Dem's view on the 2nd Amendment: Repeal it.

Status
Not open for further replies.
That's a good article. He makes a good point: the 2nd amend might actually mean something and have some legal force. Yup! If they want to get rid of the meaning of the 2nd then they need to repeal it.

The good news for us is that that would be politically impossible. Beyond impossible. The amendment process is not easy.
 
Elza said:
Not that I wish to be a harbinger of doom but a repeal the 2nd is the least of our worries. I’m far more concerned about a “treaty” with the U.N. A treaty with the U.N. supercedes all sovereign law including the Constitution. All that is required is the approval of the Senate and the signature of the President. Think about what we now have in the Senate and are about to have for a President.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that isn't correct; it is my understanding that the US Constitution supersedes treaties, which are essentially "federal law" as far as hierarchy/status goes...

Though if the NRA's understanding is in line with yours it'd make some of the American Riflemen anti-UN articles make a little more sense...
 
some gun grabber said:
On a more esoteric level, the Second Amendment's protection for militias reflected the importance the Founders attached to an armed citizenry as a protection against tyrannical government. This made sense at the time. The Founders had a lot of experience with oppressive rulers and little idea whether the constitutional order they were setting up would remain free; maybe they would need to overthrow it sometime. After more than two centuries of constitutional government, however, it's safe to assume that neither an armed citizenry nor a well-regulated militia really is "necessary to the security of a free State."
Click to expand...

Umm, the very fact there are people like this anti who wish to forcibly disarm us proves tyranny is in fact still possible. Hello cognitive dissonance...
 
Umm, the very fact there are people like this anti who wish to forcibly disarm us proves tyranny is in fact still possible.
Click to expand...

Heh heh. Just by saying what they are saying they justify the existence of the Second Amendment.

I'm going to take the M14 to the range for a while just in case, be back later.:evil:
 
To Igloodude

I’ll be the first to admit that I haven’t read the U.N. charter so I don’t know exactly what the signatories agree to. However, this is what I have always been told and the U.N. has been salivating for a “gun ban treaty” with the U.S. for a long time. I have always assumed this to be the basis for the “one world order” mentality.
 
The Bill of Rights is sacred, but it is not so sacred that we should prefer lying to ourselves about what it actually says, rather than changing it as our needs shift.
Click to expand...


Ask yourself WHAT needs the governent has in disarming us.


Remember, the 2A is the last defense against tyranny from the government. It should come as no surprise that supporters of a powerful central government WOULD desire there to be no defense against their NEEDS.


We live in strange times, people. All those beltbuckles and T-Shirts we used to see that said "when they pry it from my cold dead hands" better mean something to Americans.

Since Bush Sr. we have had, for the large part, presidents who desired to consolidate federal governmental power. Listening to Fox News this morning, I realized that there really isn't a voice in the media standing against this. It seems momentium is forming for the elimnation of our ability to resist or defend ourselves. The next step is the rest of our Rights.


Not that I wish to be a harbinger of doom but a repeal the 2nd is the least of our worries. I’m far more concerned about a “treaty” with the U.N. A treaty with the U.N. supercedes all sovereign law including the Constitution.
Click to expand...


I am no constitutional lawyer, but I have read a bit about this. NO treaty can supercede the Constitution of the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_law_of_the_United_States

...an international agreement that is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution is void under domestic U.S. law, the same as any other federal law in conflict with the Constitution, and the Supreme Court could rule a treaty provision to be unconstitutional and void under domestic law, although it has never done so.
Click to expand...

John
 
This is nothing new. The LEFT has been saying this for decades. Really I am not surprised by this. What I am surprised by is how those of the left read and think of the Constitution. They have a large part of our Citizens thinking like they do. They have the ACLU types who SEEM to uphold the Constitution but they really don't. They uphold their IDEA of what it should mean. Remember they are the people who want to MAKE UP rights like those of the USSR. They want people to have a RIGHT to food, shelter, medical care and a job. That sounds so good to so many cause they have NO idea what that will mean. The left screams of POLICE STATE then at the same time pushes policies that not only would disarm citizens but would demand a POLICE STATE to implliment their NEW RIGHTS and the hugh WELFARE state they want. Their who idea of democracy and rights is a PERVERSION. It is a trap. It is anti-liberty and freedom. It is SOCIALISM which is not and can not live along with liberty and freedom. Oh citizens need to wake up and quit selling their soul and vote for a governmentsl hand out. :banghead:
 
But the simple truth is that the individual-rights view is in intellectual ascendancy, and not just among gun-loving wing nuts. If Silberman is a radical with blithe disregard for public safety, he is in exceptionally strong company.
Click to expand...

My, GOD, I am a gun loving wing nut job, xtrodiaire!!!!!!!!!!!! If this guy thinks that Silberman is a radical, he'd think I'm totally gone, seeing how I think that the "and bear arms" means one can carry open or concealed, if you're not a convicted felon. After all, a convicted felon will carry concealed whether or not the law says he can or can't. So, why can't we carry without a concealed carry permit?:neener: :what: :eek:
 
Well the Democratic party could make a serious attempt to repeal the 2nd. The backdoor attempts they've made so far have cost them dearly though, and I think this article shows that 1) if you're in a hole, stop digging 2) ignore any fool who tells you to keep digging. The question is, will the Democratic party leadership see it this way?
 
I've often wondered just how many millions of us gun owning worker peasants and serfs, Mr. Wittes and his like minions, will have marched into the gas showers??

Six and one half million? Twelve million?? Fifty million? Eighty million?

Afterall, their greatest modern heros, Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Kim Sung Il, etc., have certainly paved the way for them.

I can see it now: ten or fifteen million armed men and women worker peasants, marching in lock step into the death camps, while the good Marxist Socialist inspired liberals and politicians have a merry time as they eat cake, caviar, and drink champagne.

Won't that be a sight?

L.W.
 
Elza said:
To Igloodude

I’ll be the first to admit that I haven’t read the U.N. charter so I don’t know exactly what the signatories agree to. However, this is what I have always been told and the U.N. has been salivating for a “gun ban treaty” with the U.S. for a long time. I have always assumed this to be the basis for the “one world order” mentality.
Click to expand...

I believe that the UN would like to restrict small arms on a global level, and the NRA publications that I read have tended to give the impression that the UN can impose its will on the US. But, if you think about it logically, the framers of the US Constitution (fairly smart fellows) would hardly put the foundational structure of the government into a document that can only be changed via 3/4 of the state legislatures' approval (a very high bar), and then allow it to be overriden with a mere 2/3 vote of the federal senate, a president, and a foreign head of state.
 
Don't we all know what's coming? Who cares if a "new majority" manage to repeal the Second Amendment or some future Prez signs a U.N. Treaty that de facto repeals it?

Our situation is the same: we have to decide if we want to remain a free people. Those who do will do what's necessary.
 
Creeping Incrementalism

Repeal 2nd amendment = Repeal Constitution = U.S.A becomes English-speaking(?) Nazi Germany = Bad news for citizens and those who don't fit the dictator's "perfect person"
 
I have a friend and Lodge brother who is considered by most to be one of the best legal minds around. I’ll see him at Lodge tomorrow and ask him what he thinks. I had never thought to do so until this discussion came up. I’d really like to have an answer to this myself.

Letting SCOTUS sort it out doesn’t thrill me too much. Anymore, judges (including SCOTUS) have a bad habit of making law instead of applying it!
 
What States would ratify the repealing of the Second Amendment? I'm thinking maybe Hawaii? Then they only need 37 more States to come on board. :rolleyes:
 
As I said, it would be beyond impossible to do it. I can count maybe a dozen states that would say "yes", but a dozen is far from 38. It would never past Congress anyway.
 
I'm sure the states that still don't allow CCW under any circumstances might vote to repeal.

That leaves another... what, 35?

And then maybe the 5 or 6 that don't have RKBA in their state constitutions.

Okay we're down to them needing 30 more... :neener:
 
I disagree. If it passed all of those state houses congress sure would jump aboard if they want to keep their jobs; unless there was some kind of huge time lag.

But it never will. Keep in mind we only have to have 13 states opposed to the repeal. I can think of 13 states off the top of my head that have second ammendment rights built into their own constitution. They would never go along.
 
To put the matter simply, the Founders were wrong about the importance of guns to a free society.
Click to expand...

No, sir, they were very correct. Your interpretation of history is lacking.

The 2ndA gives a legal voice to what already exists without it: the human right to self-defense. You threaten my basic right to protect myself, my family, my nation.
 
Dems view on the 2nd Admendment:Repeal it

I just got off the phone with Reps Carolyn McCarthys office in New York, I told her rep that if 1022 should pass, she can join me in the UNEMPLOYMENT LINE!!!!!!!!!!!!! Rich Ziemies,Omaha,Ne. P.S.AND THAT IS THE SAME FOR THE SPONSORS OF HR 1022!!!!!!!!!:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
 
It seems clear to me that the BOR not only can be modified, it has been modified. It originally limited only the US, but the 14th "Amendment" has been used to modify much of the USBOR. In fact, the way most everyone views the USBOR is, I believe, quite foreign to what was originally declared.

It's a little hard for me to understand the confusion ... if 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the States want to amend the Constitution, is there supposed to be some mighty monarch that can step in tell us "no"? Of course the USBOR can be changed.

Virginia changed its BOR in the 1970's ... our RKBA amendment was changed to add a blurb about the right of the people.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

R
  • Locked
Scope of 2nd Amendment's Questioned
2 3
Replies
60
Views
2K
glummer
G
C
  • Locked
Federal Judge Laurence Silberman on the 2nd Amendment
Replies
2
Views
762
MisterMike
M
W
  • Locked
Is Anybody Still Awake at the White House?:WSJ View of DOJ Heller-DC Brief
Replies
3
Views
462
esq_stu
E
T
  • Locked
liberal columnist defends D.C. Circuit's Parker ruling
Replies
1
Views
403
ApexinM3
A
R
  • Locked
Repeal Second Amendment, Analyst Advises
2 3 4
Replies
80
Views
4K
obxned
O
Back
Top