1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Repeal Second Amendment, Analyst Advises

Discussion in 'Legal' started by rev214, Jun 12, 2007.

  1. rev214

    rev214 Well-Known Member

    Repeal Second Amendment, Analyst Advises
    By Nathan Burchfiel
    CNSNews.com Staff Writer
    June 12, 2007

    (CNSNews.com) - The Second Amendment guarantees the right of an individual to own guns and for that reason should be repealed, according to a legal affairs analyst who opposes gun ownership.

    "The Second Amendment is one of the clearest statements of right in the Constitution," Benjamin Wittes, a guest scholar at the center-left Brookings Institution, acknowledged in a discussion Monday. "We've had decades of sort of intellectual gymnastics to try to make those words not mean what they say."

    Wittes, who said he has "no particular enthusiasm for the idea of a gun culture," said that rather than try to limit gun ownership through regulation that potentially violates the Second Amendment, opponents of gun ownership should set their sights on repealing the amendment altogether.

    "Rather than debating the meaning of the Second Amendment, I think the appropriate debate is whether we want a Second Amendment," Wittes said. He conceded, however, that the political likelihood of getting the amendment repealed is "pretty limited."

    Wittes said the Second Amendment guarantee of the right to bear arms meant more when it was crafted more than 200 years ago than it does today. Modern society is "much more ambivalent than they [the founders] were about whether gun ownership really is fundamental to liberty," he said.

    "One of the things that they believed was that the right of states to organize militias, and therefore individuals to be armed, was necessary to protect the liberty of those states against the federal government," Wittes said. "This is something we don't really believe as a society anymore."

    But challenging the Second Amendment on the basis that society's circumstances have changed since the drafting would similarly open up to question all other constitutional rights, according to Georgetown University law professor Randy Barnett, who also participated in Monday's discussion.

    "The techniques that are used to show that the Second Amendment really doesn't have any contemporary relevance are absolutely available to anybody who wants to show that aspects of the First Amendment and the Fourth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment have no contemporary relevance," he said.

    Citing the Fourth Amendment, which protects "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures," Barnett argued, "Sure it was fine that persons should be secure in their papers and effects back in the old days when there wasn't a danger of terrorism and mass murder."

    But advocates of warrantless searches could make an "appeal to changing circumstances," on the basis that the Fourth Amendment is "archaic [and] we don't need it anymore," he added.

    Barnett recommended that gun control advocates "not favor methods of interpretation [to criticize the legitimacy of the Second Amendment] that you wouldn't want to put in the hands of political opponents."
  2. Glockman17366

    Glockman17366 Well-Known Member

    I'm sure any such attempts would be met with resounding failure...

    However, I don't think any of the first 10 Amendments can be repealed. The Bill of Rights recognizes these as pre-existing rights...am I correct in that?

    This was sent to both Wittes and the Brookings Institute:

    I sent this e-mail to Wittes.

    I’m sending this to you to for informational purposes.

    If the Brookings Institute supports such foolishness, perhaps they do not deserve the accreditations or any tax payer support they currently enjoy.

    Mr. Wittes does not deserve the term “Scholar” as he apparently doesn’t understand the Bill of Rights.

    -----Original Message-----
    From: EDITED OUT
    Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 12:31 PM
    To: 'bwittes@brookings.edu'
    Subject: Your discussion of repealing the Second Amendment

    I believe you’ll find the first 10 amendments cannot be repealed as they are recognized as pre-existing.

    Please correct your error and report same to the Brookings Institute, Washington Post and any other organizations this has been reported to. It is better you correct your mistake, then have thousands of pro-Rights supporters (such as me) correct your error for you. I expect to read this in an editorial in the Washington Post within a week. A simple apology and withdrawal of the “suggestion” would suffice.

    I’m sure you just tossed this in as a ludicrous attempt at humor since any attempt to do what you suggested would fail miserably. However, it is such statements from the so-called “intelligentsia” that makes us not only despise you more…but to cherish our rights (all of them) even more.

    Basically, sir, you are doing more to erode your credibility then pro-rights people could.
  3. pdowg881

    pdowg881 Well-Known Member

    Yeah and the 1st Ammendment should only aplly to spoken and written words. After all, there wasn't electronic media back in the 1700's so it really isn't something we beleive as a society anymore.

    Who is this guy to speak for all American's beliefs?
  4. RavenVT100

    RavenVT100 Well-Known Member

    Obviously I disagree with him, but give him credit for being honest.
  5. Langenator

    Langenator Well-Known Member

    Of course, if they can find the right to an abortion in the Ninth Amendment, I can find the RKBA in there, as well, even if the repeal the Second.
  6. Tim James

    Tim James Well-Known Member

    Why is this news?
  7. Matt King

    Matt King Well-Known Member

    I was wondering that myself. Can the Bill of Rights be modified or repealed?
  8. buzz_knox

    buzz_knox Well-Known Member

    The Constitution allows them to be amended or eliminated, regardless of their status as rights recognized, not conferred, by the document.
  9. Fly320s

    Fly320s Well-Known Member

    He's already shot down his plan. He acknowledged that the 2nd guarantees a pre-existing, or permanent right, that can not be removed. None of the inalienable rights can be revoked, that's what makes them inalienable. Duh.:rolleyes:
  10. DonP

    DonP Well-Known Member

    It's nice to see an anti admit out loud that the 2nd actually guarantees an individual right to bear arms.

    Why not repeal it? They basically repealed the first amendment with McCain Feingold, didn't they?

    The odds of repealing the 2nd are somewhere below slim to none, but I don't put anything past this bunch of congressional Bozos and thei willing buddies on SCOTUS.
  11. Neo-Luddite

    Neo-Luddite Well-Known Member

    Who is this guy to speak for all American's beliefs?

    Why, he's a guest scholar at the Brooking's Institute.

    He's an academic doing what academics do best--
    letting the world know what he thinks. His use of the phrase
    'gun culture' in the context he uses it clues you in: he's read the playbook from Sorros and the U.N.

    You're right little friend--you'll need to change the Constitution and actually alter the Bill of Rights proper. Let us know how that works out for you.

    (in case you want to put a face with a name):

  12. SWMAN

    SWMAN Well-Known Member

    How 'bout that? A lefty who can read.
  13. Daemon688

    Daemon688 Well-Known Member

    This seems to be a rather recent development. It's only been in the past few months that I've started to see more of these articles emerging. It's good to hear them finally admit the truth. They don't want to just limit, they want to eliminate. It'll just show the public how looney these people are. What's next on the chopping block?

    HUMONGO Well-Known Member

    I blame Lincoln.

    I believe slavery was wrong, but until the Civil War, States had the right to govern as they saw fit. It was anti-federalist as was intended. Preventing the dissolusion of the Union was the turning point of State and individual rights.

    Now with a centralized government, how can we reasonably expect to use the 2nd amendment for it's intended purpose of preventing tyranny?
  15. alucard0822

    alucard0822 Well-Known Member

    Should we expect anything less from someone who has been educated well beyond the need for common sense.
  16. Titan6

    Titan6 member

    Wow. Why don't they just move to China now and get it over with?

    Few people know that mass murder and terrorism were invented 9/11/01. Up until that point the world was a very safe place.The first attempt to repeal the bill of rights took place soon after.

    This is truly the struggle of our time.
  17. cbsbyte

    cbsbyte Well-Known Member

    At least he is being honest. I am not too sure it would be that hard to repeal the second Ad in the future when their will be few gun owners. It might take fifty years but it could happen.
  18. fspitzdorf

    fspitzdorf Well-Known Member

    How can any earthly being take away an inalienable right? Just because it doesn't exist on paper doesn't mean it doesn't exist... Reckon a lot of people neglect and or refuse to comprehend that little tidbit... Guess that is why a few folks chose to put it down on paper... To remind folks that they existed... :banghead:
  19. araiford

    araiford Well-Known Member

    I a not really sure I understand the concept of repealing rights.
    We are endowed with these rights by our creator. How can man repeal such rights?
  20. kcmarine

    kcmarine Well-Known Member

    They can't repeal such rights, but they can keep you from exercising them.

Share This Page