Be Honest – Try To Repeal The Second Amendment

Status
Not open for further replies.

JJY

Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2006
Messages
92
Location
Virginia
A recent article on an anti-gun website proposed a repeal of the Second Amendment. The normal reaction of a pro-gun rights person may be horror. Upon further consideration, however, such an article should be welcomed. Proposing a repeal of the Second Amendment, is, at least an honest approach to restricting gun rights.

Those who fear guns and gun owners should be honest in their position. It is far more honest to argue that times have changed, and so on, and, as a result, gun rights should be restricted, than to argue the Second Amendment does not mean what it says. Unfortunately, most anti-gun activists don’t seem to be concerned with honesty in the debate and prefer to twist the history and words of the Second Amendment to achieve their desired result. They would rather twist the Second Amendment to have it repeal itself.

Of course, the fundamental right at issue exists separate and apart from the words of the Second Amendment – but that is of no concern to such folks either.
 
This stuff will never end. Why not just repeal the entire Constitution?

I guess it is my automatic reaction to say this will never happen as long as I'm alive.
 
By wanting it repealed, are they no admitting the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms?

This reminds me of a conversation I once had with an anti:

Anti: The Second Amendment only protects the right of the National Guard to keep and bear arms!!!

Me: You're wrong. But believe what you want.

Anti: And we're working hard to repeal the Second Amendment!!!!!

Me: Why? If you believe the Second Amendment does not protect an individual's right to keep and bear arms, and you believe it only protects the right of the National Guard to keep and bear arms, why repeal it?

Anti: Um, um...
 
A logical thinking person would conclude that in order to argue for repeal you would first have to recognize the meaning of the Second Amendment and, if your efforts at repeal failed, accept the meaning of the Second Amendment.

I am not sure however, that I would accuse some hard core anti’s as being logical and thinking.
 
The way I understand it, the Second Amendment only limits the US, and to repeal it would not change a thing ... the US would still have no delegated gun control powers, these powers would still be reserved to each State, and these State powers would still have federal limits relating to the US militia power.
 
I expect a movement to repeal the 2A in my lifetime. Of course I also expect a civil war.

I expect one to lead to the other. And I wouldn't be surprised at either happening first.

As others have mentioned before, to repeal it would acknowledge that it is an individual right. The precedent that it would set should it (and likely would) fail would negate most if not all current gun laws. I don't think the anti's would risk it. IMHO, YMMV.
 
Last edited:
The way I understand it, the Second Amendment only limits the US, and to repeal it would not change a thing ... the US would still have no delegated gun control powers, these powers would still be reserved to each State, and these State powers would still have federal limits relating to the US militia power.

It is my understanding that no state law can trump the constitution. Am I wrong?
 
Yes and No. Some parts of the Constitution and some Amendments apply to the states, but much just applies to the federal government. Originally the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, applied only to the federal government. They were limits on the power of the federal government. They did not restrict states in any way.

But then came the Fourteenth Amendment that has a section that says “no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens …. nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law …nor deny to any person … equal protection of the laws.”

Little by little courts held that parts of the Bill or Rights are included in the Fourteenth Amendment and applied to the states. This is known as the “incorporation doctrine” – that is, parts of the Bill of Rights are incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment. The Second Amendment, as far as I know, has never been specifically held to be incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment and therefore applicable to the states.

There is a lawsuit pending in United State Court of Appeals for DC that may touch on this issue when a decision is rendered.
 
Read My Sigline.

Essentially, the Bill of Rights was a condition of ratifying the Constitution.

Any one of the BofR elements is like a thread that if pulled, unravels the whole thing.

All bets would be off.
 
one of the RINOs has already introduced it as a bill several years ago. It might Have been Chafee. The legislation read:
"The Second ammendment to the constitution is hereby repealed."

It would need a super majority to become law and it is debatable whether you can amend part of the Bill of Rights out of existence in the same way they repealed prohibition.
 
ignorance is the problem

has anybody ever tried arguing with a idiot?
well, this is the same thing...
not worth the fight unless its WHERE IT COUNTS.
 
Erasing the Second Amendment would not limit gun rights. Similarly, a Supreme Court decision that says the Second Amendment really only concerns state militia would not limit gun rights. It would just take the Second Amendment out of the picture. The right exists with or without the Second Amendment. See the Ninth Amendment.

To accomplish want anti’s want, the repeal of the Second Amendment would have to include an affirmative removal of the right, not just erase the protection of the right.

I have some time today – think I will create a thread about the Ninth Amendment.
 
For years whenever I find myself in a discussion with someone who is opposed to firearms I generally ask, "Why do you feel that way? Please be specific."

It is much easier to have a discussion of this nature when you ask them to be specific about their stance. You'll usually find their position to be very emotional and not factual. If one has his wits about him, one can usually get the other to begin to think about their position. We gain allies by thoughtful conversation rather than argument.

The problem with the 2A is that those who are statists read more into the amendment that what is there. You have to remember a statist believes the government is more important than the individual.
 
The day someone repeals the Second Amendment is the same day that person is going to have to repeal my foot out of their ass.
 
Repealing the 2nd wouldn't get them where they want to go.

There's that pesky 5th amendment that'll prove an even tougher nut to crack.

Pet peeve of mine: The Austrailian buy-back was not a confiscation. It was more along the lines of eminent domain. Our friends at the NRA and GOA might get a piddle more donation with the hot button term "confiscation" but it was not a confiscation.

Unlike Oz, we have over 300,000,000 firearms in private hands, 70,000,000 of them handguns. Want to see an anti crawfish? Ask them what their intentions are regarding the 70 Mil handguns extant. If they're left in circulation, nothing they do regarding new sales will have an impact on the supply pool for decades if not centuries. If they try a buyback, what will it cost and who pays? Sarah isn't paying - I get mailings from her; she's broke.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

We do ourselves a disservice bandying about terms like "confiscation" - it lets them off the hook regarding who pays for their utopia.
 
Get an accurate ASCII text copy of the US Constitution.

Search for the word "right"--the only hit is the part about
granting authors and inventors the right to benefit from
their creations (the section on copyrights and patents).

Government entities--President, Congress, Supreme Court,
States, the United States--have Powers or Authorities--
not rights.

Get an accurate ASCII text version of the Bill of Rights.
Search for the phrase "right of the people" and it pops up
in the 1st, 2nd and 4th Amendments.

If the right of the people to keep and bear arms means
only the National Guard has the right to keep and bear arms,
I guess only the National Guard has the right to peaceable
assembly and the right to be secure against unreasonable
search and seizure.

The arguments used to deny the right of the people to keep
and bear arms are as convoluted and bogus as the arguments
used to deny free persons of color the right to vote.
 
nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

There would be two easy ways around this. The SCOTUS has already made a decision that included the congressional debate and vote as 'due process of law' in some instances, therefore, it could be an easy jump for them to decide that a gun confiscation law is constitutional because it had its due process.

The other way would be to label public health and safety as a public use argument (hey, its worked with eminent domain already) and then deliver $10 for each gun as just compensation.
 
Just let an anti-gunner have the same Unitary Executive Authority that we have ceded to George *spit* Bush and your supposed right to keep and bear arms will mean absolutely nothing. We no longer have a Fourth, Fifth or Eighth Ammendment. We have lost habeas corpus. We have decided that anyone can be held forever without charge or trial. Coerced confessions are legal. So is torture.

And you really think that anyone is going to care about your "right" to have weapons? Get real. We've entered the Post-Constitutional age.
 
$10 for each gun as just compensation.

Didn't happen in Britain or Austrailia - not likely our numbers would be worse.

Besides, how much would it cost to fight 80,000,000 lawyers arguing unjust compensation?

SCOTUS saying a non-discretionary sale is constitutional is a long stretch from saying they can be stolen. Most of the eminent domain issues are "whether" rather than "how much".

They can't suddenly turn up as contraband either - ex post facto prohibitions are in the constitution - don't even need an amendment for that.
 
Government entities--President, Congress, Supreme Court,
States, the United States--have Powers or Authorities--
not rights.
Incorrect...

From the Articles of Conferation:
"the sole and exclusive right and power of regulating the alloy and value of coin struck by their own authority, or by that of the states"
and...
"Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and RIGHT, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."

Proposed amendents from state conventions:
"North Carolina's proposed amendment declared '[t]hat each state in the Union shall respectively retain every power, jurisdiction and right.' South Carolina sought to prohibit a construction that 'the states do not retain every power not expressly relinquished by them and vested in the general government of the Union.' Virginia's proposal insisted ['t]hat each state in the Union shall respectively retain every power, jurisdiction and right,' which is not by this constitution delegated to the congress of the United States."

Constitutional Convention August 18-20, 1787:
In Convention. -- Mr. PINCKNEY submitted to the House, in order
to be referred to the committee of detail, the following propositions: --
"The United States shall be forever considered as one body corporate and politic in law, and entitled to all the RIGHTS, privileges, and immunities, which to bodies corporate do or ought to appertain."

"To fix, and permanently establish, the seat of government of the United States, in Which they shall possess the exclusive RIGHT of soil and jurisdiction."

"Mr. KING moved to insert, before the word "power," word "sole," giving the United States the exclusive RIGHT to declare the punishment of treason.

"Mr. WILSON. In cases of a general nature, treason can only be against the United States; and in such they should have the sole RIGHT to declare the punishment;"

Below are quotes from three JURISTS, who were contemporaries of the founders, and published constitutional commentaries in the early 19th century. The quotes here are only a SAMPLE. These commentaries are sprinkled with references to rights and powers of governments.

The commentator's below are referenced by date published.

St. George Tucker:
"The state governments not only retain every power, jurisdiction, and RIGHT not delegated to the United States, by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, but they are constituent and necessary parts of the federal government"

"it is likewise a maxim of political law, that sovereign states cannot be deprived of any of their RIGHTS by implication; nor in any manner whatever by their own voluntary consent, or by submission to a conqueror."

"From the moment of the revolution they became severally independent and sovereign states, possessing all the RIGHTS, jurisdiction, and authority, that other sovereign states, however constituted, or by whatever title denominated, possess."

"Whether this original compact be considered as merely federal, or social, and national, it is that instrument by which power is created on the one hand, and obedience exacted on the other. As federal it is to be construed strictly, in all cases where the antecedent RIGHTS of a state may be drawn in question."

"The sum of all which appears to be, that the powers delegated to the federal government, are, in all cases, to receive the most strict construction that the instrument will bear, where the RIGHTS of a state or of the people, either collectively, or individually, may be drawn in question."

William Rawle:

"A high function also appertains to the judiciary in the EXCLUSIVE RIGHT to expound the Constitution, and thereby to test the validity of all the acts of the legislature."

"The natural inclination of those who possess power, is to increase it. History shows that to enlarge the description of treason has often been resorted to as one of the means of increasing power. To have left to the legislature an unlimited RIGHT to declare what should amount to this crime would have been less consistent with public safety, than to fix, by common consent, its plain definition and exact limits."

"The United States, therefore, justly reserved to themselves the RIGHT to punish this high offence, and the state courts, since the adoption of the
Constitution, have abstained from intermeddling with prosecutions on account of it."

Joseph Story (appointed to the Supreme Court by James Madison.)

"The first resolution adopted by the convention on this subject of the powers of the general government, was that the national legislature ought to be empowered to enjoy the legislative RIGHTS vested in congress by the confederation, and moreover..."

"Nor can any power be inferred in the states to regulate commerce from other clauses in the constitution, or the acknowledged RIGHTS exercised by the states."

"While this sheet was passing through the press, President Jackson's Proclamation of the 10th of December, 1832, concerning the recent Ordinance of South-Carolina on the subject of the tariff, appeared. That document contains a most elaborate view of several questions, which have been discussed in this and the preceding volume, especially respecting the supremacy of the laws of the Union; the RIGHT of the judiciary to decide upon the constitutionality of those laws; and the total repugnancy to
the constitution of the modern doctrine of nullification asserted in that
ordinance. As a state paper it is entitled to very high praise for the clearness, force, and eloquence, with which it has defended the RIGHTS and POWERS of the national government. I gladly copy into these pages some of its important passages, as among time ablest commentaries ever offered upon the constitution."

[the following are selective quotes from Jackson within the above passage]

'"The constitution has given expressly to congress the RIGHT of raising revenue, and of determining the sum the public exigencies will require. The states have no control over the exercise of this RIGHT, other than that, which results from the power of changing the representatives, who abuse it, and thus procure redress. Congress may undoubtedly abuse this discretionary power, but the same may be said of others, with which they are vested.'

"What are they? Every law, then, for raising revenue, according to the South-Carolina Ordinance, may be rightfully annulled, unless it be so framed, as no law ever will or can be framed. Congress have a RIGHT to pass law for raising revenue, and each state has a RIGHT to oppose their execution, two rights directly opposed to each other; "

"No one, fellow citizens, has a higher reverence for the reserved RIGHTS of the states, than the magistrate, who now addresses you."

The above quotes aren't flukes, there's plenty more where they came from.
 
Ieyasu,

You have a lot of sources, but not the COTUS.

The Articles of Confederation were pre-Constitution, and thrown out. State constitutions were not what Carl was referring to. And judge decisions may have an impact on how things operate, but one mans opinion does not grant a right.

The Consitution of the US grants powers and authorities to the government, not rights. In reality, the BOR doesn;t actually label our rights, it labels restrictions on what can be legislated. The BOR takes the POV that you have many inalienable rights, and the government shall keep its hands off. (At least, the government was supposed to.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top