Posted on 06/12/2007 4:23:30 AM PDT by 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(CNSNews.com) - The Second Amendment guarantees the right of an individual to own guns and for that reason should be repealed, according to a legal affairs analyst who opposes gun ownership.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 He conceded, however, that the political likelihood of getting the amendment repealed is "pretty limited."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."
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
Oh yeah, that’s gonna happen. Why not just rid of that pesky 1st amendment too while we’re at it? Don’t forget, it’s a living document that we can adjust as needed. /sarc
From my cold, dead hands....
Bring plenty of help.
Many comments on this thread have zeroed in on this quote, and that makes me feel like there is some hope for us, after all. Modern liberals - socialists, that is, do not believe in the supremacy of the states in our Federal system of government. We are a Republic, not a national democracy. If the Left wants to abrogate the 2nd Amendment, they are also going to have to challenge the 10th as well:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.
As for our guns, let me be clear to all the thin-wristed, narrow-shouldered little think tank dweebs in Washington:
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ.
Kooks come in all sizes, and all guises in my experience.
This guy is a great example.
Trying to repeal the 2A and gun confiscation would be absolute political suicide. How many people would be able to watch a Ruby Ridge or Waco on the news every other day especially if children were involved. That is if the media didn’t censor what was actually happening.
Gabz, an honest lib, one of the very few, we ought to encourage this. He admits to the decades-long effort to deny that the 2nd Amendment means what it says. I’m all for honest debates.
This is EXACTLY why I have guns and encourage everyone who is willing to be citizens to buy and know how to use military grade weapons.
BTW, the NFA act of 1934, GCA, and FOPA are unconstitutional and a crock of shiite.
“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”? Is that a mouse in your pocket or do you just enjoy attacking the Bill of Rights?
From Federalist #28 (Hamilton)
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.I'll go with Hamilton.
ML/NJ
We can only pray this moron will try this. I hate to tell him this ,but the demorats have lost their enthusiasm for gun control after the drumming they took when slick got the Brady bill passed.
“What society is he talking about?
The imaginary one.
The other side in the next civil war.”
ding ding ding ding
Interesting the admission, "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."
Gotta give the grabber credit... at least he's intellectually honest.
Repeal the 2nd Amendment? That would require 3/4 of the states to ratify. N.e.v.e.r h.a.p.p.e.n.
Wow. At least he admits it. At least he is a refreshing liberal. Kind of reminds me of Christopher Hitchens. He may be an athiest, but he at least admits that conservatives are correct in their interpritation of scripture, rather that the liberal theologins who argue it doesnt mean what is obviously says it means.
I actually prefer this kind of leftist. Unfortunately, deception is a left-wing trait, with incrementalism being the goal, so I guess these guys don't make good leftists after all.
Then it is time to refresh the Liberty Tree.
You are, at least, conceptually correct. Unfortunately, when women won the right to vote, the Constitution was not modified to restrain the excesses of women in the same way it was designed to restrain the excesses of the men it was designed by, and for.
That oversight has cost us our liberty.
Nope. It means exactly the same today as 200 years ago.
“this is something we don’t believe as a society anymore.”
just who in he&& is he speaking for?
is there no end to these arrogant, left wing edicts?
he must be practising for when he becomes a commissar in hillary!’s government.
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.