Repeal Second Amendment, Analyst Advises

CNS News ^

[Sub-Driver]

Repeal Second Amendment, Analyst Advises By Nathan Burchfiel CNSNews.com Staff Writer June 12, 2007

(CNSNews.com) - The Second Amendment guarantees the right of an individual to own guns and for that reason should be repealed, according to a legal affairs analyst who opposes gun ownership.

"The Second Amendment is one of the clearest statements of right in the Constitution," Benjamin Wittes, a guest scholar at the center-left Brookings Institution, acknowledged in a discussion Monday. "We've had decades of sort of intellectual gymnastics to try to make those words not mean what they say."

Wittes, who said he has "no particular enthusiasm for the idea of a gun culture," said that rather than try to limit gun ownership through regulation that potentially violates the Second Amendment, opponents of gun ownership should set their sights on repealing the amendment altogether.

"Rather than debating the meaning of the Second Amendment, I think the appropriate debate is whether we want a Second Amendment," Wittes said. He conceded, however, that the political likelihood of getting the amendment repealed is "pretty limited."

Wittes said the Second Amendment guarantee of the right to bear arms meant more when it was crafted more than 200 years ago than it does today. Modern society is "much more ambivalent than they [the founders] were about whether gun ownership really is fundamental to liberty," he said.

"One of the things that they believed was that the right of states to organize militias, and therefore individuals to be armed, was necessary to protect the liberty of those states against the federal government," Wittes said. "This is something we don't really believe as a society anymore."

[oldbrowser]

"This is something we don't really believe as a society anymore."

This guy has probably never seen a gun.

I believe that we should have mandatory 2 year service of all able bodied citizens where they would learn respect for weapons and their country.

They would have to volunteer for overseas service but could serve in this country with coast guard, border guard, or other civil services.

[goldstategop]

Over our dead bodies will they repeal the Second Amendment. The loony gun grabbers will have to pry our guns from our cold, dead hands. MOLON LABE!

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[Ancesthntr]

I will at least give this guy credit for honesty, which is more than I can say for the Bradys, Feinstein, Schumer, Lautenberg, Nutso McCarthy and the rest of the hoplophobic blissninnies and would-be tyrants.

That being said, I would ask Mr. Wittes to COME AND GET THEM - yourself: http://www.moviesonline.ca/TheFeed/index.php?id=300-laydownyourweapons

[nobdysfool]

The basic disconnect here is the idea that the Bill of Rights grants these rights. It does no such thing. The Bill of Rights is a restraint on government taking away rights recognized as rights by natural or divine right.

The Bill of Rights forbids the government to attempt to deny these rights to the people. In fact, the entire body of Amendments to the Constitution are a restraint on the power of government over the people. A few of the Amendments define more clearly proper procedure, but the bulk are restraint of government power over the citizenry.

The first ten amendments are exactly that, and any attempt by government to set them aside should be viewed as an attack on the rights of the people. The Bill of Rights is, and should ever be, inviolate.

[FormerLib]

Gotta salute him for his honesty!

But gotta deport him for his treason.

[taxed2death]

To get a very clear idea of “intent” of the second amendment...all one has to do is to read various state Constitutions. There will be no misinterpretation of what the second amendment means.

[paul51]

We’ve screwed up just about everything else in this country, we might as well start ‘fixing’ the constitution also./sarc

[M1Tanker]

WOW, what a ‘gift’ from the anti-gun/anti-freedom nuts! This is almost as good as when an Imam says “no, no matter what you do, we will keep trying to kill you until you surrender to Islam and become our slaves”.

Where to take this useful idiot’s positions apart first....

1. Can one of the Amendments in the BOR be canceled? Was not the whole point of the BOR that these freedoms MUST be guaranteed?

2. If the 2nd Amendment is repealed, where will the repealing stop? The 1st Amendment is already infringed concerning Christians. Maybe the socialists will repeal it also and have state run media, a state ‘religion’ (or the “State” as “religion”), tear down churches, shut down the Internet/radio/TV (hey, it’s the “fairness Doctrine”!) and stifle ALL dissent. But then, the leftists “Question Authority” bumper sticker only means to ‘question’ when the left is out of power. Questioning leftist ‘authority’ usually gets one audited by the IRS or “investigated” by the FBI.

But why stop there? Why not repeal the 5th Amendment? Why not force people to testify against themselves (unless they are leftists of course)? Oh, and let us take out that pesky “cruel and unusual punishment’ part too. While we are at it, why not repeal ALL the Amendments? After all, women voting ‘offends’ the Islamics, and the left tells us that we are mean and cruel to ‘offend’ these monsters so let’s get rid of women’s suffrage. Heck, why stop there?

And who would stop the government from just repealing Amendments and outlawing natural rights? Without the 2nd Amendment, NO ONE could. Which brings me to #3.

3. One of the things that they believed was that the right of states to organize militias, and therefore individuals to be armed, was necessary to protect the liberty of those states against the federal government,” Wittes said. “This is something we don’t really believe as a society anymore.”

He does not get out much does he. Others have already taken this obvious deceit and torn it to pieces. What the left/socialists/fascists/Islamists fear IS an Armed People. It really puts a bummer on their totalitarian schemes.

4. Barnett recommended that gun control advocates “not favor methods of interpretation [to criticize the legitimacy of the Second Amendment] that you wouldn’t want to put in the hands of political opponents.”

The leftists caught projecting again. Akin to the "Bush Police State" charge. The left practices police state tactics, but claims others want use it. I do not know Barnett's politics, I am just speaking to the point he brings up. The left’s lust for power and unfounded sense of moral supremacy leads them to believe that they will NEVER do any ‘wrong’ and if wrong happens then it is for the “Greater Good (tm)”. Just like Stalin’s purges, Mao’s Cultural Revolution, and Hitler’s “solutions”. 200 million plus people have died for the left’s “Greater Good (tm)”.

The 2nd Amendment gives us the opportunity to ensure this NEVER happens in the USA.

[RightWhale]

Wittes said. "This is something we don't really believe as a society anymore."

Obviously this statement may be countered by:

This is something we believe is necessary for the continuation of America.

[wastedyears]

Well I certainly believe it. I hope to be a gun owner in the not-too-distant future, and this is absolutely outrageous. Anybody dares to try to repeal the Second Amendment, and there will be a massive armed militia outside that person's home, demanding them to step down from government altogether, or probably face an attack on their office.

[wastedyears]

There’s enough ammo in America to take care of it.

If not, we move to explosives.

[Ladysmith]

"Rather than debating the meaning of the Second Amendment, I think the appropriate debate is whether we want a Second Amendment," Wittes said.

Oh, believe me, this country wants this amendment! I would LOVE to see these idiots try to take it away! They won't know what hit them...

[tpaine]

- should the Bill of Rights be repealed, in whole or in part, the Constitution would no longer be ratified, and the Federal Government would no longer have any legitimacy.
No 2nd Amendment == no legitimate federal government.

Well said..

The Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment make it clear that the peoples rights to life, liberty, or property are not to be infringed, abridged or denied, -- by any level of government in the USA.
Marshall made much the same point in Marbury, back in 1803:

"-- The question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution, can become the law of the land, is a question deeply interesting to the United States; but happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest.
It seems only necessary to recognize certain principles, supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it.
That the people have an original right to establish, for their future govern-ment, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected.
The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it, nor ought it, to be frequently repeated.
The principles, therefore, so established, are deemed fundamental. And as the authority from which they proceed is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent. --"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thus we see the fundamental principles of personal liberty in our Constitution as permanent.
Any amendments that violated those principles would be null, void, and repugnant.

[CSM]

Actually, I kind of agree with everything he says on this portion of the post. I don’t necessarily agree with how he got to these statements, but I think he inadvertently hits on a couple of things that are essentially correct.

Namely, that the public is no longer concerned with individual liberty and freedom and that we should just attempt a repeal of the RKBA rather than backdoor prohibition.

[Hugin]

"One of the things that they believed was that the right of states to organize militias, and therefore individuals to be armed, was necessary to protect the liberty of those states against the federal government," Wittes said. "This is something we don't really believe as a society anymore."

Literally he is correct, but the point is irrelevant. I don't think many people think that state governments are going to organize militias as a bulwark against the Federal government. Even in the Civil War the Confederate States needed a federal army to fight the Union. But the 2nd Amendment doesn't address that anyway. When it talks about a militia being vital to a free state, it means an unorganized militia of all citizens, not organized state militias. And the idea that armed citizens are a counter to a potential dictatorial government is fortunately something that at least a significant portion of Americans still believe.

[Redcloak]

Believe it or not, this is the best for pro-gun people. If they try to repeal it, they’ll obviously fail.

But, in failing, the Antis will have shown the one thing that they lack today: Respect for the Constitution.

By twisting and distorting the plain language of the 2nd Amendment, they threaten the sensible interpretation of the rest of the Constitution. If "Shall not be infringed" doesn't mean "Shall not be infringed", then what does "Due process" really mean? Years ago Alan Dershowitz warned liberals against such mental evasions concerning the 2nd Amendment. He once said: "Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming that it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a safety hazard don't see the danger of the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like."

I hope that we start to see more honest liberals like this one. He should be applauded for saying such things.

[Mr. Mojo]

What is this guy smoking?

Maybe he's just been reading some of George Will's old writings:

"Whatever right the Second Amendment protects is not as important as it was 200 years ago... The government should deconstitutionalize the subject by repealing the embarrasing Amendment." - George Will

Chickensh/t statists will always be with us.

[gondramB]

>>What is this guy smoking?<<

There is a certain honesty here. When our fundamental rights are taken away it would be nice if they went through the motions of admitted we had those rights and actually changing the constitution instead of a judge just deciding we never had them in the first place, no matter what the constitution says.

[RightWingConspirator]

This guy is typical of liberals, like AlGore, who believe in judicial activism, and propose that the US Constitution "should be a living document". That is, they believe that they should be able to modify the Constitution at whim to legalize gay marriage, criminalize thought and words as "hate crimes" and seize privately owned guns and ammunition so that militias couldn't be formed to challenge the excesses of government under such liberal regimes.

The founding fathers wisely included the first ten amendments to the US Constitution to protect citizens from government officials who would usurp and deny them their freedoms, and this guy should be widely proclaimed to be the fool that he is.

[lowbridge]

bump