Exactly why the amendment exists in the first place. If Witless and his liberal co-horts even make an attempt at this, they should face armed resistance.
and who would seize our guns??schumer,nadler,boxer,feinstein,kennedy,kerry & co.-haha-that would be too good to hope for :))
"The high-water mark of anti-gun-rights shabbiness was the 2000 release of Arming America by then-Emory University historian Michael Bellesiles. The book purported to prove that gun ownership was never a major part of American society and that America’s gun culture was a useful myth for the gun-nutters eager to make the Second Amendment mean something it doesn’t. The book received lavish praise from the liberal establishment, including a rave review by Gary Wills in The New York Times, and won Columbia University’s prestigious Bancroft Prize."
Apparently the people at Columbia and the NY Times are ignorant of American history, particularly the Revolutionary War. Freedom from tyranny (King George III's abuses and usurpations) was the motivation for the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The first amendment is about freedom of speech, petition, assembly and the press. The second amendment about the Right of the People to Keep and Bear arms - "shall not be infringed". The liberal lunatics want to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights will be honored. The founders knew that armed citizens were necessary to defeat the British, and that armed citizens would be the ultimate source of protection from dictators and tyrants (such as Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Castro and Kim Jong Il) in the future.
The Second Amendment says the PEOPLE have the right to KEEP and BEAR arms. This language is so straightforward and easy to understand, yet those who would undermine our freedom attempt to distort its meaning.
"Gun control" means hitting your target with each and every round & with breath control!
Serious gun-grabbing socialists know precisely what they're going to do.
If the Bill of Rights is a statement of rights not ceded to the Federal Government, and the 2nd amendment is repealed, the right to arms would still be retained via the 9th, wouldn't it?
It would take more than repealing the 2nd amendment. There would also have to be affirmative language denying the right to arms, too. However, I think that would be out of character with the rest of the Bill of Rights, and most of the rest of the amendments. The Bill of Rights is a list of rights not ceded to the government by the people, it is not a list of infringments on the people. The 18th amendment was an infringment on the people, and that was repealed a few years later.
-PJ
"It’s not an absolute right, of course."
What does "...shall not be infringed" mean? If the 2nd Ammendment means just what it says, the an individual has the right to own a gun, then how can that right be infringed when the Ammendment says it cannot?
The Second Amendment - Commentaries
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1016481/posts
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus