IMO the Second Amendment has outlived it’s useful life and should be repealed. There, I said it.
Constitutional Lawyer @Constit71567558
Tweeted on January 17, 2019
[If he were a real constitutional lawyer of any competence he would know repealing the 2nd Amendment was of little importance:
The right there specified is that of ‘bearing arms for a lawful purpose.’ This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.
Chief Justice Morrison Waite
U.S. Supreme Court
U S v Cruikshank
92 U.S. 542 (1875)
It’s settled law.—Joe]
Prefect Joe. That usurpations by government are notwithstanding. As SCOTUS has ruled many times. The constitutions provides no legal standing for their acts.
That means that in government eyes, might is right. As every bully does. Naked aggression replaces reasoning to the point of insanity. And so it is, we have laws applied to people for no sound reasoning whatsoever.
We need to stop looking at them as leaders. And more as guards on a death march. As everyone knows where its all headed.
One then wonders what he believes its “usefulness” was, exactly, and when it was “useful”, and what exactly has changed that it is no longer “useful”.
In fact, moral law, which is what we’re talking about, is not valid because it is “useful” to anyone, or to any particular group, or desired goal, necessarily. It is valid because it is right. No doubt, for example, there are many who would think it “useful” to repeal laws against murder, thus believing that the laws against murder have “outlived their usefulness”.
Does “Constitutional lawyer” sees law as valid (or “useful”) only when convenient to him or his political aims then? Does he then see people as either “useful” or “useless” to himself and his aims, having no value otherwise?
Apparently so, for then the 2A can be seen as “useless” in helping to get rid of “useless” people.
Interesting then, isn’t it, that people of his mindset are also the very ones ensuring that more and more people are mal-educated in public schools, thus made dependent on government largess for their sustenance (coercive redistribution). They hate and fear the more self sufficient, and hate the “uselessness” they’ve been fostering in society for generations.
It seems to me therefore that they hate everyone but themselves (and maybe even themselves). Do we see there a selfish motivation for hating the second amendment which allows the more self sufficient to protect life?
Confidence. It’s a bloody hatred of confidence. (Con = “with”. Fide = “faith, thus, confidence = “with faith”).
Well, sbould the 2A be repealed and the government goes to infringing we gun owners have the meansto infringe right back.
The simplest reply to that tweet is, “Nobody gives a shit about your honest opinion. Stick it back up your ass where it belongs.”
His treasonous totalitarian excuse appears in the quotation you included from Cruikshanks. “bearing arms for a lawful purpose.” If lawful purposes can be restricted to those blessed by a totalitarian government, the Second Amendment can become as much a dead letter as the Third Amendment. When permits are required to bear (carry) or possess or own arms, self-defense is always removed as a legitimate reason to carry, possess or own arms.
Constitutional Carry has to be our ultimate goal.
More precisely, Constitutional Carry is a good start. There certainly is more to do after.
If you take the Constitution seriously, the answer is pretty simple. Without the 2nd Amendment, the 9th and 10th amendments still protect the right to keep and bear arms. Without those, the Federal government still has no power over the RKBA because Article 1 Section 8 enumerates its powers, and control over the people’s arms is nowhere mentioned in there. (Indeed, this is why at the time the Bill of Rights was up for ratification, some states argued against the 2nd Amendment on the grounds that it was redundant and unnecessary.)
But unfortunately, less than a handful of politicians in any of the three or more branches of government take the Constitution seriously, and this has been true since 1803 if not earlier.
There is a “poison pill” that was instituted by several of the original states when the Bill of Rights was added for acceptance. Any removal of those triggers an automatic divorce from the Republic. IIRC, that was written into their state constitutions, but I can’t recall which states have this provision. This was done to preclude the feds from changing their minds after Ratification. Fun times ahead!
The organization certifying the alma mater of this would be con lawyer is now under serious suspicion.