Posted on 02/26/2018 6:04:05 AM PST by Kaslin
As the Parkland, Fla., school shooting revealed yet again, when it comes to firearms, the differences between Americans has become too monumental to overcome. On one end of the political spectrum are left-wing politicians and pundits calling for the elimination of the Second Amendment and severe restrictions on virtually every kind of gun. On the other end are Americans who believe the best way to stop mass shootings is to have even more weapons available to the public, and for everyday citizens, including teachers, to be better armed so that they are capable of defending themselves and others from murderers like Nikolas Cruz.
How can this stark divide ever be reconciled? Although it may be difficult for many to accept, the answer is likely that it can’t. The United States is in desperate need of a new Second Amendment, one that recognizes the fundamentally different views people today have about guns, their role in society, and our rights as citizens.
When the Founders first wrote and passed what we know call the Second Amendment, they viewed the Constitution in an entirely different way than most people do today. Originally, the U.S. Constitution was, for the most part, only understood to govern the relationship between Americans and their federal government. The Bill of Rights was largely meant to protect the states and the people from an out-of-control centralized power in the nation’s capital. Most laws were passed at the state and local levels, and state constitutions determined the limits of those laws, including gun laws.
In 1833, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall clearly articulated this principle when writing the majority opinion in Barron v. Baltimore. “The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual States,” Marshall wrote. “Each State established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government as its judgment dictated.”
As with other important issues, the Civil War and its fallout radically transformed the scope of the Constitution. Following the passage of the 14th Amendment—which reads, in part, “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”—some courts began determining that at least some of the federal Bill of Rights applies to the states as well. This extension of the Constitution, combined with the tremendous technological improvements in transportation, media, and more than a century of additional Supreme Court cases, resulted in the high-stakes national policy debates that have become so common. Instead of making decisions at the state level, uniform laws are imposed on more than 320 million people, irrespective of the nation’s many different cultural, political, religious, moral, and philosophical differences.
For most issues, Americans are willing to accept such a model. But on the issue of guns, it has become increasingly evident there is no resolution. Either left-wing states and their citizens will have to continue living in a nation in which guns are constitutionally protected, or they’ll have to change the Constitution to ban most or all types of guns from being owned.
Fortunately for those of us who support gun owners’ rights, the likelihood of an anti-gun constitutional amendment ever being ratified by three-fourths of the states—a requirement of the Constitution—is virtually nonexistent. Even under the best circumstances, it’s unlikely half the states would be willing to approve such an amendment.
Unfortunately for gun advocates, left-wingers don’t need an amendment to gut the Constitution of its firearms protections. Five Supreme Court justices who oppose the established, two-centuries-old view of the Second Amendment are all that are needed to reinterpret the meaning of the amendment’s “right to bear arms.” And although Republicans now control Congress and the White House, it seems it’s only a matter of time before the pendulum swings in liberals’ favor, opening the door for the elimination of most gun rights. After all, liberals already have four justices on the bench who would likely approve of a law creating radical restrictions on gun rights, and the Court’s swing vote, Anthony Kennedy, is 81 years old.
The United States needs a new amendment governing gun rights, and the only amendment that would likely have any chance of being approved would be one that returns the Second Amendment to the position the Founders envisioned, when it only applied to federal law. This, coupled with clarifying language that makes it more difficult for federal authorities to restrict gun rights, would permit states to issue stricter gun bans, assuming their state constitutions allow it. But it would also ensure citizens in states where guns are valued—which, by the way, is most states—are guaranteed from ever having their gun rights taken from them by a Supreme Court controlled by left-wing justices.
Such a scheme would likely result in some gun owners losing their ability to purchase or possess some or possibly all guns. But it would also protect gun owners in the clear majority of states and turn those states into safe havens for those who want greater firearms freedom. It’s not a perfect compromise, but it’s probably necessary to ensure the long-term survival of gun rights, and maybe even the country.
Excellent
Anybody who thinks that GVRO are a good idea has never experienced TRO as used in divorce courts.
the fourteenth amendment allows us to boot out those rebelling against the constitution, and those calling for the confiscation of any gun, is in rebellion of the constitution, so lets boot the lot of the left.
The 2nd amendment isn’t about stars rights. Its about individual freedom and inalienable rights. This guy is an idiot.
I predict an explosion of GVROs in liberal states. Confiscations will be virtually automatic.
Especially the sentences I quoted.
You're off your rocker, sir.
"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State" is a subordinate clause, intended to provide a reason—a reason, and not necessarily the only reason, but because a single reason suffices—for individual citizens to bear military type arms. The clause "the Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" (extraneous and irrelevant comma omitted) is the main or operative clause.
The right to keep and bear arms trivially includes the right to other weapons suitable for individual self defense and hunting—such as pistols and shotguns.
And the use of the word "People" invariably stands for the right of Individuals, just as it is used in other amendments of the Bill of Rights, such as the First and Fourth.
There is simply no debate that the Second Amendment recognizes—not grants, but recognizes—an individual right to keep and bear arms, including and esepecially those long-arms suitable for your average foot soldier.
This interpretation is consistent with the original historical discussions regarding the Second Amendment, Militia, and right to keep and bear arms. It has also been confirmed by Supreme Court decisions in recent years. Only the most gross distortion by Leftists, Authoritarians, and their ilk can concoct the absurd interpretations which conform to what you have suggested.
You registered today to post such ignorance? I would suggest that you conduct a modicum of research before you wade into a fully informed conservative community and post such patently uninformed content about Unalienable Rights...
I agree.
Replace it with one that clearly states that “These rights are ABSOLUTE and shall NOT be infringed by ANYBODY!”
Exactly! That's the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, and it's needed now more than ever.
You need to search the US Code, Title 10, for "Militia: Composition and Classes".
Who the frak even writes sh** like this, like WTF?
I agree.
“It is amazing that people get paid to be this stupid.”
He is certainly getting paid, but he is not stupid.
He is a member of the Democrat Ministry of Propaganda who wants to make tyranny safe for his masters.
IMHO
“It is amazing that people get paid to be this stupid.”
He is certainly getting paid, but he is not stupid.
He is a member of the Democrat Ministry of Propaganda who wants to make tyranny safe for his masters.
IMHO
As you suggest, I can certainly agree that if not stupid, he is evil to the core.
Hence it’s a dumb idea.
So, because there is a threat that 5 liberal justices may decide to “reinterpret” the Constitution in a way that takes away gun rights, we should just give up? What about the 1st Amendment? Or any other? Sorry, but the Constitution doesn’t become moot just because 5 justices say it is. It takes an amendment to make changes to it. While majority of justices have had the gall (and got away with it) to invent new rights, so far they have not dared to take away rights listed in the Constitution. If they attempt to do so, it might be the start of a Civil War if these justices are not impeached.
For a year or so now, ANY and all ideas related to the Second Amendment are stupid or stupider than ever...
Completely irrelevant and useless thread...
THREAD REJECTED! unread...
That sounds rational if, and only if, you believe that the Bill of Rights can be Amended.
Although it doesn't matter, I happen to disagree, based on the fact that there is no provision to do so, AND that the Federal Papers, as well as the Constitutional debates themselves, unequivocally considered the Bill of Rights as a statement, not a law addressing enumerated powers, and subject to Amendment.
In before the motherf*ckin zot.
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.