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

[Dmack_901]

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.

I'm not 100% that it's the same for the federal gov. but as constitutional conventions apply to states I know there have been several, and they do not require a complete re-do. They can can change from zero or one words, to the whole thing.

That said, I pray to god that no one takes this seriously, beacuse that repeal would mean the end of this, so nearly perfect ,Union.

 

[longeyes]

That said, I pray to god that no one takes this seriously, beacuse that repeal would mean the end of this, so nearly perfect ,Union.

You think there's a "Union" now? Really?

If we continue pushing unity above liberty we can kiss what's left of America goodbye.

 

[thexrayboy]

You think there's a "Union" now? Really?

If we continue pushing unity above liberty we can kiss what's left of America goodbye.

You are oh so right on that one. Nothing, not security, not unity, not peace
is worth having if it means sacrificing liberty.

 

[DreamofaFreeIreland]

I've been a long-time reader of THR, but never really felt a need to post. Then I got to reading the 'political' section of the forums. I do not think we should divide ourselves in columns of "left" and right," since we are all Americans. We are also too complex in most cases to sum up in a single, clean-cut definition.

I support the Second Amendment to it's fullest meaning, as envisioned by the Founding Fathers -- the general public (militia) is FREE to own and possess weaponry equal to that of our own and/or any opposing military force. Why? We, the people of the United States, have the RIGHT to protect ourselves from each other, our own government and/or any invading army foolish enough to land on our shores. Our strength is in our populace. An armed populace is a free populace.

Don't lump all Democrats into this nonsense, and then give Republicans a free pass when they do more to move us in the direction of Nazi Germany than any Democrat has. Let's keep our analogies straight. Nazi Germany was built by conservatives. Communist Russia was built by liberals. They were both horrible, and they both rightly fell. Our freedoms are infringed upon by Republicans, but I hear no "rightwing" outrage. If Bush was a Democrat, I have a feeling every "conservative" would be calling for his impeachment for everything he has done. If I described Bush w/o mentioning his name, I guarantee most people that voted for him would think I was describing Ted Kennedy...

1) Born to a rich family in New Haven, Connecticut
2) High school @ Phillips Academy in Andover, Massachusetts
3) Undergrad @ Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut
4) Member of 'Skull and Bones' @ Yale University
5) Grad school @ Harvard Business School in Cambridge, Massachusetts
6) Illegal wiretaps
7) Lying to get the war he wants
8) Using the Department of Justice as his own political stormtroopers

People hide behind labels too much. Americans must meet in the middle, if we truly want to be able to resist the government should the time come. Far too many "red staters" will actually be the Gov't Stormtroopers marching through your town, and far too many "blue staters" won't know how to pick up a gun to defend our lost freedoms. Is either side truly better than the other?

Republicans controlled Congress for 12 years. They've controlled the White House for 7. We still have the National Firearms Act. We still have the ATF imposing idiotic rules and violating our rights. We still have States free to remove those rights with no valid reason. Republicans can't seem to work hard to protect our Second Amendment rights, but they can work their butts off to attack homosexuals' rights and prevent stem cell research. Why give one set of politicians credit for something neither side gets right?

In the end, we're all Americans. Act like it. No matter what your political affiliation, you have the responsibility of teaching people about our Rights and how best to protect them.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~ Benjamin Franklin, 1759

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive." ~ Noah Webster, 1787

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." ~ Tenche Coxe, 1788

I'm a Democrat and a descendant of Revolutionary War militia officers. I'd rather stand with Reds and Blues than watch one side run while the other goosesteps, both actions out of ignorance.

 

[Liberal Gun Nut]

That said, I pray to god that no one takes this seriously, beacuse that repeal would mean the end of this, so nearly perfect ,Union.

Dude it's flat-out impossible. The Dems are not even going to be able to pass an AWB this time. Last time they had the white house and the Congress they did pass an AWB which was so watered-down as to be almost meaningless. Talking about repealing the 2nd amend is so far-fetched, it's beyond discussion.

 

[Flyboy]

If a member posts to a board, and nobody reads his post, is he really there?

 

[Cosmoline]

I can live with those battle lines. Even if it's really possible to repeal a part of the BOR without tearing the whole Constitution apart, the effort is far beyond anything the antis could manage.

 

[Trebor]

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.

Yeah, but if they are still *Armed* "men and women worker peasants" the authorities might have a bit of a surprise when they try to march them to the camps.

 

[Trebor]

Quote:
sorry, secession was already tried. our 16th president decided that was unacceptable.

well if at first you don't secede....

Owww! I think Kaylee gets the prize for best post on this thread. I actually winced when I read that.

 

[Soybomb]

I applaud the author's honesty about his goal. I'm not sure that I believe a man can tell another he has no right to defense any more than he could revoke another mans right to free speech, but at least he's calling his goal what it is.

 

[Cybrludite]

Dream, keep on ignoring the "Socialist" and "Workers" parts of the "National Socialist German Workers Party"... Oh, and five minutes in the penalty-box for a Godwin's Law violation.

 

[cuchulainn]

Godwin's Law was violated, repeatedly, about 30 posts ago. What's one more matter?

 

[Titan6]

(-sigh-)
He did not break the law merely proved it. It does always come to that does it not? Fascism is right wing after all. And no one here on THR is ever critical of the right..... except all the people who are... anyway...

I don't see a Constitutional Convention in our near Future. As much as it might help the cause the Brady's and most of the other anti-PACs can't easily call for one. A call for repeal would make them all look like liars even to their supporters. They have always said that they are not against responsible gun ownership (as defined by them of course).

No sane politician in Federal office will call for it as it would be career suicide. But it is refreshing to hear someone admit to something that the rest of the antis will not.

 

[shield20]

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."

I am glad this idiot can put a time line on tyranny; I didn't realize the oppurtunity for usurpers had passed...anybody know when??? Does he think all the predictions of the anti-federalists coming true would take 20 years? 50 years? 100 years? 200 years? Hmmmm....I think 250 sounds about right.

Would he like to compare our "freedoms" today with those of 220 years ago? Would he like to compare the (over)reach of govt today with that of 220 years ago? And that of what was intended? Does he really want to question the wisdom of the founders, and their knowledge of what the future might hold? Why would someone think the road to tryanny would be laid in one fell swoop, and not be put in place gradually - each siginificant event used to further separate the people from the power. Plus, I think what even the anti-federalists missed was the willingness of so many of the people to happily go along with the usurption of their liberties.

Yet this bozo wants to tell us "he knows better". Sheesh.

 

[farscott]

My guess is that the antis will try to repeal the 2nd Amendment based on the following logic:

1) The right to keep and bear arms in an individual right.

2) As such, any existing federal laws on arms and weapons are null and void once the laws are challenged in federal court.

3) As a result, people will be able to purchase weapons of mass destruction, including tanks, nuclear weapons, rockets, and machine guns. We predict there will be blood in the streets of America and terrorists will buy these weapons to attack us.

4) As a society, we really do not want number three to happen, so we need to amend the Constitution so that it cannot. Do we really want people to have WMD? If not, then the 2nd Amendment is not an absolute right and the Constitution should reflect that. We propose that it be amended to say the following ....

My point is that the argument will be simplistic and designed to get people to say, "No one needs a rocket, so the 2nd Amendment cannot be absolute". Of course, there will be some blather about allowing sporting firearms. That way the process seems to make sense to sensible people.

A lot of people will go along with the idea of eliminating the 2nd Amendment so as to draw a bright line about what kind of weapons people are allowed.

 

[QuestionEverything]

The best argument against that is that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to arms that can be kept and borne by an individual, i.e. no tanks or WMDs. I'd like to see the NFA go, but that probably isn't possible at this point in time so the argument can be made that licensing and regulating (as opposed to banning) select-fire weapons and destructive devices is an acceptable compromise under the 2A. If the registry can be re-opened the licensing requirement won't be that much of a pain anyway.

What should be insisted on is that the 2A does not allow for banning the ownership of any weapon, and that licenses and registration are only acceptable for the most destructive weaponry. That will wipe out any DC-style laws and AWBs.

 

[farscott]

The best argument against that is that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to arms that can be kept and borne by an individual, i.e. no tanks or WMDs.

But I can carry a Stinger missile, a RPG, and/or a "back pack" nuke. Does that mean these weapons are addressed by the 2nd Amendment? After all, they make a lot of sense as militia weapons. If not, where is the line drawn?

 

[longeyes]

The 2A doesn't have to be repealed, it can be de facto "suspended" during a crisis small or large--by government fiat--"for the children," "for public safety," and to me this seems like the most plausible and dangerous scenario for our side. The likelihood of "psychotic outbreaks," a la Columbine or sporadic terrorist acts on a local level (shopping malls, schools) is, to my mind, very high. We can already predict the probable course of action that would be taken by Government--and this probabllity would only increase if left-leaning pols ascend to the White House in '09.

Do red and blue state RKBA-believers need to pull together? Of course, but we also have to recognize that half this country is, realistically, a lost cause. I have floated the concept of secession in these pages in the past. I don't consider that a radical idea, just an idea whose time will come when we finally recognize that "unity" and "diversity" now both mean a de facto socialist America.

 

[QuestionEverything]

The Stinger and RPG are now regulated under the NFA and that wouldn't change; like I said, the argument can be made that full-autos and DDs may be regulated without truly "infringing" the RKBA. That will defeat the anti argument that if the 2A is upheld machine guns and rocket launchers will be flooding the streets. If a pro-2A decision is made, hopefully some of that momentum can be carried over into a movement to re-open the NFA registry.

Nukes are kind of the Godwin's Law of gun rights discussions. Personally, while the 2A doesn't specifically state this, I don't think there's a right to own things that inflict mass, indiscriminate destruction on the scale of a nuke, nor do I think that such things should exist in the first place.

Backpack nukes aren't a very good infantry weapon anyway; if one of your troops gets killed and his nuke gets stolen, you've got problems. The military was considering deploying them in the 1980s IIRC, but decided not to for that reason.

 

[Art Eatman]

I see it as a wonderful exercise in futility to argue about "arms". Face it: The individual cargo-ship owners had cannon on board. Local militia groups owned cannon, with the local rich guy having made the purchase. Even much later on, it was the hunting with a punt gun of four-bore that was made illegal, not its use in general.

Nothing in the Constitution or BOR speaks to specific weapon types. Arguing about what is meant by "arms", seems to me, accomplishes nothing. Suffice that nobody need fear an honest neighbor, no matter what is possessed.

We have ordinances against disturbance and undue noise. It is a crime to damage property. So, don't tear up the pavement with your Abrams. Don't shoot the cannon where it would bother folks. Ain't that easy?

Art

 

[rmurfster]

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.

Unfortunately, my friend, a Treaty is on equal grounds with the Constitution (Article VI, PP1) and can be made by the President provided that "two thirds of the Senators present concur" (Article II, Section 2, PP2).

Some say that Treaties trump the Constitution. I don't see that within the Constitution, but think about it... If a treaty conflicts with the Constitution, then the Supreme Court would have to decide which one was binding (Article III, Section 2). In order for the Supreme Court to hear the case, someone would be imprisoned by the effect of the Treaty and then it would trickle up to the Supreme Court. So in effect, a Treaty would trump the Constitution at the will of the Court.

As far as the UN, I believe that we have already agreed to be bound by the UN, so if the UN decides Guns are illegal, then by Treaty, that becomes part of the Constitution.

 

[QuestionEverything]

Nothing in the Constitution or BOR speaks to specific weapon types. Arguing about what is meant by "arms", seems to me, accomplishes nothing. Suffice that nobody need fear an honest neighbor, no matter what is possessed.

We have ordinances against disturbance and undue noise. It is a crime to damage property. So, don't tear up the pavement with your Abrams. Don't shoot the cannon where it would bother folks. Ain't that easy?

I wouldn't be worried about people committing crimes with tanks and cannons if those things were more freely available. Logically, when you consider the disposable income one would need to own those things, it's not a valid concern. But the antis' tools are fear and moral panic, and if the pro-RKBA side starts saying they want RPGs and full-autos sold with no restriction, they'll milk it for all it's worth. They were claiming full-autos could be purchased over the counter during the lead-up to the AWB.

Knocking out Chicago-style gun bans and AWBs would be a huge victory, but trying to remove the NFA at the same time would be a bridge too far. Once the most onerous laws are out of the way, others can be taken care of later.

 

[farscott]

Art,

I agree that arguing about what is "arms" is pointless. My point, however poorly made in the above posts, is that many people (perhaps enough to get an amendment approved) can be persuaded that some classes of arms are not "needed" by individuals. Therefore, amending the Constitution to address the class of arms allowed by the Constitution makes sense to those people. It would be another method of incrementally limiting the right to keep and bear arms while still admitting that the 2nd Amendment addresses an individual right.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Art Eatman touched on a point I have tried to make for
years: anything you can do wrong with "arms" is already
against the law. Art: "We have ordinances against disturbance
and undue noise. It is a crime to damage property. So, don't
tear up the pavement with your Abrams. Don't shoot the cannon
where it would bother folks. Ain't that easy?"

Laws against arms themselves only infringe on lawful owners
and users, since harmful uses are already covered by other laws.

 

[Limeyfellow]

The title is more than a bit misleading. A small group of well known antigunners want to abolish the 2nd ammendment and some of them have ties to the democratic party and instantly the whole Democrats want to abolish the 2nd ammendment. That appears more scare tactics and theres just the numbers of all the parties who want to do that. Theres also plenty of Democrats, Republicans and other party members that don't want to do this and are progun. Progun Democrats in particular did very well in a number of states such as Ohio.