Repeal Second Amendment, Analyst Advises
- Thread starter Big Don
- Start date
Dewhitewolf
New member
Okay, let's repeal it. But we'll put in the new amendment, that all law-abiding US citizens shall have the right to keep and bear any and all arms without question from any government entity.
crowbeaner
New member
1,2,4 & 5 are the amendments under assault by our so-called leaders. Just look at the shenanigans these people try to pull. It is not just the 2nd.
Indrid Cold
New member
Nathan Burchfiel just lost a lot of his credibility 
Next up, Nathan Burchfiel - "We should just stop using petrolum based products"
Next up, Nathan Burchfiel - "We should just stop using petrolum based products"
Neocon “Scholars” Call for Dismembering Bill of Rights
http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=893
Neocon “Scholars” Call for Dismembering Bill of Rights
Tuesday June 12th 2007, 1:31 pm
Imagine my surprise. A “guest scholar at the center-left Brookings Institution,” Benjamin Wittes, wants to gut the Second Amendment. Wittes told CNSNews “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.”
Georgetown University law professor Randy Barnett, however, did not limit his comments to the Second Amendment, suggesting instead that much of the Bill of Rights has “no contemporary relevance.” As an example, Barnett cited the Fourth Amendment. “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.” According to the professor, the Fourth Amendment is “archaic [and] we don’t need it anymore.”
Of course, this sort of authoritarian nonsense should be expected, as we have allowed the government to be hijacked by a gaggle of neocons and their neoliberal kissing cousins who favor the sort of government operating in China to a constitutionally limited republic of the sort we had until 1791 when the Federalist Alexander Hamilton set-up the first central bank in America modeled after the Bank of England. In essence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights have languished ever since and the neocons are now simply doing away with all pretense, not that most Americans will notice—so long as they remain “free” to shop, consume, and watch American Idol.
Incidentally, it is amusing CNSNews characterizes the Brookings Institution as “center-left,” a designation deemed to give the impression the place is crawling with Democrats and fence-sitting “progressives.” Never mind such labels are worthless, as the transnational plutocrats and globalists in control of the horizontal and vertical consider such appellations of little use beyond hypnotizing the commoners.
In fact, Brookings is strictly a neocon “think tank,” connected at the hip with the American Enterprise Institute (where Bush gets his “minds,” that is to say psychopaths) and the Wharton Business School, allegedly fronted by the Tavistock Institute. In addition, Brookings hosts the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, founded by Haim Saban, the billionaire former Israeli who proudly declares: “I’m a one-issue guy and my issue is Israel.” Saban is a Democrat—thus demonstrating you can’t tell the difference between Democrats and Republicans without a scorecard.
Finally, it should come as no surprise neocons and neolibs want to do away with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, even though these founding documents are now little more than a historical facade, as the founding concepts enshrined in the documents were dismantled and floated down the river by bankers and the financial elite more than two centuries ago. Neocons have no use for the First, Second, Fourth or any other number of amendments, as they subscribe to the Führerprinzip, that is to say the leadership or Führer principle based on the Auctoritas of ancient Rome, as spelled out by Carl Schmitt, the Nazi jurist who elevated the concept of a dictatorial Reichspräsident, a concept embraced by neocons far and wide.
Thus it makes perfect sense the boy wonder of the neocons, Bill Kristol, would declare: “Maybe we should have Supreme Leader Bush. I kind of like the sound of that.”
http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=893
Neocon “Scholars” Call for Dismembering Bill of Rights
Tuesday June 12th 2007, 1:31 pm
Imagine my surprise. A “guest scholar at the center-left Brookings Institution,” Benjamin Wittes, wants to gut the Second Amendment. Wittes told CNSNews “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.”
Georgetown University law professor Randy Barnett, however, did not limit his comments to the Second Amendment, suggesting instead that much of the Bill of Rights has “no contemporary relevance.” As an example, Barnett cited the Fourth Amendment. “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.” According to the professor, the Fourth Amendment is “archaic [and] we don’t need it anymore.”
Of course, this sort of authoritarian nonsense should be expected, as we have allowed the government to be hijacked by a gaggle of neocons and their neoliberal kissing cousins who favor the sort of government operating in China to a constitutionally limited republic of the sort we had until 1791 when the Federalist Alexander Hamilton set-up the first central bank in America modeled after the Bank of England. In essence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights have languished ever since and the neocons are now simply doing away with all pretense, not that most Americans will notice—so long as they remain “free” to shop, consume, and watch American Idol.
Incidentally, it is amusing CNSNews characterizes the Brookings Institution as “center-left,” a designation deemed to give the impression the place is crawling with Democrats and fence-sitting “progressives.” Never mind such labels are worthless, as the transnational plutocrats and globalists in control of the horizontal and vertical consider such appellations of little use beyond hypnotizing the commoners.
In fact, Brookings is strictly a neocon “think tank,” connected at the hip with the American Enterprise Institute (where Bush gets his “minds,” that is to say psychopaths) and the Wharton Business School, allegedly fronted by the Tavistock Institute. In addition, Brookings hosts the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, founded by Haim Saban, the billionaire former Israeli who proudly declares: “I’m a one-issue guy and my issue is Israel.” Saban is a Democrat—thus demonstrating you can’t tell the difference between Democrats and Republicans without a scorecard.
Finally, it should come as no surprise neocons and neolibs want to do away with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, even though these founding documents are now little more than a historical facade, as the founding concepts enshrined in the documents were dismantled and floated down the river by bankers and the financial elite more than two centuries ago. Neocons have no use for the First, Second, Fourth or any other number of amendments, as they subscribe to the Führerprinzip, that is to say the leadership or Führer principle based on the Auctoritas of ancient Rome, as spelled out by Carl Schmitt, the Nazi jurist who elevated the concept of a dictatorial Reichspräsident, a concept embraced by neocons far and wide.
Thus it makes perfect sense the boy wonder of the neocons, Bill Kristol, would declare: “Maybe we should have Supreme Leader Bush. I kind of like the sound of that.”
I was actually shocked by your portrayal of Prof. Randy Barnett, as some kind of neo-con gun grabber. As a long time reader of The Volokh Conspiriacy, I know Randy. He is not some neo-con who wants to shred our Constitution.
So I looked at the included link.
The writer of the article, has helped to confuse you! SteelCore, you left out a portion of the column, which goes to show you have misread what was (poorly) written. Here, let me help you put it back into context:
He wasn't advocating for Wittes, he was demonstrating that the same technique that Wittes used to cite the irrelevence of the Second, could also be used to gut the rest of the BOR.
But apparently, you weren't alone in your misreading of what Prof. Barnett said. So have some others! Shall we let Randy speak for himself?
In short, the author of the article is a hack who simply can't put together two disparate thoughts!
ETA: Drat! I replied to SteelCore's thread before I had seen Big Don's thread. Same subject, only Don was first. Threads merged.
So I looked at the included link.
The writer of the article, has helped to confuse you! SteelCore, you left out a portion of the column, which goes to show you have misread what was (poorly) written. Here, let me help you put it back into context:
Now that we have the context back, it is easy to see that Prof Barnett was defending the Second and the rest of the Bill of Rights!
He wasn't advocating for Wittes, he was demonstrating that the same technique that Wittes used to cite the irrelevence of the Second, could also be used to gut the rest of the BOR.
But apparently, you weren't alone in your misreading of what Prof. Barnett said. So have some others! Shall we let Randy speak for himself?
One can read the rest at the link (just before this qoute) above.Randy Barnett said:
In short, the author of the article is a hack who simply can't put together two disparate thoughts!
ETA: Drat! I replied to SteelCore's thread before I had seen Big Don's thread. Same subject, only Don was first. Threads merged.
Last edited:
Al, many thanks for the correct information! I'm hoping Randy's full comments will get passed around as quickly and widely as the CNS article. Brian Wilson, a conservative talk-show host, picked up the CNS article too and forwarded to a number of his contacts, including me. I have given him the URL to our thread and your additions so he can get "the rest of the story" out as a follow-up to the CNS article.
Don
Don
Antipitas, thanks for clearing up the confusion regarding Prof. Barnett's true position (and for merging these threads -- I didn't see Big Don's, sorry). He was obviously misrepresented by the writer of the CNS article. I'm not sure it was intentional as buzz_knox suggests, but there was at least some negligence there.
The frightening thing, though, is that there is no shortage of people who do think that way. This Wittes character...well, I can only hope that he was misrepresented, too.
The frightening thing, though, is that there is no shortage of people who do think that way. This Wittes character...well, I can only hope that he was misrepresented, too.