Now they said it: Repeal the Second

[actaeon277]

 

[MCgrease08]

Retired Justice Stevens puts Democrats on a pin with call to repeal Second Amendment - Chicago Tribune

Democrats are panicking over retired Supreme Court Justice John Stevens’ comments on repealing the Second Amendment.

You know they’re panicking when they insist they’re not panicking.

 

[OakRiver]

Retired Justice Stevens puts Democrats on a pin with call to repeal Second Amendment - Chicago Tribune

Of course they're in a bind, because now their end goal, the removal of the 2A, has been laid bare.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

We need this guy and more like him in Washington.

 

[actaeon277]

We need this guy and more like him in Washington.

Yup. Let's make "compromise" work the other way.

 

[Bartman]

Today I was listening to a podcast from a (blue state) libertarian law professor who agreed with Stevens' opinion on Heller, although he also stated that none of the control measures being pushed would be effective. It seems to clear to me that it was intended as an individual right, but I've decided on this particular issue, I don't much care what the founders intentions were. We can debate natural rights until we're blue in the face, but the only legal rights any of us have are the ones we are determined to fight for. I don't remember anything in the Constitution about the government paying for healthcare but people complained about their "right" to it until they managed to get a law passed.

The point is, millions of voters view the 2nd as an individual right. If it wasn't intended that way by the founders (it really was) well, living document and all that. Revisionist history isn't going to magic away 200 million firearms from the US. And if there's that many guns around some of them are going to be mine.

 

[actaeon277]

It says, "The right of the PEOPLE".
Not the right of the State.
Not the right of the government.
Not the right of the militia.
Not the right of the army.

 

[Kutnupe14]

We need this guy and more like him in Washington.

Has about an equal chance of coming to pass as repealing the 2nd Amendment.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Has about an equal chance of coming to pass as repealing the 2nd Amendment.

You are absolutely right. Actually following the Constitution is so 18th century in the minds of far too many.

 

[Kutnupe14]

You are absolutely right. Actually following the Constitution is so 18th century in the minds of far too many.

I think the idea of following the Constitution ended right after the ink dried. It literally, was "a good idea on paper,"... then those who craved power were like "I think those were more suggestions than directives."

 

[OakRiver]

Has about an equal chance of coming to pass as repealing the 2nd Amendment.

To change a law we need 2/3 of The House, 2/3 of the Senate, and 3/4 of the States?

 

[SwikLS]

The 2nd Amendment functions on four levels.

1. In the worst of threats to the nation every citizen would be called to arms (their own arms) to defend the nation and the constitution, be it from foreign threat or internal rebellion.

2. Each citizen is afforded the opportunity to defend himself from (deadly) attacks from other citizens.

3. Its encourages civic participation because the gun owners realize the importance of the 2A. They then realize the importance of other rights, freedoms, limits on govt., etc. and vote accordingly.

4. It buys time for when bad factions rise up to contaminate our constitutional system by discouraging them to escalate things further knowing that if they did they would have to eventually face an armed citizenry.

 

[2A_Tom]

To change the Constitution we need 2/3 of The House, 2/3 of the Senate, and 3/4 of the States?

FTFY

It is much simpler to change a law.

 

[OakRiver]

FTFY

It is much simpler to change a law.

That was my point; that changing a law does not meet the same standard as changing the Constitution.

 

[KLB]

I think the idea of following the Constitution ended right after the ink dried. It literally, was "a good idea on paper,"... then those who craved power were like "I think those were more suggestions than directives."

It is an obstacle in their way. The protections given have slowly eroded away as each President has built upon the previous ones.

 

[2A_Tom]

"It is a Bill of Negative rights."

Barack Obama.

 

[Kutnupe14]

To change a law we need 2/3 of The House, 2/3 of the Senate, and 3/4 of the States?

Right, as clarified by BF

 

[OakRiver]

Right, as clarified by BF

So it is more likely we would get the NFA repealed than the 2A based on the requirements to overturn a law vs. amend the 2A

 

[KLB]

So it is more likely we would get the NFA repealed than the 2A based on the requirements to overturn a law vs. amend the 2A

By that very narrow definition, sure.

I think Kut is right from a reality stand point though.

 

[T.Lex]

I don't see how the current numbers add up to repeal/amend of the 2A.

There may be a generational evolution towards that goal, but right now it appears a long way off. The best we can do is bring up our own next generations to appreciate the value of the 2A and then become ambassadors to their peers.