Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Repeal Second Amendment, Analyst Advises

Discussion in 'Legal' started by rev214, Jun 12, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. rev214

    rev214 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    195
    Location:
    "Land of Landfills",New Jersey
    Repeal Second Amendment, Analyst Advises
    By Nathan Burchfiel
    CNSNews.com Staff Writer
    June 12, 2007

    (CNSNews.com) - The Second Amendment guarantees the right of an individual to own guns and for that reason should be repealed, according to a legal affairs analyst who opposes gun ownership.

    "The Second Amendment is one of the clearest statements of right in the Constitution," Benjamin Wittes, a guest scholar at the center-left Brookings Institution, acknowledged in a discussion Monday. "We've had decades of sort of intellectual gymnastics to try to make those words not mean what they say."

    Wittes, who said he has "no particular enthusiasm for the idea of a gun culture," said that rather than try to limit gun ownership through regulation that potentially violates the Second Amendment, opponents of gun ownership should set their sights on repealing the amendment altogether.

    "Rather than debating the meaning of the Second Amendment, I think the appropriate debate is whether we want a Second Amendment," Wittes said. He conceded, however, that the political likelihood of getting the amendment repealed is "pretty limited."

    Wittes said the Second Amendment guarantee of the right to bear arms meant more when it was crafted more than 200 years ago than it does today. Modern society is "much more ambivalent than they [the founders] were about whether gun ownership really is fundamental to liberty," he said.

    "One of the things that they believed was that the right of states to organize militias, and therefore individuals to be armed, was necessary to protect the liberty of those states against the federal government," Wittes said. "This is something we don't really believe as a society anymore."

    But challenging the Second Amendment on the basis that society's circumstances have changed since the drafting would similarly open up to question all other constitutional rights, according to Georgetown University law professor Randy Barnett, who also participated in Monday's discussion.

    "The techniques that are used to show that the Second Amendment really doesn't have any contemporary relevance are absolutely available to anybody who wants to show that aspects of the First Amendment and the Fourth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment have no contemporary relevance," he said.

    Citing the Fourth Amendment, which protects "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures," Barnett argued, "Sure it was fine that persons should be secure in their papers and effects back in the old days when there wasn't a danger of terrorism and mass murder."

    But advocates of warrantless searches could make an "appeal to changing circumstances," on the basis that the Fourth Amendment is "archaic [and] we don't need it anymore," he added.

    Barnett recommended that gun control advocates "not favor methods of interpretation [to criticize the legitimacy of the Second Amendment] that you wouldn't want to put in the hands of political opponents."
     
  2. Glockman17366

    Glockman17366 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2005
    Messages:
    1,150
    Location:
    South Central Pennsylvania
    I'm sure any such attempts would be met with resounding failure...

    However, I don't think any of the first 10 Amendments can be repealed. The Bill of Rights recognizes these as pre-existing rights...am I correct in that?


    This was sent to both Wittes and the Brookings Institute:

    I sent this e-mail to Wittes.

    I’m sending this to you to for informational purposes.

    If the Brookings Institute supports such foolishness, perhaps they do not deserve the accreditations or any tax payer support they currently enjoy.



    Mr. Wittes does not deserve the term “Scholar” as he apparently doesn’t understand the Bill of Rights.





    -----Original Message-----
    From: EDITED OUT
    Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 12:31 PM
    To: 'bwittes@brookings.edu'
    Subject: Your discussion of repealing the Second Amendment



    I believe you’ll find the first 10 amendments cannot be repealed as they are recognized as pre-existing.



    Please correct your error and report same to the Brookings Institute, Washington Post and any other organizations this has been reported to. It is better you correct your mistake, then have thousands of pro-Rights supporters (such as me) correct your error for you. I expect to read this in an editorial in the Washington Post within a week. A simple apology and withdrawal of the “suggestion” would suffice.



    I’m sure you just tossed this in as a ludicrous attempt at humor since any attempt to do what you suggested would fail miserably. However, it is such statements from the so-called “intelligentsia” that makes us not only despise you more…but to cherish our rights (all of them) even more.



    Basically, sir, you are doing more to erode your credibility then pro-rights people could.
     
  3. pdowg881

    pdowg881 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    1,103
    Location:
    Southern NH
    Yeah and the 1st Ammendment should only aplly to spoken and written words. After all, there wasn't electronic media back in the 1700's so it really isn't something we beleive as a society anymore.


    Who is this guy to speak for all American's beliefs?
     
  4. RavenVT100

    RavenVT100 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,107
    Obviously I disagree with him, but give him credit for being honest.
     
  5. Langenator

    Langenator Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2003
    Messages:
    2,689
    Location:
    Ft Belvoir, VA
    Of course, if they can find the right to an abortion in the Ninth Amendment, I can find the RKBA in there, as well, even if the repeal the Second.
     
  6. Tim James

    Tim James Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2005
    Messages:
    305
    Location:
    Florida
    Why is this news?
     
  7. Matt King

    Matt King Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,151
    Location:
    USA
    I was wondering that myself. Can the Bill of Rights be modified or repealed?
     
  8. buzz_knox

    buzz_knox Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    4,849
    The Constitution allows them to be amended or eliminated, regardless of their status as rights recognized, not conferred, by the document.
     
  9. Fly320s

    Fly320s Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,828
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    He's already shot down his plan. He acknowledged that the 2nd guarantees a pre-existing, or permanent right, that can not be removed. None of the inalienable rights can be revoked, that's what makes them inalienable. Duh.:rolleyes:
     
  10. DonP

    DonP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,294
    Location:
    Chicago area
    It's nice to see an anti admit out loud that the 2nd actually guarantees an individual right to bear arms.

    Why not repeal it? They basically repealed the first amendment with McCain Feingold, didn't they?

    The odds of repealing the 2nd are somewhere below slim to none, but I don't put anything past this bunch of congressional Bozos and thei willing buddies on SCOTUS.
     
  11. Neo-Luddite

    Neo-Luddite Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    2,990
    Location:
    Northwest IL--the other 'Downstate'
    Who is this guy to speak for all American's beliefs?

    Why, he's a guest scholar at the Brooking's Institute.

    He's an academic doing what academics do best--
    letting the world know what he thinks. His use of the phrase
    'gun culture' in the context he uses it clues you in: he's read the playbook from Sorros and the U.N.

    You're right little friend--you'll need to change the Constitution and actually alter the Bill of Rights proper. Let us know how that works out for you.

    (in case you want to put a face with a name):


    http://www.brook.edu/scholars/bwittes.htm
     
  12. SWMAN

    SWMAN Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    458
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    How 'bout that? A lefty who can read.
     
  13. Daemon688

    Daemon688 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Messages:
    825
    Location:
    MN
    This seems to be a rather recent development. It's only been in the past few months that I've started to see more of these articles emerging. It's good to hear them finally admit the truth. They don't want to just limit, they want to eliminate. It'll just show the public how looney these people are. What's next on the chopping block?
     
  14. HUMONGO

    HUMONGO Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2007
    Messages:
    131
    Location:
    Behind enemy lines in Bodymore, Murderland
    I blame Lincoln.

    I believe slavery was wrong, but until the Civil War, States had the right to govern as they saw fit. It was anti-federalist as was intended. Preventing the dissolusion of the Union was the turning point of State and individual rights.

    Now with a centralized government, how can we reasonably expect to use the 2nd amendment for it's intended purpose of preventing tyranny?
     
  15. alucard0822

    alucard0822 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Messages:
    1,229
    Location:
    Westminster, MD
    Should we expect anything less from someone who has been educated well beyond the need for common sense.
     
  16. Titan6

    Titan6 member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,745
    Location:
    Gillikin Country
    Wow. Why don't they just move to China now and get it over with?

    Few people know that mass murder and terrorism were invented 9/11/01. Up until that point the world was a very safe place.The first attempt to repeal the bill of rights took place soon after.

    This is truly the struggle of our time.
     
  17. cbsbyte

    cbsbyte Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,978
    Location:
    Cradle of Liberty
    At least he is being honest. I am not too sure it would be that hard to repeal the second Ad in the future when their will be few gun owners. It might take fifty years but it could happen.
     
  18. fspitzdorf

    fspitzdorf Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2006
    Messages:
    161
    Location:
    The wrong peninsula...
    How can any earthly being take away an inalienable right? Just because it doesn't exist on paper doesn't mean it doesn't exist... Reckon a lot of people neglect and or refuse to comprehend that little tidbit... Guess that is why a few folks chose to put it down on paper... To remind folks that they existed... :banghead:
     
  19. araiford

    araiford Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2007
    Messages:
    120
    Location:
    Old Dominion
    I a not really sure I understand the concept of repealing rights.
    We are endowed with these rights by our creator. How can man repeal such rights?
     
  20. kcmarine

    kcmarine Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,391
    Location:
    Kansas City, Missouri
    They can't repeal such rights, but they can keep you from exercising them.
     
  21. Art Eatman

    Art Eatman Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2002
    Messages:
    43,279
    Location:
    Terlingua, TX; Thomasville,GA
    Back some ten or so years ago, George Will claimed to have done a lot of research on the Second Amendment. He concluded that it means what the NRA says it means. He further went on to say that the best way to deal with the "gun problem" was to repeal the Second Amendment.

    IOW, Wittes' opinion is nothing new...

    Stipulate for the moment that we don't need the Second Amendment to preserve Liberty. Okay?

    Now then: Firearms are generally seen as the best method of self defense against Bozos. We have the "equal protection" clause of the 14th Amendment, and if you couple that with all the court decisions which have found the police have no duty to provide individual protection, where does that leave you? "Equal protection under the law" means having the means of protecting yourself.

    Hey, guns and Mennen sweet-smellum: "Why be half-safe?"

    Art
     
  22. JohnL2

    JohnL2 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2006
    Messages:
    676
    I can't believe he said that.
     
  23. pbonebright

    pbonebright Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2007
    Messages:
    53
    Location:
    California
    I have been saying this for years. Whenever I am confronted by an anti touting some 'reasonable' or 'necessary' gun control measure or another I try to reframe the argument to get them to admit that what they are really saying is that 2A should be repealed. This puts us in a much stronger position to debate, and halts the tortured twisting and redefinition attempts of the very plain language of the 2A. Anyone who passed 8th grade English should know that the first half of the sentence is a 'subordinate clause', and does not negate the meaning or efficacy of the second half of the sentence. But at the end of the day, we, as a people, all of us, will have the government we deserve. We have 'tolerated' ourselves into this mess - tolerated the miscreants, ne'er do wells and people who won't stand up for themselves or just don't give a ****, and who don't understand human nature and history. A nation composed of these kinds of people will not deserve appreciate or even understand true freedom, and will not have it for long. If 3/4 of the states ever vote to take away any of the bill of rights I'd say we have gotten what we deserved. </rant>
    PB

    'A Republic, if you can keep it' - Benjamin Franklin
     
  24. Vern Humphrey

    Vern Humphrey Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    18,513
    Location:
    Deep in the Ozarks
    Or as I explain to people who complain that this or that law is unconstitutional, "They're just driving through the hole you left in the Bill of Rights when you ripped out the 2nd Amendment."
     
  25. Conju

    Conju Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2007
    Messages:
    42
    So once they repeal it, how do they plan to desecrate the bill of rights, marking the second repealed?

    That doesn't make me feel very high road at all.
     

    Attached Files:

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page