bushmaster1313
Member
From Wikipedia:
An Anti I Can Respect
- Thread starter bushmaster1313
- Start date
- Status
Birch Knoll
Member
The man is right. If you want to ban guns, repealing the Second Amendment is the way to do it. It's honest, it's legal, and it doesn't open the door to destroying whatever part of the Constitution you hold dear.
Tommygunn
Member
The problem is, HE'S STILL WRONG!
"In the land of the blind, the man with one eye will be king." ~~ old proverb.
'In the land of the disarmed, the criminal with one gun will be king.' ~~old proverb, revised to fit circumstance.
"In the land of the blind, the man with one eye will be king." ~~ old proverb.
'In the land of the disarmed, the criminal with one gun will be king.' ~~old proverb, revised to fit circumstance.
JohnM
Member
Wut? Yeah let's see, we don't like that part either, let's remove it from the Constitution.
We added a "feel good" amendment once and then went through the process of removing it.
Changes to the Constitution are supposed to be extremely difficult to do.
We added a "feel good" amendment once and then went through the process of removing it.
Changes to the Constitution are supposed to be extremely difficult to do.
bushmaster1313
Member
Fortunately it takes 2/3's of each chamber and 37 states to amend the Constitution.
It may seem honest.
However altering the Bill of Rights is dangerous. The Bill of Rights is sacred, a pillar of our society dating back to the founding of the nation.
Once you remove or adjust the Bill of Rights it loses that sacred quality. From then on it becomes just another 10 pieces of legislation that can be adjusted and altered at will.
Touching the Bill of Rights directly is political suicide and would not be tolerated. However if a precedent was allowed to be set it would would no longer be a sacred document dating back the the founding laying out the basic rights the nation was founded on and the individual States agreed to in order to be added to the Union, and instead just some current pieces of legislation. Then it can be remolded each time Congress thinks a right needs some refinement or alteration, modernization, or is getting in the way too much and needs removal.
However altering the Bill of Rights is dangerous. The Bill of Rights is sacred, a pillar of our society dating back to the founding of the nation.
Once you remove or adjust the Bill of Rights it loses that sacred quality. From then on it becomes just another 10 pieces of legislation that can be adjusted and altered at will.
Touching the Bill of Rights directly is political suicide and would not be tolerated. However if a precedent was allowed to be set it would would no longer be a sacred document dating back the the founding laying out the basic rights the nation was founded on and the individual States agreed to in order to be added to the Union, and instead just some current pieces of legislation. Then it can be remolded each time Congress thinks a right needs some refinement or alteration, modernization, or is getting in the way too much and needs removal.
sig228
Member
Interesting that he's anti gun the way he blasted the State Attorney in the Zimmerman case here in Florida:
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Zimmerman-Trayvon-Angela-Corey/2012/06/05/id/441305
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Zimmerman-Trayvon-Angela-Corey/2012/06/05/id/441305
Repealing a part of the constitution, as much as we don't like the thought of, would not alter history. It would change the way the future might play out. I have a cousin who would like to see the 2nd repealed, and when asked why, his reply is simply: "because that's my opinion, I am entitled to it, just as you are to yours".
rswartsell
Member
It seems to me that the greatest danger to our viewpoint is not in Alan Dereshowitz, but in those that simply MUST shout down any dissent (such as with huge font, colors, etc.).
For some time I have felt that the contingent among us that wants (by any means necessary, to quote Malcom) to suppress civil debate is our greatest liability. This is not in the American (or democratic) tradition that I would like to feed and encourage, and it is antithetical to convincing the undecided.
For what it is worth I agree with Dershowitz's take on the bill of rights and disagree with him about the interpretation of what the 2a is and what is ultimately in the nations best ineterest.
Also, IMHO I believe you simplistic, knee jerk, no quarter, no debate, internet screamers have no committment to democratic process, love for the intent of the founding fathers or ability to persuade anyone.
Have at me.
P.S. Do not live in fear, if you really know you are right, you have nothing to fear.
For some time I have felt that the contingent among us that wants (by any means necessary, to quote Malcom) to suppress civil debate is our greatest liability. This is not in the American (or democratic) tradition that I would like to feed and encourage, and it is antithetical to convincing the undecided.
For what it is worth I agree with Dershowitz's take on the bill of rights and disagree with him about the interpretation of what the 2a is and what is ultimately in the nations best ineterest.
Also, IMHO I believe you simplistic, knee jerk, no quarter, no debate, internet screamers have no committment to democratic process, love for the intent of the founding fathers or ability to persuade anyone.
Have at me.
P.S. Do not live in fear, if you really know you are right, you have nothing to fear.
Last edited:
He's accurately described the tactic of those that keep pushing the 'living document' theory when talking 'bout The Constitution. There is already a mechanism in place for changing it, but those that wish to do so know they can probably never achieve their goal through amending it, thus the living document sound bite that's being pushed on the gullible public.
Just don't let anybody get lulled into thinking Dershowitz is not a rabid anti-gunner despite him calling out those "foolish liberals".
Anyone that has seen a couple of his recent interviews on TV should have been shocked back to reality. In one interview, he went on an out of control rant and actually laid nuclear weapons in the NRA's lap!
That's gotta be a new low - most folks usually stop at bazookas, missles, etc. when trying to smear the NRA and gun owners.
Just don't let anybody get lulled into thinking Dershowitz is not a rabid anti-gunner despite him calling out those "foolish liberals".
Anyone that has seen a couple of his recent interviews on TV should have been shocked back to reality. In one interview, he went on an out of control rant and actually laid nuclear weapons in the NRA's lap!
That's gotta be a new low - most folks usually stop at bazookas, missles, etc. when trying to smear the NRA and gun owners.
rswartsell
Member
Nothing in what I said was intended to give Dershowitz "cart blanche". I know who he is. When he tips his hat to the sanctity of the bill of rights, he is quite simply correct and should be recognized as such.
gc70
Member
Zoogster said:
The Bill of Rights has already been 'adjusted' by the 14th Amendment and the selective incorporation of the first 10 amendments against the states. What were originally powers prohibited to the federal government have been transformed into powers of the federal government over the states.
rswartsell
Member
No, this ain't 1833 (Barron V Baltimore), nor is it 1876 in the time of US v Cruikshank.
It can be damned hard to say where we ARE though with the current version of the Supremes seeming to want to chart their own path regardless of case law.
I hardly think that "states rights" a la South Carolina, nor Rick Perry's "Texas secession" is a rational response to todays circumstances.
Tell me where I am wrong.
It can be damned hard to say where we ARE though with the current version of the Supremes seeming to want to chart their own path regardless of case law.
I hardly think that "states rights" a la South Carolina, nor Rick Perry's "Texas secession" is a rational response to todays circumstances.
Tell me where I am wrong.
guyfromohio
Member
I get the OP. If you don't like a part of the constitution, go about changing it constitutionally. Absolutely.
nyrifleman
Member
The 2nd amendment -- which probably 90% of the people here have memorized -- reads: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The right. The pre-existing right. The right to keep and bear arms is nothing less nor more than "the inalienable right to life" that Jefferson wrote about in the Declaration of Independence -- because a right to life means also a right to have the means to defend it.
The right to keep and bear arms does not disappear if 37 states, 288 Congressmen, 67 Senators and 1 President decide to repeal the 2nd amendment. It would just mean that the right ot keep and bear arms no longer has the protection of the law in the US. But that's all.
And that's where Dershowitz and all the other antis get it dead wrong.
The right. The pre-existing right. The right to keep and bear arms is nothing less nor more than "the inalienable right to life" that Jefferson wrote about in the Declaration of Independence -- because a right to life means also a right to have the means to defend it.
The right to keep and bear arms does not disappear if 37 states, 288 Congressmen, 67 Senators and 1 President decide to repeal the 2nd amendment. It would just mean that the right ot keep and bear arms no longer has the protection of the law in the US. But that's all.
And that's where Dershowitz and all the other antis get it dead wrong.
BSA1
member
Unfortunately under Chief Justice Warren the Supreme Court shifted to interperting and rewritng the laws as it has saw fit. The Supreme Court has continued in this role by becoming a governing body that can rewrite the law without fear of being accountable to the voters.
Liberals are especially fond of using the Court to advance their agenda. Just look at the constraints that have been placed on Christian religion and the advancement of gay rights.
Liberals are especially fond of using the Court to advance their agenda. Just look at the constraints that have been placed on Christian religion and the advancement of gay rights.
Birch Knoll
Member
And yet, that would seem to be the key bit, would it not? What good is a right which you possess in some philosophical or metaphysical sense, but cannot assert in reality? Every innocent ever murdered by a brutal dictatorial regime certainly had the fundamental human right to life, in the same sense.
No legal protection = no right.
Last edited:
This.
Rights are a construct of society, nothing more. They are not given by the fairy godmother or anyone else. It is something people generally agree on.
That said, the 2A will never be repealed. At least not in my lifetime or my children's. The mechanism to do so is too cumbersome and the rewards for those who want it is too small. They will achieve what they want by lobbying state legislature for stricter and stricter control.
Birch Knoll
Member
nneely said:
You cannot respect someone with whom you disagree?
I don't know what that means. Was Dershowitz going to use a time machine to repeal the 2nd before it was enacted, or what?
gatorjames85
Member
I agree with the "legal realism" perspective: our rights are only as good as we are able to enforce their protection.
BoilerUP
Member
The fact that RKBA was purposefully written as the second of our first ten constitutional amendments aside...
I imagine those who think the Second Amendment has outlived its usefulness in a modern society would also be unopposed to repealing the Third Amendment at the same time.
My daddy taught me to 'never say never', but I seriously doubt the United States Congress will ever pass and send to state legislatures a constitutional amendment repealing the Second Amendment.
I imagine those who think the Second Amendment has outlived its usefulness in a modern society would also be unopposed to repealing the Third Amendment at the same time.
My daddy taught me to 'never say never', but I seriously doubt the United States Congress will ever pass and send to state legislatures a constitutional amendment repealing the Second Amendment.
beatledog7
Member
Dershowitz may be anti-gun, but at least understands and respects the only legitimate (i.e., Constitutional) process for curbing RKBA.
The drafters/signers/ratifiers of the Constitution had good reasons for specifying that the process for amendment would be very specific, very difficult, and very separate from the executive and judicial branches.
I'm in no way for repealing 2A, but nor would I have been in favor of Amendments XVI through XVIII. I'd have supported XXI. The point is, we have a process, and we must follow it. I seriously doubt 2A is in any danger of being amended away. It is far more at risk from illegitimate action by the courts.
Heaven help us if a move to repeal 2A should ever succeed, as repeals of other parts of the Bill of Rights would make just as much sense to those who would repeal 2A.
The drafters/signers/ratifiers of the Constitution had good reasons for specifying that the process for amendment would be very specific, very difficult, and very separate from the executive and judicial branches.
I'm in no way for repealing 2A, but nor would I have been in favor of Amendments XVI through XVIII. I'd have supported XXI. The point is, we have a process, and we must follow it. I seriously doubt 2A is in any danger of being amended away. It is far more at risk from illegitimate action by the courts.
Heaven help us if a move to repeal 2A should ever succeed, as repeals of other parts of the Bill of Rights would make just as much sense to those who would repeal 2A.
Birch Knoll
Member
It wasn't. What eventually became the Second Amendment was in fact the fourth article of amendment to the US Constitution. The first two were not ratified at the time. The second article did finally succeed in 1992, and is now the 27th Amendment.
It doesn't matter how sincere you are, it doesn't make it right if you are still wrong, or in the case of Dershowitz just illogical. The Bill of Rights was written first because it is very important and is not to be changed without calm and logical study. The 18th Amendment (Prohibition of Alcohol) was one of the biggest illogical, emotionally based screwups ever made by a Government (and manipulated/brainwashed voters) and has had many horrible repercussions. The Mafia gained much of it's power and influence, countless murders, poisoned/crippled by bad alcohol (see Jake legs), wasted manpower, wasted materials, wasted fuel, and it goes on and on. Thank god the 21st Amendment stopped things before they got even worse, but many bad repurcussions are still being felt as the Mafia still has lots of power.
Human nature doesn't really change so the Bill of Rights is not likely to be changed much either.
The most sincere person you will meet is a maniac chasing you down the street with an axe trying to kill you with it. Sincere, but still very, very wrong.
That line is from Professor Steve Keen, an economist. Not very related to this forum, but if you want to read his website. www.debtdeflation.com/blogs
Human nature doesn't really change so the Bill of Rights is not likely to be changed much either.
The most sincere person you will meet is a maniac chasing you down the street with an axe trying to kill you with it. Sincere, but still very, very wrong.
That line is from Professor Steve Keen, an economist. Not very related to this forum, but if you want to read his website. www.debtdeflation.com/blogs
Last edited:
- Status