"Conservative" Columnist: Repeal Second Amendment

Our old friend never-Trumper Bret Stephens is back...

Repeal the Second Amendment

"I have never understood the conservative fetish for the Second Amendment."

Of course not, because interest in "rights" is just a weird fetish!

"In fact, the more closely one looks at what passes for “common sense” gun laws, the more feckless they appear. Americans who claim to be outraged by gun crimes should want to do something more than tinker at the margins of a legal regime that most of the developed world rightly considers nuts. They should want to change it fundamentally and permanently.

There is only one way to do this: Repeal the Second Amendment.

Repealing the Amendment may seem like political Mission Impossible today, but in the era of same-sex marriage it’s worth recalling that most great causes begin as improbable ones."

In a way though, he's right. Liberals sound idiotic while trying to do a de facto repeal of the second amendment through courts and legislative bans, when the real way is to remove it from Trump's courts by eliminating the actual part of the constitution that grants the right. Here's hoping that repealing the second amendment will be part of the 2020 Democratic platform.

 

Hmm, the gun laws have not saved anyone in Europe.

 

The 2A doesn't grant a right. It restricts the government.

 

The practical effect of repealing the second amendment is the same.

 

Thats a mighty uphill battle. Besides needing 2/3 of each house and 3/4 state legislatures to ratify it, if you think the country is divided now, just think of the internal strife this would cause. We will not go quietly.

 

Same-sex marriage didn't require a Constitutional Amendment. It was imposed on the states by the Supreme Court!

If you think 37 states will ratify an amendment abrogating the 2nd amendment you are just looney!

 

That's why we hope Democrats make it their central plank.

 

No, it is NOT the same.

Amendment 9: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Just because there is no 2nd Amendment doesn't mean the right has been removed! We don't get our rights from the government!

 

Yeah, but can and does stomp the **** out of its citizens, when it puts it's mind to it

 

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.

 

You mean like Stalin did to his unarmed citizens?

 

You all are just agonna haveto a'wait on SCOTUS's decision on what is "weapons of war" and how it applies to the 2dA on the 4th District's ruling from Maryland.

 

Everything from cap and ball revolvers to pump-action shotguns and bolt action hunting rifles have been used by the military as issue weapons in combat, so "weapon of war" is a pretty broad and dangerous definition. And if something truly is a weapon of war, US v Miller protects it doe our use, anyway.

 

I'm not even that liberal but it's obvious that plenty of people are being deprived of their rights by gun violence. I have a utilitarian perspective on the issue. Policies which maximize net freedom are desirable. Having to fill out a form results in very little loss of freedom compared to the loss of freedom experienced by someone who is lying in a pool of blood with several bullets in them. Anti-safety activists narrowly fixate on the freedom to buy guns without restriction while being oblivious to the loss of freedom resulting from lax gun laws.

 

Some antigun activists focus on a form which wouldn't have stopped a single mass shooting in history.

 

That's one

 

Deprivation of rights is the result of actions by government, not private individuals. No private individuals, criminal or otherwise, has ever successfully been prosecuted on the charge of depriving a private citizen of their constitutional rights.

Stephen Paddock filled out thirty nine separate forms, in thirty nine separate incidents. How well did such work out in preventing the loss of even a single life?

 

That's why I'm hoping this becomes part of the 2020 Democratic Party platform.

 

I don't think it could pass, and the short term prospects of the left eliminating the 2nd amendment via that courts is, as Stephen's article points out, increasingly unlikely as the courts get Trumpified over the next few years.

 

You say that, but try that argument with the 9th circuit court of appeals. Most Democrat appointed judges have a "if it feels good do it" view of the law and the constitution. Obamacare isn't one of the enumerated powers, but it passed court muster anyway. I've increasingly realized how useless the constitution is if it's not backed up by a culture and people who respect it, and that doesn't describe America: 2017.

 

I think if your country wants to embark on fair dinkum control it has to do more then just increase the form filling exercise, it has to limit what actual guns can be bought and sold legally and prosecute heavily what is done illegally.

Whether your country has the stomach or the capacity for it is another thing. I would suggest that you underestimate your government and peoples will to do something, but it is in the stomach where you guys lack the drive to fix your problem.

 

SCOTUS has reserved its right to agree, dismiss, or amend earlier decisions on the 2dA. You know that.

 

Were those weapons illegal?

 

Me too; I hope they are that stupid.