The push to change the Constitution from Anti Gun minded

[ol' scratch]

I was listening to the radio the other day and Jack Lessenberry came on with one of his essays. I know that Lessenberry likes to spout off about how guns need to be regulated and such, but this is the first time I have heard him say we should change the Constitution so guns can be banned. The problem is that I am seeing this argument more often now.

http://www.michiganradio.org/post/question-guns?ft=1&f=

 

[jimmyraythomason]

Yeah,that pesky Constitution,always getting in the way of the left's agenda for a socialist America.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

Good luck getting 2/3 of the states to ratify anything anti-gun into the constitution.

 

[kenken]

This Lessenberry dude is an idiot.

kenken

 

[fxstchewy]

I think we should outlaw people who think that way.

 

[Birch Knoll]

Since the Supreme Court finally ruled that the 2nd Amendment does guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms in Heller, and applied it to the states as well as the federal government in McDonald, they can no longer use the old arguments -- the the 2A only means that states can maintain a militia, or that it doesn't apply to modern firearms, or that the whole idea of RKBA is so hopelessly outmoded that it is no longer operative in the modern world.

So now they have to grumble about changing the Constitution. Let 'em grumble.

 

[armoredman]

A Republican Senator proposed to repeal the 2A every year, can't remember his name, as he finally got booted and I think he passed away in obscurity.

 

[Gimmered]

Good luck getting 2/3 of the states to ratify anything anti-gun into the constitution.

It would require 2/3 of congress and 3/4 of the States.

Won't happen.

 

[Deanimator]

I'm sure David Duke would like to repeal the 13th Amendment too.

One's about as likely as the other, ESPECIALLY with the way that shall issue CCW has made liars of the anti-gunners in almost every state in the Union.

They've cried not just "wolf" but "werewolf" five hundred times too many, and only in corrupt places like Illinois, California and Maryland are they believed any more.

 

[Deanimator]

A Republican Senator proposed to repeal the 2A every year, can't remember his name, as he finally got booted and I think he passed away in obscurity.

John Chafee (father of Lincoln, I believe), no different from the Illinois Republicans with similar "ideas".

 

[316SS]

As someone pointed out in the comments section in the link, repealing the 2nd Amendment changes nothing with regards to human rights. Rights are inalienable, transcending laws and governments. Even on THR I read about rights "granted" by the Constitution.

I think it is fascinating that Lessenberry equates protecting the rights of one group (black people), when once they were violated, with violating the rights of another group (gun owners), when once they were protected. That much cognitive dissonance must make rational thinking very difficult for him, although I suppose that is self-evident from his writing.

 

[Birch Knoll]

As someone pointed out in the comments section in the link, repealing the 2nd Amendment changes nothing with regards to human rights. Rights are inalienable, transcending laws and governments. Even on THR I read about rights "granted" by the Constitution.

Maybe in some abstract, philosophical sense. In a legal sense, the 2A is the only thing that underpins gun rights.

 

[basicblur]

It would require 2/3 of congress and 3/4 of the States.
Won't happen

Which is why the push is on by many to convince the masses that the Constitution is a living document.
It allows them to push/achieve their agenda without that messy old ratification process and its input from the people.

 

[316SS]

Maybe in some abstract, philosophical sense. In a legal sense, the 2A is the only thing that underpins gun rights.

What a ridiculous statement. 90 guns per 100 Americans underpins gun rights. The tendency throughout human history has been for the few to disarm and control the many. Very few on THR would agree that we should cower, disarmed, before a robber or carjacker, and I've seen many advocate arming one's self even when immoral laws prohibit it ("in a legal sense"). Why then would we accept that our government could "legally" compel us to cower, disarmed, before it?

I don't want to put words in your mouth, ttolhurst, but I believe your point is that if the 2nd Amendment were repealed, that our Grand Experiment would have failed, and our government would have broken with the intent of our founding fathers (to a significantly greater extent that it already has). That would indeed be a dark day.

Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!

 

[230therapy]

All I can say is that individual liberty is the only thing stopping statists from implementing their agenda.

We'll see what SCOTUS decides regarding Obamacare and forcing Americans into contracts against their will. The 13th Amendment prohibits slavery in all forms; I'm very curious to see how they twist logic to get around it if they rule for the law.

 

[Loosedhorse]

It's just a feint. No such amendment will happen.

The real concern is as soon as ONE pro-gun Justice is replaced by ONE anti-gunner, Heller and MacDonald may both be reversed. That is the real danger.

This amendment nonsense is just a distraction.

 

[230therapy]

Heller and MacDonald may both be reversed. That is the real danger.

I hope both are reversed. They do nothing other than establish restrictions that are vague and overly broad. Both decisions only apply to 14th Amendment citizens anyway. My gripe there is there should be only the original class of citizenship, but they'd have to overturn Dred Scot first.

 

[Birch Knoll]

What a ridiculous statement.

Well, I certainly don't believe it's ridiculous.

90 guns per 100 Americans underpins gun rights.

Again, that's true in the sense of our cultural sensibilities. I was quite clear when I said said "in a legal sense".

Very few on THR would agree that we should cower, disarmed, before a robber or carjacker

Nor would I. So far as I can discern, nothing in my prior statement supports that idea.

If you disagree that the 2A is the only legal protection for our gun rights, please indicate what part of the Constitution would protect your gun rights in the absence of the 2A.

 

[Birch Knoll]

I hope both are reversed.

Really? You would want the court to rule that the 2nd Amendment does not protect an individual right, and that it does not apply to the states?

They do nothing other than establish restrictions that are vague and overly broad.

Nothing?

 

[1stmarine]

The second amendment cannot be removed. It is there for a reason.
They can take my firearms all right! .....one piece of lead at the time.

 

[jehicks87]

I may be way off-base here, but I didn't think the first 10 amendments were able to be repealed. Can someone please educate me further?

 

[AlexanderA]

I may be way off-base here, but I didn't think the first 10 amendments were able to be repealed. Can someone please educate me further?

Yup, you're way off base here. But, the technicalities are one thing, and the political realities are another. (Anything in the Constitution, including any of the Amendments, can be amended/repealed if the proper procedures are followed. The Bill of Rights -- the first ten Amendments -- is kind of enshrined by time.)

 

[Leanwolf]

There are always Republicans who could not care less about the Second Amendment, and have no use for it. For example, the noted "conservative" columnist George Will.

He long wrote articles advocating the banning of our firearms. (He claimed he had a baseball bat and that was all he needed to protect himself and family, therefore, that was all I, you, we needed.)

Later, after a number of Constitutional scholars corrected him on what the Second Amendment meant, he grudgingly admitted what it meant and then changed his attack. He subsequently wrote that although the Second Amd. guaranteed the Right of the People to keep and bear arms, it was necessary to then repeal the Second Amd., and then ban firearms from the worker peasants and serfs.

I don't know what his position is presently as I long ago stopped reading his "conservative" opinions. There are plenty of elite Republicans out there with the same mindset as George Will.

L.W.

 

[theman838]

I was shocked at the naive nature of your commentary. Specifially this:

Your commentary assumes that gun control, and making guns illegal will stop or at least significantly slow the rate of murders in Detroit and throughout our country. Your basic argument that making something illegal stops it from happening is flawed as proven by the following illegal, yet common occurences in America:

1.) It is illegal to speed in a vehicle, yet most of us do it.
2.) Selling and buying marijuana is illegal, yet millions do so every day.
3.) Not paying taxes is illegal, but many don't pay.
4.) MURDER is illegal, yet as you point out, there have been more than 3,000 murders in Detroit in the last decade.

If making something illegal stopped it from happening, things would be very simple in America. Too bad that is not the case.

The basic logic of your argument is flawed.


BEST comment by FAR.

 

[k-frame]

Yup, you're way off base here. But, the technicalities are one thing, and the political realities are another. (Anything in the Constitution, including any of the Amendments, can be amended/repealed if the proper procedures are followed. The Bill of Rights -- the first ten Amendments -- is kind of enshrined by time.)

By way of example, Prohibition; the 18th Amendment brought it in, the 21st kicked it out.