lichum

Columnist Urges Repeal Of The Second Amendment

Rate this topic

47 posts in this topic

Do you think that "blanket Constitutional protection " of "gun ownership" is unnecessary?

 

I firmly believe it is necessary due  to the primacy of the timeless, natural right of self-preservation.

 

Unalienable rights are not contingent on  the approval of democratic majorities.

 

"In a 2006 interview, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer said the Constitution is 'basically about' one word — 'democracy.'" George F. Will.  

 

 

 

 

Excerpt below is from New York Times website.

 

 

Opinion | Op-Ed Columnist

Repeal the Second Amendment


Bret Stephens OCT. 5, 2017


In fact, the more closely one looks at what passes for “common sense” gun laws, the more feckless they appear. Americans who claim to be outraged by gun crimes should want to do something more than tinker at the margins of a legal regime that most of the developed world rightly considers nuts. They should want to change it fundamentally and permanently.

 

There is only one way to do this: Repeal the Second Amendment.

 

Repealing the Amendment may seem like political Mission Impossible today, but in the era of same-sex marriage it’s worth recalling that most great causes begin as improbable ones. Gun ownership should never be outlawed, just as it isn’t outlawed in Britain or Australia. But it doesn’t need a blanket Constitutional protection, either. The 46,445 murder victims killed by gunfire in the United States between 2012 and 2016 didn’t need to perish so that gun enthusiasts can go on fantasizing that “Red Dawn” is the fate that soon awaits us.

 

Donald Trump will likely get one more Supreme Court nomination, or two or three, before he leaves office, guaranteeing a pro-gun court for another generation. Expansive interpretations of the right to bear arms will be the law of the land — until the “right” itself ceases to be.
 
Some conservatives will insist that the Second Amendment is fundamental to the structure of American liberty. They will cite James Madison, who noted in the Federalist Papers  that in Europe “the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” America was supposed to be different, and better.

 

I wonder what Madison would have to say about that today, when more than twice as many Americans perished last year at the hands of their fellows as died in battle during the entire Revolutionary War. My guess: Take the guns—or at least the presumptive right to them—away. The true foundation of American exceptionalism should be our capacity for moral and constitutional renewal, not our instinct for self-destruction.

Edited by lichum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And as always... the author presumes the right comes from the amendment.

 

Are they too thick to get it?  Or do they "not get it" on purpose to achieve an end?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The constitution has provisions for repeal and addition.

Have at it.

 

Imagine how the numbers of dead would fall if they could just get homies in the hood to stop killing each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, hamlet said:

And as always... the author presumes the right comes from the amendment.

Another constitutional illiterate?

I think so.

 

3 minutes ago, hamlet said:

 

Are they too thick to get it?  Or do they "not get it" on purpose to achieve an end?

I think the former for most.

 

Edited by lichum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked this bit of rhetorical slight of hand...

 

"I wonder what Madison would have to say about that today, when more than twice as many Americans perished last year at the hands of their fellows as died in battle during the entire Revolutionary War."

 

There were less than 2,500,000 colonists - total - on the continent during the Revolution... now we are a country of 325,000,000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Charles Cooke points out at the National Review:

 

Stephens is not a stupid man, and nor is he unaware of the reach that tyrannies have enjoyed. On the contrary, his is often a welcome voice in the fight for the liberty of all people. This being so, it is remarkable how blithely he elects to invoke Madison as a friend to his cause, and how readily he subordinates the right to bear arms to expediency. In truth, the Second Amendment was not an “amendment” at all, for, unlike some of the subsequent changes to the charter, it represented neither a change in policy nor a remedy for an error. Rather, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights it was the product of a disagreement as to how to best protect freedoms that were generally considered unalienable. For reasons outlined in The Federalist Papers, Madison believed that the power of the federal government would be constrained by its structure; if the central state had only a handful of carefully enumerated powers, he contended, it would not be able to exceed them. Others, the “Anti-Federalists,” disagreed, demanding a belt to add to the suspenders. The debate that followed was strictly structural — not a fight over speech or due process or arms, but over how best to ensure the maintenance of ancient liberty.

 

Madison acknowledged this when introducing the Bill of Rights in Congress. The rights he had included, he made clear to his peers, were those “against which I believe no serious objection has been made by any class of our constituents.” In encoding the right to bear arms among the set, neither Madison nor his opponents were innovating. Instead, they were channeling Justinian, Locke, and Blackstone, and ensuring that the people of the new country would enjoy a robust right to self-defense, and the auxiliary protections that enabled it.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452368/bret-stephens-guns-columnist-does-not-understand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, lichum said:

...........Repealing the Amendment may seem like political Mission Impossible today, but in the era of same-sex marriage it’s worth recalling that most great causes begin as improbable ones...........

 

All you need to know in one sentence.  When someone considers same-sex marriage to be a "great cause" of an era, well, that just shows how lost Americans, as a whole, have become.

 

We all keep sitting here insisting on believing that Americans are a great, noble, exceptional people, but the more you honestly look at it, the more you will come to understand, that as a whole, we are a mere shell of what we once were.

 

What would the Founders say about the sentence I quoted?  What would Lincoln, Roosevelt, JFK, Reagan, Ike and Patton have to say?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stephens worked for the WSJ before joining the NYT. This anti-2A screed seems to be a case of pleasing his new boss because before he was against the 2A, Stephens was apparently for it.

 

IMG_3368.JPG.434d79df57654b070d4e324dbed89d3b.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, tomkaz said:

Stephens worked for the WSJ before joining the NYT. This anti-2A screed seems to be a case of pleasing his new boss because before he was against the 2A, Stephens was apparently for it.

 

IMG_3368.JPG.434d79df57654b070d4e324dbed89d3b.JPG

Sell out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just do it. No, really please, pretty please, do it. Triple dog dare ya. 

Up to me I'd just skip straight to step 5 and settle this once and for all, or at least for a little while.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, hamlet said:

And as always... the author presumes the right comes from the amendment.

 

Are they too thick to get it?  Or do they "not get it" on purpose to achieve an end?

All i see here in a person such as this is some shallow and total lack of introspection.

 

What does a man like him think he is?  Why does he assume his being has no value?  I dont get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.