Posted on 10/06/2017 8:28:14 AM PDT by Mr. Mojo
An October 5 New York Times op-ed by Bret Stephens calls for an all-out repeal of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
He introduces the op-ed by claiming “more guns means more murder” and transitions from there to claim that guns were only used for “justifiable homicide” 268 times in 2015. He cites an FBI Extended Homicide Data Table for this figure but the table only tracks the number of times a private citizen shot and killed a felon during the commission of felony.
Obviously a the number of times a private citizen justifiably shoots a felon is going to be far lower than the overall number of times a citizen uses a gun justifiably, so that FBI table actually undercuts his point rather than bolstering it.
Stephens goes on to suggest that the idea of armed citizenry in general–and the need for a group like the iconic Minutemen in particular–is long past. He says our defense now lies in missiles and the like. Moreover, he makes clear that he finds the whole idea of a citizenry being armed to repel tyranny quite “curious” to begin with.
He then goes on to explain what he sees as a quagmire. He does not believe the NRA has bought influence and he believes late night host Jimmy Kimmel is wrong to say the NRA has. Instead, Stephens believes the NRA has influence with Congress because the NRA is “popular.” At the same time, he does not believe the so-called “common sense” gun laws pushed to counter the NRA really make sense. He believes the laws are “feckless” and simply “tinker at the margins” of what could be done.
Stephens then unveils his ultimate suggestion–“Repeal the Second Amendment.”
He acknowledges the difficulty of accomplishing this
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Get rid of the 19th and 15th Amendments and many of our problems will be solved. Every amendment is weighed the same so if they take the 2nd then get rid of one of those too.
It already is in colleges and universities.
The NYT author is wrong on this point.
The 2nd amendment is NOT about "national security," it is about "free states," that is, about protecting the sovereignty of the states against an encroaching federal government.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" was achieved by arming the people of the states, and "reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officer, and the Authority of training the Militia" was meant to give control of it to the states.
Protecting the "national security" of the United States from foreign invaders was the job of the Navy.
-PJ
This says I was low.
242 million murdered by their government.
https://healthresearchfunding.org/19-shocking-statistics-democide/
Yup.
This is what a New York City conservative looks like.
Not surprised.
We have missiles, and we have good, well trained people in the armed forces to keep those secure and use them when necessary. Those of us who are willing, moral and competent, though, should continue to have small arms, ammunition and other supplies with us for the possible event of needing to defend our home soil against foreign enemy invasion in the near future.
There are law-abiding prior servicemen capable of training and organizing others in most of our communities. There were auxiliaries in many communities that could have been useful in such an event if necessary during World War 2.
One problem we currently have is that many wrongs including mass murders have been carried out by spoiled lunatics with big incomes and serious personal vices (Paddock, Lanza, Holmes, others, including local government bureaucrats like Farook).
Oddly, those atrocities are used as an excuse for efforts to disarm common working class Americans while presenting no real obstacles to the demographic that provided the mass murderers (left-leaning single mothers with big incomes). Something needs to be done about the drug problems, politically correct and corrupt local leadership policies and other social pathologies.
When the msm calls someone a conservative what they really mean is a Democrat who isn’t a commie
Over reacting never helps use brain first.
+1
Folks, we’ve seen the mass murders committed by the fatherless super-predators right in front of us, just as predicted by fathers’ right advocates during the 1990s. The horrible atrocities are being dishonestly used to disarm the kinds of people who would protect our communities: those real conservatives who continue living by traditional morality. They don’t look so stylish or influential, but the situation is what it is.
Our local community leadership structures are upside down with our real men treated like garbage.
But 100,000,000 million is 100 trillion.
I did not serve in the USAF, in both The Vietnam War and The Cold War, to have some pajamaboy two-bit keyboard typist make whimsy of his one-handed nocturnal dream of abridging every American’s right to keep and bear arms!!
This paper examines the growth of government during this century as a result of giving women the right to vote. Using cross-sectional time-series data for 1870 to 1940, we examine state government expenditures and revenue as well as voting by U.S. House and Senate state delegations and the passage of a wide range of different state laws. Suffrage coincided with immediate increases in state government expenditures and revenue and more liberal voting patterns for federal representatives, and these effects continued growing over time as more women took advantage of the franchise. Contrary to many recent suggestions, the gender gap is not something that has arisen since the 1970s, and it helps explain why American government started growing when it did.
I was reading on newsbusters about some guy named Charlie Sykes who is supposedly a MSNBC ‘conservative’ who has a book out that trashes all republicans and conservatives who voted for Trump. Lol. Who is this guy?
Navarro on CNN, Stephens at NYT, Rubin at WaPo... All fake news conservatives.
Ah. Sorry. Typing too fast. 100,000,000 or 100 million. Not both! Thanks for the catch.
I’d never seen the 240 million number until you questioned my typing though. Thanks!
So...just like David Brooks. On either account.
The best thing for the second amendment would be to have a vote on an amendment to repeal the 2nd this year. It will go down in flames since the Constitution requires a 2/3 vote in favor by both houses of Congress before the amendment can be submitted to the states to be ratified. A repeal vote will not get 50% of the House. In fact a number of Democrat Congresscritters will likely be forced to vote no by their constituents. This is the perfect vote to schedule in an election year and force the Dems to go on record.
After a failed repeal vote when 2nd amendment cases are before the courts the judges will have to consider the fact there was a repeal effort and it failed miserably. It will be tougher for activist judges to justify watering down an amendment that has been reaffirmed by a modern Congress.
If liberal Presidents (like Obama) can ignore laws passed by Congress they don’t like, a conservative president would certainly be justified in ignoring a ruling by one or more judges changing the meaning of the Constitution.
If the Bill of Rights had granted rights, then the word “granted” would have to appear each and every time a right was being established. A review of the Bill of Rights shows that the word “granted” does not appear in any Amendment.
In reality, the Bill of Rights placed additional or secondary restraints on the powers of the federal government concerning the rights of the people and powers reserved to the States. That is why the words “no,” “not” and “nor” appear throughout the Amendments instead of the word “granted.”
Since the Second Amendment did not create or grant any right concerning firearms, the right enumerated in the Amendment has to be an existing right separate from the Amendment. >Thus, repealing the Second Amendment would not eliminate any right because the right enumerated in the Amendment was not created by the Amendment.< The right to keep and bear arms exists independent of the Constitution or the Second Amendment.
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.