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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rich,

I am glad you called her, and I agree with your sentiments.


However...

I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for her to get off her Crusade against guns. This is her pet project, and has been for years. She'll figure that she hasn't lost her job yet so there is little chance she will.

The only way to stop her is to vote her out. Its part of who she is, not just an issue for her.


John
 
Apparently they are having a big winter in hell. Never thought I would ever see an almost honest Leftie.
Click to expand...

I agree totaly . This man i cannot agree with on almost any point , but i can respect him for being truthfull . He is honest enough that he can be educated to the facts of life and wont simply deny everything he is shown . We need to speak to folks like this , not shun or vilify them .
 
With all due respect, hugh, changing a state constitution and changing the federal constitution are two different animals. And to even think that ANY of the BoR would be up for grabs, you're kidding, right???

I would predeict a second civil war over this, not so much because of the whole denying people's natural right to defend themselves and taking their property, but because for many states, the BoR was a prerequisite for ratification of the Constitution.

I'm fairly confident that many states would, and by right ought to, consider secession should something like this pass, and threaten secession should it even be seriously suggested.

I fear that this country has lost touch with its heritage of Liberty, and that a vast number of my countrymen no longer realize what it is to be free, let alone care. What is said about democracy is true, it goes right down the tubes as soon as the electorate realizes (or thinks, we all know that politicians lie their asses off to get elected) it can vote itself nice gifts from the public treasury. Then, it's just a race to the bottom, a race towards the welfare state.
 
I'll have to go back and look at my copy(I've been looking a bit at the amendment process), but I beleive that there are two ways to amend the Constitution. Only one requires going through Congress. Basically, if you have the 3/4s, you have an amendment.

Mine was going to be financial though. Restricting commerce regulation and fund distribution would pretty much kill a lot of our problems.
 
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...

There's no question that the constitutional order will remain free? And this guy calls himself a liberal? He must have slept through the Patriot Act and Alberto Gonzales's hijinks. The best argument against gun control is George W. Bush.
 
There seems to be some light in the forest. So I decided to try to enlighten him. This is the email I sent. I will report if I get a reply.

Dear Mr. Wittes,

I found your piece on the Second Amendment interesting. However you seem to be confused about the nature and definition of rights. You suggest that "The "central object" of the Second Amendment "is to arm 'We the People". That is incorrect. The central point was to recognize the pre-existing right to arms.

You also wrote "While at the Founding, the Second Amendment may have embodied a "collective" right, " Actually that flies in the face of commentary by the founders and their contemporaries on the subject who make clear it is an individual right that is recognized. Excellent example is Patrick Henry;

"The great object is, that every man be armed."

Patrick Henry

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

-- Thomas Jefferson

More quotes can be found here.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/RKBA/2ndQuotes.html

http://www.burger.com/lib2quot.htm

You went on to write;
"It's time for gun-control supporters to come to grips with the fact that the amendment actually means something in contemporary society. For which reason, I hereby advance a modest proposal: Let's repeal the damned thing."


You missed this commentary by Judge Silberman in the Parker case ruling. "That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution ..."

http://howappealing.law.com/030907.html#023153

You see rights do not come from Government. They come from God or if you are an agnostic, from nature. The government only issues priveledges. Since the second amendment merely recognizes a right, repealing it does not repeal the right.

I lived in the Washington DC metro area back in the 80's when it was considered the murder capitol. I also wrote about it recently. You might find it interesting.

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3451

I view the prohibition in Washington as a folly that has cost thousands of lives and made self protection a crime. Such as in my friend's case, that is madness.

I also noted your comments on the "muskets" of the founders day. True most firearms of the period were single shot muskets. However in 1718 the Puckle gun was produced in England. Surely the founders who were interested in technology like Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin would have been keenly aware of this gun produced some 58 years prior to 1776 when break with "Mother England" was made official.

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

http://ccrkba.org/pub/rkba/news/PuckleGun.htm

They were not a commercial success, but enough were produced and sold abroad that existing examples are still on display in England as well as the Hermitage museum in Russia.

There are plenty of gun books showing hand held flintlocks and even earlier snaphance pistols and rifles that had revolving cylinders that held several shots. They were expensive and somewhat uncommon but never the less I am sure the founders were quite aware of them. They certainly knew of the double barrel flintlock shotguns that were available at the time.

So I hope you see the founders were well aware technology was not going to stand still with single shot firearms and something more advanced would come down the pike. However they made no comment on you must stick to single shot firearms. I do not think they would be surprised or alarmed by the firearm advancements made. They trusted the wisdom of the people so do I. You can not enslave an armed person. That is how the founders wanted it. That reminder to the leaders that if they do get out of line, well as Jefferson put it.

" The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions,
that I wish it to be always kept alive.
It will often be exercised when wrong
but better so than not to be exercised at all.
Thomas Jefferson
Letter to Abigail Adams, February 22, 1787"

He also wrote.

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

- Thomas Jefferson, in letter to William S. Smith, 1787


I am glad you are on the road to accepting that the Second Amendment is indeed an individual right. I also hope you will give some thought to the information I have sent you.

Best.
Tim Inwood.
 
First, a treaty cannot supercede the Constitution. This is settled law.

I'll have to go back and look at my copy(I've been looking a bit at the amendment process), but I beleive that there are two ways to amend the Constitution. Only one requires going through Congress. Basically, if you have the 3/4s, you have an amendment.
Click to expand...

The second way I have heard suggested is to have another Constitutional Convention which means you basically rewrite everything from scratch. I don't think anybody is interested in the mayhem that might cause and it would still require the states to ratify it.
 
repeal takes two/thirds of the states signing off

Tennessee State Constitution Article I Section 26
is pretty clear: the citizens have the right to keep and
bear arms in defense of themselves; the state
reserves the authority to regulate the wearing of
arms in public with a view to prevent crime (carry
for offense is a crime, carry for defense without
a state permit is a crime, and the permit is shall-issue
to qualified applicants.) State court rulings and
state attorney general opinions have also found that
the non-defense use of guns--hunting, protecting
livestock, etc.--are protected and not prohibited
(they are subject to reasonable regulation that has
a legitimate purpose other than a ban).

Now, imagine the Tennessee Legislature signing off
on a repeal of the federal RKBA when the state RKBA
is pretty well entrenched.
 
'Now, imagine the Tennessee Legislature signing off
on a repeal of the federal RKBA when the state RKBA
is pretty well entrenched.'

---They would not as I mentioned earlier. But if they did I think the state would still retain that right if it were in their constitution, unless it were also repealed separately.

But hypothetically in the very unlikely event it was to be repealed you would have states like Texas and Montana that would still have the RKBA while New York and California would be disarmed? I guess... Assuming that a civil war was not triggered over secession I bet the country would suddenly see a mass migration from states without rights to states with rights.

It would not be long before the fed would try to impose will on the free states and that would be the end.
 
BRAVISIMO !

BRAVO!

I LOVED the article. I think all Democrats should admit to it: They disagree with the founding fathers. They should say this loud, often, and publicly. Thomas Jefferson, Madison, (both) Adams, George Washington ... they should get right up in front of the camera and say "who cares what the founding fathers thought, today we KNOW BETTER".

And, let the chips fall where they may.

And, I want Hillary and OBama to be among the first to "come out of the closet" on this.
 
Back in the 1920s or 1930s, the following appeared in The New Republic:
"To have a socialist society we must have a new Constitution."
----The New Republic
 
What a idiot. The outright removal of any of the rights in the Constitution would lead to a very messy civil war. And the last time I checked, there's a lot more gun owners then there are jack booted thugs.
 
I told ya so!!

On March 12th I stated in this post,

My prediction is that the antis will change their focus.

Up until now, the antis have not lobbied for the repeal of the Second Amendment. Instead, they have argued that the Second Amendment only protects the rights of members of the organized militia.

Now that a federal court has ruled the Second Amendment protects an individual right, the antis will lobby for its repeal.

Put another way...

In the past, you were the enemy. You were stupid because you didn't understand the meaning of the Second Amendment. All of that has changed. Now the enemy is the Second Amendment itself.
Click to expand...

And a number of THR members said I was wrong.

Someone owes me a beer... :p
 
Nothing would please me more

than to see the antis approaching gun control this way.

It's a sure way to guarantee a twenty year fight that they will lose. I think.

IMO, it's much more likely they will stay with threading a needle--quit trying banishment or legislation that locks us into banishment (limited or complete) as a "reasonable" solution ('94 AWB, the British-Australian models) and try to exert more onerous legislation on a local or state level.

Is it Bart who's pumping up state activity somewhere on the board? Makes sense to me.

Jim H.
 
Molon Labe... we should be so lucky. Nothing could be better for us, really.

Either they fail (almost certain) and we're golden.
Or they succeed (not at all likely, I don't think), and we're given an absolutely undeniable sign that Claire Wolfe's "awkward stage" is over.

I'm okay with all or nothing. :)
 
The central question of the gun debate has been "what right does the Second Amendment protect?" The antis' traditional tactic has been to go through all kinds of logical gymnastics about how the Constitution only protects "sporting arms" or muskets, and how it allows for "common sense regulations.

If they admit that the Constitution means what it says and that it needs to be changed, they'll have picked a difficult fight indeed. Amending the Constitution and repealing the 2nd would require a nationwide campaign that would destroy the career of any politician involved who doesn't represent a diehard anti-gun area. If the antis can be made to agree that the 2A protects AR15s as well as hunting rifles, they've already lost for all intents and purposes. Once they've taken that position, there's almost no way they can achieve their goals.
 
I'm fairly confident that many states would, and by right ought to, consider secession should something like this pass, and threaten secession should it even be seriously suggested.

I fear that this country has lost touch with its heritage of Liberty, and that a vast number of my countrymen no longer realize what it is to be free, let alone care. What is said about democracy is true, it goes right down the tubes as soon as the electorate realizes (or thinks, we all know that politicians lie their asses off to get elected) it can vote itself nice gifts from the public treasury. Then, it's just a race to the bottom, a race towards the welfare state.
Click to expand...

It seems like crazy talk, but I do believe you are right. I can definitely see a break up of the union should the second amendment be repealed. Yes the feelings run that deep.
I can't help but think the current education system is responsible for a great deal of this kind of garbage intellectual malarkey.
I use to find neosocialists like this annoying, but now I do believe I am beginning to actually despise them.
 
I'm fairly confident that many states would, and by right ought to, consider secession should something like this pass, and threaten secession should it even be seriously suggested.
Click to expand...

sorry, secession was already tried. our 16th president decided that was unacceptable.
 
The Bill of Rights were an addendum added to a contractual document in order to secure its passage. Any repeal of it's contents could be considered fraud in regards to the original agreements governing the Constitution's ratification.

Anyhow, I would agree, a concerted effort to repeal the 2nd that passed would definitely mark the end of Ms. Wolfe's "awkward stage".
 
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