weapons, making gun trafficking a federal crime, a prohibition against high capacity ammunition magazines, and closure of the loopholes surrounding the creation of undetectable, plastic guns.” It doesn’t list a position on the Second Amendment itself.

Repealing an amendment requires an even higher bar than a normal bill: two-thirds majority approval in the House and Senate, and ratification by 38 of the 50 states.



Following the El Paso and Dayton shootings, Markey and other Democrats have called for the Republican-controlled Senate to take up gun control legislation passed earlier this year in the House of Representatives. However, despite recent mass shootings, Congress has not passed any significant bills aimed at addressing gun violence, due to opposition from Republicans, who have attributed the country’s high rates of gun violence to mental health and violent video games.

International comparisons suggest the number of mass shootings in the United States is due to the availability of firearms and the country’s loose gun laws.

Markey, for his part, has repeatedly introduced a bill to incentivize other states to adopt gun laws more like the stricter licensing standards in Massachusetts. And as a congressman in 1994, the Malden native also successfully urged President Bill Clinton to place an emergency ban on the importation of cheap, semi-automatic assault weapons from China, according to his website.

Liss-Riordan isn’t the only Democrat running against Markey. Framingham businessman Steve Pemberton announced last month that he is also running for Markey’s seat. Pemberton, whose dad was killed by gun violence, told the State House News Service that there should be “a serious discussion about abolishing” the Second Amendment, but that lawmakers should be focused on more attainable reforms, like universal background checks and assault-weapon bans.

“Abolishing the second amendment will take years at best to accomplish,” he told the wire service Tuesday. “We can’t wait for that.”

Just think about the position POTUS is in now if he does nothing they will say he's not a leader, if he does what they want he loses his main supporters, they are holding some good cards the more they lie and play this up the more leverage they will have and the timing is impeccable.

Molon Labe

he could man up tell men and women to accept their responsibility as citizens and order the Army marksmanship unit to start preparing a civilian pistol course and men and women of legal age should meet and form citizens militias and decide on training schedules and duties.

240 years ago every man 16-60 duty was to go armed and be ready to fight at a minutes notice , you want a solution there it is! Women want equality so they should have it and take on the same responsibility.

Trump could also man up and tell this country that they need to be more responsible for taking care of them selves as LEO's are not in place for personal salvation when going out to dinner or a baseball game.

Telling the country to start getting ready for Militia training is exactly what the left wants to hear.

People really do not understand how important the 2nd is to the rest of the Constitution, without it the rest can easily be dismantled !

A play to repeal the 2nd would probably settle it..... one way or the other.

I agree with this, that any solid attempt to repeal it will show just how serious the country is to put up with it, probably would settle the matter once and for all !

I prefer they try it within the next 6 months.

Folks keep talking about the idea that a civil war is coming. I say its already here.

The Left realizes it can't take guns by force, so it's using another weapon . . . the legislature, to take away guns and other freedoms by electoral edict. Elections have consequences.

I was called a troll and unfriended on facebook earlier because a friend said we should do what New Zealand did and ban ALL semi-automatics. I simply pointed out that would mean at least 100 million guns would have to be turned in since NZ bans all semi auto's bigger than a .22 and that would be unconstitutional in the US.One of her friends jumped in and said we would still be able to keep the 2nd. I mentioned the 2nd doesn't apply to certain guns and guns are regulated already. Why toss the baby out with the bath water for a few bad seeds? Then by his logic we should ban most vehicles because people drive drunk. He went on so I said it sounds like "you" want to change the constitution, if so why not stop at the 2nd lets restrict it all better yet lets get rid of it. ROFL

Well that's what will happen once people decide they can live without one, the rest all of a sudden are subject to personal justification as well, which is simply whats going on now, only by emotional rhetoric !

Are we still defending that bunch that writes gun control bills in order to compromise away our birthright while lining their pockets?

Not Defending David- Supporting...

Because deviding and infighting isn't conducive to Keeping our Rights

Maybe someone should remind the BRAIN TRUST on the left that the second was written so that we the people can protect ourselves from them should they take over the government. The well regulated militia is to protect us from our own government should they decide that tyranny is the way they want to govern. I mean have they gone so far left that they have become the enemy of the people at some point. Hope we keep our present POTUS and clear out the liberals in both houses plus add another conservative Supreme Court Justice. Problem solved.

There is no well-regulated militia in the US, but that doesn't mean we don't have a right to form one if necessary.

Me, I'm not willing to risk certain death to keep my semi-autos. Sorry, but I've lived in a world where "assault weapons" and high-capacity magazines were banned, and the world didn't collapse.

My attitude would be different about my single-shot rifles because then we'd be fighting over whether we have any right to keep and bear firearms at all.

Jim

That's disconcerting Jim.

You know beyond all doubt that they will eventually come for all firearms. They have made no bones about eliminating them ALL.

Why not resist them now before they are allowed to consolidate their anti-constitutional behaviors ? We are all dead in the long run. May as well make it worthwhile as far as I'm concerned.

Politically resist, certainly, to our dying (figuratively) breath.

But so far as shooting it out with the LEOs, from the meager fortress of my home, count me out.

That statement assumes the decision to come after my semi-autos is made by a lawfully-elected government.

Jim

SOTUS has already ruled on that in Heller. It IS lawful to possess ... and that decision was made by a lawfully constituted government.

So your gonna wait till you have nothing left but a single shot to defend yourself ?

Not a single shot-a sling shot.