Repeal the Second Amendment...?

[molonlabetn]

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200706/CUL20070612a.html

As I recall, the ratification of the Constitution was contingent on the addition of the Bill of Rights... Would this not then open the door to valid secession by many states?

Quite honestly though, since most states have their own version of the 2nd Amendment in their individual Constitutions... realistically, it would take far more than simply repealing of the Bill of Rights to remove legal reinforcement for individuals to keep and bear arms.

Still, this is appalling!

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(CNSNews.com) - The Second Amendment guarantees the right of an individual to own guns and for that reason should be repealed, according to a legal affairs analyst who opposes gun ownership.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 He conceded, however, that the political likelihood of getting the amendment repealed is "pretty limited."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."

[Guest Phantom6]

Benjamin Wittes wrote:

"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."

Guess Mr. Witts has counted us and millions of other gun owners out of society.

[saintsfanbrian]

Personally, I would love to see what would happen if the people truly had access to the same weapons as the military and the federal government got "out of hand."

The 2nd would surely mean something to him then.

What if the government wanted to take away the first amendment? What would he and all other reporters be screaming then?

[molonlabetn]

Pretty much... I guess he defines "we" pretty loosely!

Maybe he should emigrate to France?

[Guest Len]

As I recall, the ratification of the Constitution was contingent on the addition of the Bill of Rights

This is correct. The argument for the BoR was pretty simple -some are so important we gotta write em down. The arg against was equally simple -if we list 'em, some future president will think the ones on the list are the only ones.

However... ...

Would this not then open the door to valid secession by many states?

The constitution provides a mechanism for change (a wise inclusion, if you ask me) and the BoR is no more or less protected from change than the rest of the document. So, while some states would certainly cry foul if the 2A (or any others) were repealed, that would not give them constitutional grounds to start the process of secession. They might do so anyway, but I don't think amending the BoR violates any "contractual" obligation requiring the states to stay or go. But, I'm no expert on constitutional law, so just my 2 cents.

[Guest CrazyLincoln]

I don't see this being a possibility, but taking away rights is the kind of thing that starts revolutions and civil wars. However, the irony would be the anti-gun side would be powerless because they banned themselves from having a defense.

Fortunately, the fact that people on that side of the fence are even bringing this up shows their argument is loosing traction.

[Mike.357]

"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."

I think bearing arms for this reason is as valid now as it was back in the 1700's. Society likes to stick its head in the sand.

I am not sure why, but the only angle I have not read about with anti's and guns is banning the discharge of firearms. If they made laws governing this what would the point be of owning them for sporting or recreational purposes as most guns are owned for? I imagine there are reasons, maybe some of you can educate me here.

[Marswolf]

From http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/16079.

Americans Reject Stricter Gun Control

June 12, 2007

(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - More people in the United States believe their country’s current firearm legislation should remain untouched, according to a poll by Rasmussen Reports. 49 per cent of respondents believe there is no need to introduce stricter gun control laws, up 12 points since mid-April.

The U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment guarantees Americans the right "to keep and bear arms." Some American states have enacted their own gun control regulations, independent of existing federal legislation.

On Apr. 16, Cho Seung-hui killed 32 people—fellow students and teachers—at the Virginia Tech University campus in two separate incidents, before turning his gun on himself. The shooting is the deadliest of its kind in American history. 40 per cent of respondents believe stricter gun laws would have no impact on the rates of violent crimes in the country, while 37 per cent think tougher legislation would foster a reduction.

Over the past two months, almost 4,000 Americans have joined Students for Concealed Carry on Campus (SCCC), a group of gun-rights activists who advocate for allowing licensed gun owners to bring their arms to school campuses. The group believes this prerogative could prevent new episodes of school violence.

Andrew Sugg, head of the local chapter at Baylor University in Texas, said the group is "pushing for states and schools to allow licensed faculty, staff and students the right to carry concealed (weapons) on campus," adding, "Looking at the data I’ve seen so far, (banning guns on campus) does put us at more of a risk. (…) When you look at all the school shootings over the past several years, they’ve all happened in gun-free zones."

[Guest GT_Rat]

"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."

One word: Bull****.

As far as I am concerned personal protection, hunting, hobby shooting, are all simply side benefits to the second amendment. The ability of the armed populace to overthrow a non-representative government is the reason the second amendment is there.

PS: Someone probably already said this but I'm saying it again, so deal with it. Just had to get that initial gut reaction out of the way after reading that paragraph so I didn't read the whole thread.

[Guest Hyaloid]

[snip]...As far as I am concerned personal protection, hunting, hobby shooting, are all simply side benefits to the second amendment. The ability of the armed populace to overthrow a non-representative government is the reason the second amendment is there.[/snip]

Bingo! We have a winner!

[Guest GlocKingTN]

I feel like that shouldn't even be a thought in their heads. Those rights were put there for a reason. My .02!

[Marswolf]

The right of self protection, from a thug or your own government, is not granted by a document. It is inherent - inalienable.

2A just emphasizes that right. This is my problem with the Bill of Rights. It makes people think that they have these stated rights only because they are written into the Constitution. They have them because they were born.

[Guest Hyaloid]

The right of self protection, from a thug or your own government, is not granted by a document. It is inherent - inalienable.

2A just emphasizes that right. This is my problem with the Bill of Rights. It makes people think that they have these stated rights only because they are written into the Constitution. They have them because they were born.

+1 I agree wholeheartedly... See my sig

The BoR merely recognizes them, it does not grant them.

[Guest Phantom6]

The right of self protection, from a thug or your own government, is not granted by a document. It is inherent - inalienable.

2A just emphasizes that right. This is my problem with the Bill of Rights. It makes people think that they have these stated rights only because they are written into the Constitution. They have them because they were born.

Here, Here! Aye, Aye!

[saintsfanbrian]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Let's see, endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the puruit of Happiness.

Life - I have the right to live. Unless I commit an offense punishable by death, no one is able to take my life from me with out my consent. (Joining the military implies some consent since you might have to go to war to defend yours or the countries ideals.)

Liberty -

Freedom from arbitrary or despotic government control. Freedom from external or foreign rule, independence.

I have the right to be free from arbitrary exercise of authority.

The Pursuit of Happiness -

Happiness is a warm gun (bang bang shoot shoot)

Happiness is a warm gun, mama (bang bang shoot shoot)

When I hold you in my arms (oh, yeah)

And I feel my finger on your trigger (oh, yeah)

I know nobody can do me no harm (oh, yeah)

Because, (happiness) is a warm gun, mama (bang bang shoot shoot)

Happiness is a warm gun, yes it is (bang bang shoot shoot)

Since happiness is a warm gun, I guess that we should all be trying to find ways to make our guns warm.

The BoR doesn't limit rights, it only states that above all else these are the rights of the people.

[Guest GT_Rat]

Something tells me John was using a bit of metaphor there but I still agree.

[Guest Phantom6]

Since happiness is a warm gun, I guess that we should all be trying to find ways to make our guns warm.

quote]

Shoot 'em. That always works for me.