Posted on 06/12/2007 4:23:30 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
“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.”
We need it more now than ever.
(i.e. repealing the Second, no matter the intent of said repeal, actually would let the R2KBA/Self Defense revert to the Ninth Amendment and Tenth, then by extension the 14th ...)
Only if he wants to start the next American Revolution.
It’s good to hear the opponents of the Second Amendment at least be honest about it—If you don’t like the Constitution, amend it through the established and legal process.
I wonder how Benjamin Wittes feels about the Tenth Amendment.
I hate to think of the future and the coming battles we face. This Nation must endure... even if it means we wall up some States and intern leftists, dims and terrorists inside them!
LLS
I sent this article to my RKBA group. The spell checker suggested changing Wittes to witless.
Might as well try and repeal buttholes; the result would be the same. A year down the road and all hell would bust loose.
That exact point was contested before the Supreme Court in the 1920 Prohibition Hearings. The court heard lengthy/learned arguments by top constitutional scholars, declined to comment on them, and made a fiat 'ruling' that the 18th Amendment was constitutional. - Leaving open the question of whether a 'repugnant' act [see Marbury] can be constitutional.
That is, until they needed to repeal "prohibition" the basic concept of repealing the First Amendment, the 2nd, 3rd, 4th or any other would be not be practical/possible/thought of/considered seriously. However, thanks to the early 20th century liberals (who also gave us the 17th Amendment stripping states of their right to appointment Senators!) and the income tax, we now face the ability to repeal the Second Amendment.
The prohibitionist's may ~believe~ they have that ability, but both constitutionally & in real world terms, they simply lack that power.
The power to prohibit basic rights has never been delegated to any level of gov't in the USA by we the people.
Barnett makes that point here:
The power to regulate v. the power to prohibit
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1419654/posts
Barnett makes that point here:
The power to regulate v. the power to prohibit
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1419654/posts
I don’t know who he is talking about. I believe it more than ever.
Are the ten in the BOR not iviolate? By saying that one should be repealed can we not say that of any of the others at any time there are enough morons who agree? Are we to live by “the yay and no of general ignorance”?
As if they don't now? Of course they would redouble, even retreble their censorship efforts, as they are "true believers" in "the end justifies the means"...
the infowarrior
Neither... It appears he's speaking French...
the infowarrior
We REALLY need to clean the garbage out of D.C. anyway and this is the perfect excuse to get the job started.
Lets Get Ready to Rumble!
Beg do differ here... The US Civil War of 1861-1865 was fought largely by units which were privately raised at a state level. This was, perhaps the last war in our history where regiments levied by individual states were a prominent factor...
the infowarrior
Many here at FR agree that a majority, using 'community standards', - can ignore constitutional principles to make/enforce prohibitive laws.
It's no great leap for them to endorse the concept that a super-majority can ignore our right to own and carry arms in order to repeal the 2nd.
An anti with the honest to admit that the 2nd Amendment says exactly what it means and means exactly what it says. If only they all had his point of view, because the Amendment is still 100 years from being nullified via. Constitutional Amendment, and his honesty signals the death knell for those who want to twist the language of the 2nd into protecting the right of state governments to form militias.
Go man, go!
What is most funny about his point of view is that overturning the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution would have no effect whatsoever on the numerous states that have RKBA in their State Constitutions.
To remove the protection on an individual’s right to KBA from the federal Constitution would make it simply a states rights issue.
To ban guns, he would have to pass a Constitutional amendment that both eradicates the 2nd Amendment and then includes an Amendment to the Constitution that bans or specifically restricts the right of the people to KBA.
I saw this on RCP this morning too. I spit my coffee onto the monitor.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.