So how about REPEALING the 2nd Amendment?

Tamara:

Could you clarify this for those of us who are a bit failing in our knowledge of the Constitution:

"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."

are you saying that if one of the 1st 10 amendment was repealed, the whole Constitution would be nullified? Do you mean this in a strict legal sense (ie, a law is written that way) or figuratively?
 
While I am not a constitutional scholar, nor do I play one on TV, I have heard rather convincing arguments based on the fact that, since several states refused to ratify without the Bill of Rights being added, removal of any of those first ten would nullify their ratification and lead to a constitutional crisis.

In all probability, however, it wouldn't have that effect in modern 21st Century America.

Far as I'm concerned, however, it'd remove whatever shreds of legitimacy the Federal government has. I'd consider myself to be in occupied territory at that point and behave accordingly.
 
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, and always has been, a "Natural Right of Man" to do so, however (or there is if you subscribe to the same Classical Liberal political theorists that inspired the founders). The 2nd, as with the entire BOR, was merely added to the Constitution as emphasis of certain Natural Rights deemed particularly important by the Framers.
 
The reason why the Second Amendment was in the bill of rights is to guard its citizens from a tyrannical government. Basically it is plan B if plan A (voting, First Amendment) does not work. Trust me, the USA is not immune to a dictatorship. No nation is. The Second Amendment made sure that we had a backup plan. This is really the true nature of the Second Amendment.
 
I hate to add to the pessimism surrounding the future of the 2nd amendment on this board, but the whole BoR is really a disaster. In the event a government overruns its boundaries or fails to effectively protect its citizens lives, there is no need for 2nd-amendment justification to own weapons. If the government isn't going to protect my life and well-being to a reasonable degree, it has failed. Since there is a significant and empirically proven difference between the capability of people to defend themselves and the capability for the state to protect the people with police and other government agents, there is no doubt in my mind that any regulation of or ban on small arms violates the primary purpose of government.

So while the founders debated and finally put the 2nd (and other) amendment into the BoR, it must have been a joke on their part; they clearly knew their interpretation of the Constitution endowed the government no ability to regulate firearms, but decided to implement a series of amendments, equally open to bad interpretation, in an attempt to regulate away a bad government. I guess the joke's on them for being so ignorant.

The entire collection of founding documents and amendments seems to be just an attempt to construct the ideal government which falls open to all types of attacks when interpreted by an imperfect government.

Simply the fact that it's technically possible to repeal a guarantee of a "right" which people held self-evident at the moment of creation of this country should indicate the total futility of the BoR.

If in fact there is no legitimate use for the BoR other than to slow the journey of a government to its total corruption, the only effect the BoR retains is it's ability to be attacked by both the government and the majority of the people when either dislikes some minor portion of it.
 
I believe each human being is born with the intrinsic right to fight back against tyrants, criminals, and terrorist savages.

I believe the Second Amendment merely recognizes that right and states it in plain English, but in no way grants or confers it, and could not possibly deprive us of it if it were repealed.

I believe the extreme leftists understand the chances of repealing the Second Amendment today are very poor. They're profoundly un- and anti-realistic people, but not so stupid as to believe they could pull off such a scheme in a few months' or years' time. I believe their fascination with so-called "gun control" and so-called "common sense gun safety legislation," et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, is clear evidence of a determined, patient effort to eviscerate the Second Amendment for all practical purposes before repealing it altogether.

I believe they won't succeed during my lifetime--I'm now three and fifty--but the extreme leftists have made it their business to take over public education at all levels, and one of their most tenaciously held goals is to reshape children to suit their political schemes. I sincerely hope American socialism soon goes the way of German Nazism and Italian Fascism, but I'll freely admit that's not the most realistic hope I've ever entertained.

Leftists are to American law as the A.I.D.S. virus is to health!
 
are we looking to the wrong amendment, folks?

Rather than debate what "milita" meant then and now, perhaps we should endeavor to find an intrinsic and inalienable right to self-defense, and the means thereof, in the Ninth Amendment, which posits the existence of "unenumerated" rights which are "penumbral" extensions of the biggies we know and love. This Amendment has already been the ground for a right to privacy if I've read my law correctly.
 
By Mike Irwin:

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.
Click to expand...



Mike you miss quote thereby eschew both meaning and intention of the founders.


From the Declaration of Independence …

“ … 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. …”

The words “among these” clearly indicates that the founders were speaking in a broad manner, reserving explanation of the details of the apparatus of Government (as God intended) for another time. The statement in no way limits or excludes any measure of personal freedom. Rather such implies, with certainty, that those freedoms, and things necessary to achieve and preserve liberty are indeed sovereign instruments of which every individual has a “right” to. Such are beyond the bounds of governments as they originate with God.

The declaration serves to clarify the intention and perspective of the founders. It is an articulation of truth that measures the legitimacy of governments to exist and declares the justification for their removal. It is an expression of ideals that are above any authority of man.

The Constitution dose not give us rights. Rather it is the instrument of law and the mechanism of restraint that prevents our government from intruding upon the freedoms that God “endowed” to every individual. Likewise; the BOR dose not grant liberty but further clarifies such and defines clearly the lines that Governments shall not cross. Free speech and a free press are not just something we enjoy; they are necessary to Liberty. Assembly is not just something to do but is fundamental in preserving autonomy. Likewise; arms are not just an option but are essential to freedom. In following the explanation for all this by the Founders and the development of the instruments that define our system it becomes clear that they built precept upon precept beginning with “rights” that “God gave”. Therefore, the excising of, or possessing of, anything required to preserve our liberty as defined in the BOR is without question a “right” given by God.

Removing the 2nd amendment (or any other) of the Constitution would unshackle the restraint of the Government but in no way nullifies the individual “right” to be armed, or to speak, or to assemble.
 
US Constitution/BOR

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Click to expand...
http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/constitution/constitution.html
THE PREAMBLE TO THE BILL OF RIGHTS

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
Click to expand...
http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/billrights/billmain.html

I offer these lead-in words and their links for whatever the value. This NARA site offers the changed language too. I've found the various links informative and useful in conversations with "various" folks.

-IB
.
 
Tamara,

While I am not a constitutional scholar, nor do I play one on TV, I have heard rather convincing arguments based on the fact that, since several states refused to ratify without the Bill of Rights being added, removal of any of those first ten would nullify their ratification and lead to a constitutional crisis.
Click to expand...
You might as well play one on TV because you'd be more authoritative than most who claim to be.

Your history is correct, but the conclusion is not. Those states also ratified the amendment procedure contained within the proposed Constitution. Thereby and thereafter, either the Congress or a Constitutional Convention can propose amending the Constitution in any way. If the requisite number of states ratify the amendment(s), the Constitution is thenceforth changed as though it were always so.

Amendments proposed through Congress are theoretically more orderly since the issues would be focused and determined according to established rules. A Constitutional Convention would be a real mess since everything would be on the table and there would be no binding rules governing it.
 
"....... 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?.."

Tamara,

The last abomination is quite common - "reliable confidential informants". The acceptence of such "evidence" in courts should have been struck down a long time ago.
 
LAK,

The last abomination is quite common - "reliable confidential informants". The acceptence of such "evidence" in courts should have been struck down a long time ago.
Click to expand...
Nonsense! Such "evidence" is not admissible in courts because it is not competent, and all evidence must be subject to complete examination by the accused. Confidential informants can be used, however, to generate competent evidence.
 
Blackhawk,

"Nonsense"?

Tell me that such are not used as the basis for search warrants, etc. Are the accused people that are subsequently incarcerated and tried allowed to confront these in open court?
 
LAK,

Tell me that such are not used as the basis for search warrants, etc. Are the accused people that are subsequently incarcerated and tried allowed to confront these in open court?
Click to expand...
To get a search warrant, the police have to convince a judge that a search of a suspect's controlled area is reasonable and likely to produce competent evidence. That's usually the limit of the value of a "confidential informant" regarding evidence.

Say a spouse's body is found buried in the basement as a result of a search warrant issued on the basis of a tip to police from a "confidential informant." The evidence against the accused is the body in the basement not the snitch's tip to the police.

There has to be "reasonable" cause for a search warrant. What if the judge issues one based on the police knowingly using an informant whose information came from playing with a Ouija board or Tarot cards without telling the judge? The defense can likely get the search warrant and anything emanating from it suppressed based on the argument that the search was "unreasonable" contrary to the Constitution. Would that be in open court? Not likely. That would be in chambers with all parties present except the jury, the public, and the press because that's a question of law and juries try questions of fact. Since the defense's challenge would be one of denial of Constitutional rights, it would be usually resolved before trial, including appeals of the narrow issue.

There are no ambushes in open court by using secret evidence. The competence and Constitutionality of evidence is determined before a case ever gets to trial (open court). In the example, the defendant's problem is the body, not the fact that a snitch clued in the police to look in the basement.

Mistakes are sometimes made before and during trial. That's what the appellate courts are for. They don't retry cases. They review them to ascertain whether anybody's rights were violated by tainted evidence, judicial misconduct, fraud, etc. Those deliberations don't take place in "open court" either. The public can attend oral arguments, but that's about it.
 
Tamara sez it most succinctly......

"We have met the enemy and they are US."

The ownership of guns is what protects us from extreme statism, or on the other end, anarchy. Men have an inalienable right (and duty) to defend themselves, their family, and their posessions against any deliberate act of evil perpetrated on themselves from any source.

Can anyone of you envision a scenario whereby the constitution is suspended and martial law is declared? I can. The thread between order and chaos in ANY culture is fragile and slender.

Mao Tse Tung was right in one of his utterances: "True power comes out of the barrel of a gun."
 
Go For It

That's what I always tell the antis who want to infringe my 2A - go repeal the 2nd amendment first! Go get the 2/3 of the Congress and 3/4ths of the states - THEN we'll have the proper debates which are necessary, which will bring to the forefront the real reasons and real meaning of the 2A (which of course when this happens repeal will never happen). But that's the process; that's why the framers put it in the Const. - to require a supermajority for its repeal. DON'T go around trying to pass legislation, using self-aggrandizing politicians from other states with backroom deals, who are able to get a simple kneejerk majority of congresscritters to infringe my rights when the "gun control" is "snuck" into another unrelated bill, UNLESS AND UNTIL you go repeal the damn thing! That's the process and procedure in place, and if the social costs of it are truly just so overwhelming, and/or if the 2nd just ain't needed any more :rolleyes: , then a repeal should have plenty of popular support, right? So go for it, antis! THAT'S where the debate should be . Until then, antis, kindly STFU about your perception of "gun problems", because there must be strict scrutiny applied to any law that abridges this fundamental right. Any attempt to infringe the rights by circumventing the the Constitutional amendment process is wrong, unfair, disingenuous, and un-democratic. Get your ass to another country if you don't like our Const. amendment process! Grrrrr.
 
Futo Inu,

So, how do you really feel about it? :D Seriously: very well said!

The antis endless whining about things they don't understand not being the way they want them to be is like running water and blowing wind -- it erodes the most resolute of convictions, and that's partly why we have the thousands of unconstituional gun laws we do. As you say, if they actually did have something better than the 2A, it would have real popular support.

God hates a lying tongue, and that's what the 9th Commandment is about. Sometimes I'd like to see lying in the public arena be a criminal offense according to some of 20,000 unconstitutional federal, state, and local laws. Unconstitutional because of that pesky 1A! Then when Rosie O, Chuck Schumer, and any other hairpin with a microphone or reporter's slot lies in the public arena, we can put them in the slammer and deprive them of their "right" to open their yaps in public ever again. That analogy to the present situation regarding the 2A is one that can be developed pretty accurately.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top