So how about REPEALING the 2nd Amendment?

M

MuzzleBlast

New member
I'm just putting this out here for discussion, so don't light the flamethrowers just yet.

Here's my line of thinking: On the national level, as far as "the security of a free state" is concerned, the 2nd Amendment is probably not as relevant as it was when the constitution was drafted. There are no foreign threats that could or would mount a military invasion of the US. So just suppose control over the issue of civilian armaments was passed to the states? There are huge differences in opinion and culture from one state to another. Delaware, for example, bears absolutely no resemblence to New Mexico. So if control of this was put totally in the hands of the states, the people of the states MIGHT have more control over it, and the law would more closely reflect the will of the people. <exaggeration>You could have people in Texas openly driving around in fully-armed tanks, while people in Massachussetts would not even be allowed to own a PICTURE of a gun, and that would be okay, because that is how the people want it.</exaggeration>

Comments?
 
God given rights are not, and should not be, up for a vote....ever!

I don't care what the "will of the people is", my rights are not subject to their approval.
 
The 2nd Amendment provides security. Security not just from foreign invasion, but from domestic tyranny, individual criminals, domestic disorder, whatever. "The right to buy weapons is the right to be free".

Would we allow a member state in the union that did not allow free worship or free speech, did not require search warrants or did not allow trial by jury or facing one's accusers?
 
The argument referring to other amendments avoids the point that many people (not me) believe the 2nd is no longer relevent, while the others are still integral to having a free and democratic state. Why is the 2nd integral? It isn't for defence of the state against national armies or our government. Looking to the mid-east one sees reasons for its relevance, on both sides of the conflict, but can that be transferred to the U.S.?
 
Regarding the absolute right under discussion here:

Were the Second Amendment to the U.S Constitution to disappear tomorrow, our inalienable right to keep and bear arms would be utterly uaffected.

The Second Amendment is relevant to the extent that it merely acknowledges a pre-existing condition, which is that we have a God-given right to possession of firearms.

And what God has ordained, let no man put asunder.

Inalienable means incapable of being surrendered or transferred. Absolutely.

TM

P.S. - This reply was cut and pasted from here: http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=112328. Oddly enough, it seems to have a better fit here. Mr. Blast, your question was right on time. :)
 
If someone would come right out and attempt to repeal the 2nd amendment, it would be the best thing that ever happened to our Constitution!

The public outcry would be huge.

Piecemeal destruction of the 2nd amendment is our problem...

I don't really see a problem with letting each state determine what to do with the right to keep and bear arms... However, the issue of states rights is what got the Civil War going, if you will remember. There is no way the Federal govt would ever relinquish that power to the states.

Had the Civil War turned out differently, I am convinced those of us living below the Mason-Dixon Line wouldnt be having to worry nearly as much about our right to keep and bear arms.
 
If the 2nd Amendment were repealed tomorrow, you can bet that the gun grabbers in every state will go ahead and try to get all guns banned right away. In this post 9-11 climate, this would be met with disdain, and ridicule.

Let me poke a hole in your theory about foreign threats and invasions. I think that fact that there are 80 million gun owners in the United States out of 280 million people (28.5%) is a big enough deterrent to a potential invasion force. This is a deterrent that does not have to be paid a salary, or benefits by the government. No pension plan, no training budget, no housing costs. In fact, if you look at it deeper, these 80 million gun owners actually pay the government to do their role of invasion deterrence, through sales tax, and excise tax. Not to mention the conservation efforts and money spent by this group to improve wildlife habitat!

The thing that government doesn't like about these 80 million gun owners is that it prevents government from doing things that these 80 million gun owners say the government does not have any business in doing. Thats why you have some segment of the government (last administration) allying itself with the gun grabbers. Guns in the hands of the public is a deterrence to tyranny in government. The ones that support gun control laws are the ones supporting tyranny in government.
 
*for discussion sake--this is not my personal opinion*

While engaging in some heated debates with a Christian Conservative not too long ago (I'm not too sure what relevance his religion and/or political beliefs have, just giving you some background on the fella), he mentioned that one of the most important things to remember about the Constitution, is that it can be changed at any time. Amendments can be added, altered, and repealed.

In fact, a quick look at the Amendments will show this. For example, Amendment XXI repealed Amendment XVIII. What's to stop Congress from passing an amendment to repeal the 2nd? Other than public opinion, and depending on where the particular Congressperson is from, that might not even be much of a concern.
 
Wyld -

In theory, nothing. The Constitution and BoR can indeed be changed, altered, modified, folded, spindled, mutilated, and/or destroyed, as long as the proper procedures are followed.

I'll say it again, though (and I'm sure that you've heard this before...) Rights do not come from any moldy old piece of paper. The exist by the virtue of sapient beings willing to excercise them.

So's if Congressman Whosit manages to get three-quarters of the states to repeal the 2nd, nothing would change. In theory. In practice, we've been operating as if the 2nd doesn't exist for years and years.

- Chris
 
The States.
Click to expand...

He's right on that. I think at the very least, 20 states would refuse to ratify. Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, and quite a few others. Repealing one of the BoR would just be immensly major.
 
"Here's how to fix a flawed amendment that is the source of so much confusion: Repeal its ambiguous preamble. Let some member of Congress introduce an amendment to strike the words before the comma in the Second Amendment. Then vote the amendment up or down." — William Safire
 
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Craetor with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness - That to secure these Rights, Governments are institutes among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent fo the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or 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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed.
 
There are no foreign threats that could or would mount a military invasion of the US.

Were you asleep all day on 9/11/01?
 
I've yet to hear it explained how owning a firearm is a "god given" right.

According to the Founding Fathers, there are only three God Given Rights, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The only problem is, those rights were laid out in the Declaration of Independence, which has absolutely NO bearing on how the United States is governed. NONE.

It could be argued that the right to own a firearm is an extension of these rights, but again, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are not mentioned in the Constitution. It could also be argued, for that matter, that shouting fire in a crowded movie theater could be a "God given right" toward your pursuit of happiness, if you get your jollies in that manner.

The simple fact of the matter is that the Second Amendment CAN be repealed through a Constitutional Convention. And that has been one item on anti-gunner's agendas for a long time.
 
The simple fact of the matter is that the Second Amendment CAN be repealed through a Constitutional Convention. And that has been one item on anti-gunner's agendas for a long time.
Click to expand...

...and I maintain that repeal of the 2nd Amendment would negate my right to make, buy, keep, and bear arms (a right that has been around since the first stick got picked up) about as much as repealing the 1st Amendment would make me stuff a sock in my mouth. ;)

When folks start worrying more about obeying laws than about what is Right, then the cattle cars and Zyklon-B ain't too far down the road.
 
Were you asleep all day on 9/11/01?
Click to expand...
You'll notice he said "that could or would mount a military invasion." You know why they hijcaked our passenger liners? 'Cause they don't have an air force. They don't have an army per se. They don't have the troop transports to pull a Normandy in Manhattan.

Invasion of the CONUS, in the conventional sense, is pretty much a dead letter these days I'd say. That said... I'm increasingly thinking warfare "in the conventional sense" is rapidly going the way of line formations of musketry. Which, to me, makes the 2nd more valuable than ever -- although it might make concealable pistols more appropriate "militia arms" than battle rifles.

According to the Founding Fathers, there are only three God Given Rights, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Click to expand...
Not quite right -- those are the only three specifically named -- but the document says there are "certain" rights, of which those three are only some:

" that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

Finally, to the original question -- I'd be overjoyed if they tried it. At least they'd be honest about it, and not try and get their way through weasely "interpretation" of plain language.

That said... it wouldn't matter if they did. They could repeal the whole bloody BOR, burn the original documents, and pee on the ashes.

It won't make a one of us less free. It won't change those unalienable rights -- it'll just mean it's time to use 'em again.


-K
 
You miss the point, Tam.

My concern is that people somehow look at ownership of firearms as something that Moses brought down from Mt. Sini with him, engraved on a stone tablet, that they'll find it in one of the forgotten books of the Bible (obviously deleted by a Liberal anti-gunner) called "The Book of Armaments," Chapter 3, verses 17 through 23.

There is a very real danger in doing so, just as there is a very real danger in confusing the Declaration of Independence as a document that serves as a basis for our codified system of laws in the United States.

People also seem to forget that for the first several years that the United States existed there WAS no inherent Constitutional right at the Federal level to the ownership of firearms.

Finally, the act and the implement used for carrying the act out are two very, very different things.
 
Kaylee,

Very true. I think, however, that the basis right we're talking about here, though, is the right to life -- self preservation and increase. It doesn't make the contextual leap that preservation of that right means that God has granted us the right to own fireearms.

But once again, that's an anacronism of the Declaration of Independence, which is not a document of governance in the United States.
 
You miss the point, Tam.
Click to expand...

A point was indeed missed, but 'twasn't I missing yours. ;)

My concern is that people somehow look at ownership of firearms as something that Moses brought down from Mt. Sini with him, engraved on a stone tablet, that they'll find it in one of the forgotten books of the Bible (obviously deleted by a Liberal anti-gunner) called "The Book of Armaments," Chapter 3, verses 17 through 23.
Click to expand...

Arms, of which firearms are a small and new subset, are my right to own via my ancestry, my opposable thumbs, and my forebrain. Take every purpose-designed weapon out of this house, and I'll have something improvised or manufactured to defend myself with before you've got the door closed behind you.

There is a very real danger in doing so, just as there is a very real danger in confusing the Declaration of Independence as a document that serves as a basis for our codified system of laws in the United States.
Click to expand...

There is a very real danger in not realizing that the first ten amendments merely enumerate pre-existant rights and considering them boons of government fiat.

People also seem to forget that for the first several years that the United States existed there WAS no inherent Constitutional right at the Federal level to the ownership of firearms.
Click to expand...

There was no inherent constitutional right to pump air past your teeth enumerated at the time, either, as the founders would have deemed having to actually state that right as a rather foreign concept.

Finally, the act and the implement used for carrying the act out are two very, very different things.
Click to expand...

The right to a free press implies the implements of printing, the right to free speech implies a right to not have your voicebox removed, the right to worship freely implies a right to houses of worship and holy books, et cetera, ad nauseum.

Also, bear in mind that repeal of any of the first ten amendments would nullify the ratification of the original constitution, as they were stipulated as a precondition of signing by several states, including the Old Dominion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top