Replies

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

The Bill of Rights weren't independent amendments, they were preconditions for ratification. When the Constitution was first ratified, there weren't nine states with unconditional ratifications - the nine states threshold was met only by including those states that ratified only on the precondition that a Bill of Rights be included.

In other words, should the Bill of Rights be repealed, in whole or in part, the Constitution would no longer be ratified, and the Federal Government would no longer have any legitimacy.

Of course, no government has legitimacy absent the consent of the government, and no people who have been disarmed have can consent (consent being meaningless unless refusal of consent can be enforced). So the fundamental truth is that no government that infringes on the IRKBA can be legitimate.

But in the case of the US, it's direct and immediate. No 2nd Amendment == no legitimate federal government.

- should the Bill of Rights be repealed, in whole or in part, the Constitution would no longer be ratified, and the Federal Government would no longer have any legitimacy.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.

Regrettably, the REAL failure (tragedy ?) of Prohibition is that it DID give us the ability to (literally!) repeal a fundamental Right in the Constitution.

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.

As soon as the press and socialists get enough subdued prisoners (er, taxpayers) indoctrinated to get 51% of the voters to strip the Electoral college and small states of their power.