It’s time for gun-control supporters to come to grips with the fact that the amendment actually means something in contemporary society. For which reason, I hereby advance a modest proposal: Let’s repeal the damned thing.
Benjamin Wittes
March 19, 2007
Ditch the Second Amendment
[“Modest proposal”? I wonder what a “radical proposal” might be. Ownership of a handgun means an obligatory conviction for terrorism? We know what that leads to. But, in his world view, that might be a feature rather than bug.
He does recognize that repealing the Second Amendment is not currently politically feasible. What I don’t think he realizes is that even without a Second Amendment it would be “problematic” to enforce the gun bans and confiscations that he envisions would follow. Somehow the lessons of prohibition and the “war on drugs” are beyond his imagination.
But probably the most important takeaway from Wittes’ opinion piece is that you should never let someone get away with telling you no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]
The more I read things like this, the more sense r/K selection theory makes. A bunch of rabbits seeking to disarm everyone, particularly the sheepdogs, because they know that the wolves will prey on sheepdogs as well as rabbits, but because rabbits will breed faster than sheepdogs they will “win.”
It is insanity, but there is a method to it, a warped logic that is ultimately self-destructive, but very appealing to a particular segment of the population, particularly on the female side of things.
Repealing the 2nd amendment would not give the Federal government any more authority to regulate guns than it has today — which is zero. Nor would it invalidate the protections of the 9th amendment.
Another consideration, which Neil Smith has pointed out on a number of occasions, is that the Bill of Rights was the condition many states insisted on to ratify the Constitution in the first place. If you repeal part of what was required to get the Constitution ratified, is the Constitution still in effect afterwards?
You beat me to the observation and attendant question.
These educated idiots somehow believe that the BOR ‘grants’ rights or some such other crap. Either that, or they know the truth of the matter and their agenda is to promote that view to the LIV crowd.
Doesn’t really matter as I don’t think some of these educated idiots understand something:
The COTUS doesn’t protect me from them.
It protects them from me.
Right. Or as Neil Smith puts it: it’s not really a Bill of Rights, it’s a Bill of Prohibitions (against the government).
That’s more than a word game, as he explains. For example, it demonstrates that the question “at which age does the Bill of Rights start to apply” is nonsense.
I often wish they’d just get on with it and try to take our guns so we could get this crap over with once and for all. I’d rather fight the fight now than kick the can down the road any further and make it that much harder for my grand kids.