too stupid to even read.
There fixed it.
According to the left there are all kinds of ‘rights’ implicit in the Constitution, from health care to gay marriage.
But the explicit ones they refuse to acknowledge.
Repealing an Amendment requires passing a bill in Congress with a two thirds vote & ratifying a new Amendment by three fourths of the states (38).
So you gungrabbers better get busy. While you’re at it, look up the history & obituary of the Equal Rights Amendment.
;^)
MOLON LABE
Say—a man rapes a woman “somewhere”.
The Lib solution—”castrate all men”.
And they wonder that they have opposition.
What a load of crap. No right is granted by the Constitution, nor is the RKBA dependent upon being part of the militia.
Pathetically ignorant article. The writer is entirely disconnected with American culture and history. Okay, yes, we can re-think 2nd amendment. Do we need it? YES Should it be national right or should constitution stop at state or city lines? NATIONAL Should we have national open carry and CCW? YES Should we ban certain weapons? Maybe (Does someone need a functional RPG or gattling gun? That gets to what is “arms”. I think in this that the citizenry should be allowed the same arms given to authorities, namely law enforcement, otherwise the right is diluted or meaningless). Should we preclude some people from arms? Of course, for mental impairment, felons, ALL non-citizens, and Democrats/RINOS for good measure :)
Gun control is not about controlling guns; it’s about centralizing guns in the hands of government. What could possibly go wrong when only the police and military in a country have guns.....
What a brilliant, intellectual, psychiatric genius!
/S/
IMHO
” than the total of lives lost in all of America’s wars. “
The writer must have flunked history since about 1.3 million died in war. Deaths due to automobiles should be upwards of a million since 1968.
Say the Fools on the Hill.
Besides being nutty, I have a simple question that the columnist fails to answer.
The 2nd Amendment should be revoked, by who?
Sounds a lot like what we have now.
But when the untelevised revolution comes down, the ARMED revolutionaries will certainly head first for the address of the unarmed Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 7900 W Clinton Ave, Milwaukee, WI 53223.
no surprise.
It’s a Gannet paper
Someone might be able to repeal the Second Amendment, however our Constitution and Bill of Rights are built upon the concept of inherent and inalienable rights. Instead of rights granted to the people, our Constitution limits the government, not the people. The people retail the right to keep and bear arms regardless of what the government says. Period.
Consequently, this writer lacks a fundamental understanding of what makes American different from every other nation.
According to Hobbes,
Not All Rights Are Alienable
Whensoever a man Transferreth his Right, or Renounceth it; it is either in consideration of some Right reciprocally transferred to himselfe; or for some other good he hopeth for thereby. For it is a voluntary act: and of the voluntary acts of every man, the object is some Good To Himselfe. And therefore there be some Rights, which no man can be understood by any words, or other signes, to have abandoned, or transferred. As first a man cannot lay down the right of resisting them, that assault him by force, to take away his life; because he cannot be understood to ayme thereby, at any Good to himselfe. The same may be sayd of Wounds, and Chayns, and Imprisonment; both because there is no benefit consequent to such patience; as there is to the patience of suffering another to be wounded, or imprisoned: as also because a man cannot tell, when he seeth men proceed against him by violence, whether they intend his death or not. And lastly the motive, and end for which this renouncing, and transferring or Right is introduced, is nothing else but the security of a mans person, in his life, and in the means of so preserving life, as not to be weary of it. And therefore if a man by words, or other signes, seem to despoyle himselfe of the End, for which those signes were intended; he is not to be understood as if he meant it, or that it was his will; but that he was ignorant of how such words and actions were to be interpreted.
Nowhere does it state that citizens cannot have arms if not in the militia. It basically says a militia is needed and without arms, citizens cannot form a militia. But they have to have arms firstly as is their natural right.