Repeal the 2nd Amendment? Yes, Please Try

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Liberals increasingly are coming out of the closet, admitting that what they have wanted all along is to ban, or limit to an extreme degree, private ownership of firearms. This would require, as a starting point, repeal of the Second Amendment, which more and more liberals now admit they favor. Earlier today, InstaPundit linked to a marvelous 2015 column by Charles Cooke. Not much has changed since then.

Cooke notes that talk is cheap, and encourages liberals to take on the onerous task of accomplishing what they say they want. Here are some excerpts:

This will involve hard work, of course. You can’t just sit online and preen to those who already agree with you. No siree. Instead, you’ll have to go around the states — traveling and preaching until the soles of your shoes are thin as paper. You’ll have to lobby Congress, over and over and over again. You’ll have to make ads and shake hands and twist arms and cut deals and suffer all the slings and arrows that will be thrown in your direction. You’ll have to tell anybody who will listen to you that they need to support you; that if they disagree, they’re childish and beholden to the “gun lobby”; that they don’t care enough about children; that their reverence for the Founders is mistaken; that they have blood on their goddamn hands; that they want to own firearms only because their penises are small and they’re not “real men.” And remember, you can’t half-ass it this time. You’re not going out there to tell these people that you want “reform” or that “enough is enough.” You’re going there to solicit their support for removing one of the articles within the Bill of Rights. Make no mistake: It’ll be unpleasant strolling into Pittsburgh or Youngstown or Pueblo and telling blue-collar Democrat after blue-collar Democrat that he only has his guns because he’s not as well endowed as he’d like to be. It’ll be tough explaining to suburban families that their established conception of American liberty is wrong. You might even suffer at the polls because of it. But that’s what it’s going to take. So do it. Start now. Off you go.​


Repeal the 2nd Amendment? Yes, Please Try
 

transporter

Well-Known Member
Please provide ANY proof whatsoever that you or any of your propagandist sources have that show the majority of Democrats or the majority of Americans are in favor of a repeal of the 2nd amendment.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Please provide ANY proof whatsoever that you or any of your propagandist sources have that show the majority of Democrats or the majority of Americans are in favor of a repeal of the 2nd amendment.

Clueless as Usual ....

:whoosh:
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Please provide ANY proof whatsoever that you or any of your propagandist sources have that show the majority of Democrats or the majority of Americans are in favor of a repeal of the 2nd amendment.

Right after you supply any post where someone here has said that.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
In the bit that you excerpted - I'm amused that the primary weapon for the removal of the Second Amendment is not logic, reason or statistics.
It's ridicule.

Which frankly didn't surprise me from the tolerant, compassionate party.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
In fact, the more closely one looks at what passes for “common sense” gun laws, the more feckless they appear. Americans who claim to be outraged by gun crimes should want to do something more than tinker at the margins of a legal regime that most of the developed world rightly considers nuts. They should want to change it fundamentally and permanently.

There is only one way to do this: Repeal the Second Amendment.

Repealing the Amendment may seem like political Mission Impossible today, but in the era of same-sex marriage it’s worth recalling that most great causes begin as improbable ones. Gun ownership should never be outlawed, just as it isn’t outlawed in Britain or Australia. But it doesn’t need a blanket Constitutional protection, either. The 46,445 murder victims killed by gunfire in the United States between 2012 and 2016 didn’t need to perish so that gun enthusiasts can go on fantasizing that “Red Dawn” is the fate that soon awaits us.

Donald Trump will likely get one more Supreme Court nomination, or two or three, before he leaves office, guaranteeing a pro-gun court for another generation. Expansive interpretations of the right to bear arms will be the law of the land — until the “right” itself ceases to be.

Some conservatives will insist that the Second Amendment is fundamental to the structure of American liberty. They will cite James Madison, who noted in the Federalist Papers that in Europe “the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” America was supposed to be different, and better.

I wonder what Madison would have to say about that today, when more than twice as many Americans perished last year at the hands of their fellows as died in battle during the entire Revolutionary War. My guess: Take the guns—or at least the presumptive right to them—away. The true foundation of American exceptionalism should be our capacity for moral and constitutional renewal, not our instinct for self-destruction.



https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/opinion/guns-second-amendment-nra.html
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Katy Tur Suggests Repealing 2nd Amendment Should Be Democrats' End Goal


That’s when Tur made her plea for not just gun control, but getting rid of guns entirely. She cited an “interesting” “conservative” New York Times columnist, who argued we should repeal the Second Amendment entirely. After making her case, she floated the idea to her guests to see if they agreed this is what the Democrats’ end goal should be:

But let's be honest, hand guns kill more people in this country than a person with a bump stock on their semi-automatic weapons. There are horrific events, but handguns are what kill people in this country on a daily basis. Congwoman, Brett Stevens, conservative, "New York Times" op-ed columnist had an interesting columnist oped where he said the Second Amendment should be repealed. In it he argued the reason Democrats are so unsuccessful in getting any gun legislation passed because nobody believes democratic lip service when they talk about guns. They don't believe Democrats really do value the Second Amendment. He says if Democrats want to get anything done, they should go for what the Democrats, he thinks believe, which is the Second Amendment is not helping this country in any way and there should be a movement to try and change the constitution. Repeal that amendment. It's not keeping anyone safer.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
The Gun Control Debate Is Pointless Until Liberals Admit They Want To Repeal The Second Amendment

Liberals are using the Las Vegas atrocity to encourage federal gun control, but their real problem is with the Second Amendment.


It didn’t take long. Long before all the facts about the tragic mass shooting in Las Vegas were known or even all the missing were accounted for, liberals were riding their familiar gun control hobby horses. Within hours of the atrocity, articles were being posted online from the usual suspects, like Frank Bruni and Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times and Richard Cohen of the Washington Post, trotting out familiar themes. They want laws requiring more background checks, age limits on purchases, preventing people with a record of mental illness or domestic violence from being sold weapons, so-called “smart gun” measures that can trace guns and ammunition more easily, and even suggested banning handguns.

As is the case with most of the mass shootings that have shocked Americans in recent decades, none of these measures would have prevented the slaughter in Las Vegas. Initial reports say that shooter Stephen Paddock passed background checks when he purchased weapons. That makes sense since the police have initially said he didn’t have a record of prior offenses.

Even if every one of the left’s favorite pet ideas about guns were enacted, the only likely outcome would be to make it far more difficult for law-abiding citizens to legally purchase guns. And in those places, like Chicago and New York City, where draconian gun laws are already on the books, that is exactly what has happened, as the process to obtain and legally use a gun is so onerous that most ordinary citizens don’t even try. Needless to say, these measures do nothing to prevent gun violence by those who obtain weapons illegally.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Why It's Time to Repeal the Second Amendment


"[It] needs to be repealed because it is outdated, a threat to liberty and a suicide pact," says constitutional law professor



In the face of yet another mass shooting, now is the time to acknowledge a profound but obvious truth – the Second Amendment is wrong for this country and needs to be jettisoned. We can do that through a Constitutional amendment. It's been done before (when the Twenty-First Amendment repealed prohibition in the Eighteenth), and it must be done now.

The Second Amendment needs to be repealed because it is outdated, a threat to liberty and a suicide pact. When the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791, there were no weapons remotely like the AR-15 assault rifle and many of the advances of modern weaponry were long from being invented or popularized.

Sure, the Founders knew that the world evolved and that technology changed, but the weapons of today that are easily accessible are vastly different than anything that existed in 1791. When the Second Amendment was written, the Founders didn't have to weigh the risks of one man killing 49 and injuring 53 all by himself. Now we do, and the risk-benefit analysis of 1791 is flatly irrelevant to the risk-benefit analysis of today.

Gun-rights advocates like to make this all about liberty, insisting that their freedom to bear arms is of utmost importance and that restricting their freedom would be a violation of basic rights.

But liberty is not a one way street. It also includes the liberty to enjoy a night out with friends, loving who you want to love, dancing how you want to dance, in a club that has historically provided a refuge from the hate and fear that surrounds you. It also includes the liberty to go to and send your kids to kindergarten and first grade so that they can begin to be infused with a love of learning. It includes the liberty to go to a movie, to your religious house of worship, to college, to work, to an abortion clinic, go to a hair salon, to a community center, to the supermarket, to go anywhere and feel that you are free to do to so without having to weigh the risk of being gunned down by someone wielding a weapon that can easily kill you and countless others.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
NYT Columnist: Let's Repeal the Second Amendment


Back in October, after the Las Vegas Shooting, New York Times columnist Bret Stephens argued that the Second Amendment should be repealed. Since Wednesday's shooting in South Florida, Stephens' OpEd has re-circulated across social media, which eventually led to another OpEd pushing for repealing the Second Amendment.

The Original Push to Repeal the Second Amendment

In Stephens' October piece, he mentioned that gun control advocates frequently lose the debate on gun laws because they get their facts wrong:

...why do liberals keep losing the gun control debate?

Maybe it’s because they argue their case badly and — let’s face it — in bad faith. Democratic politicians routinely profess their fidelity to the Second Amendment — or rather, “a nuanced reading” of it — with all the conviction of Barack Obama’s support for traditional marriage, circa 2008. People recognize lip service for what it is.

Then there are the endless liberal errors of fact. There is no “gun-show loophole” per se; it’s a private-sale loophole, in other words the right to sell your own stuff. The civilian AR-15 is not a true “assault rifle,” and banning such rifles would have little effect on the overall murder rate, since most homicides are committed with handguns. It’s not true that 40 percent of gun owners buy without a background check; the real number is closer to one-fifth.

The National Rifle Association does not have Republican “balls in a money clip,” as Jimmy Kimmel put it the other night. The N.R.A. has donated a paltry $3,533,294 to all current members of Congress since 1998, according to The Washington Post, equivalent to about three months of Kimmel’s salary. The N.R.A. doesn’t need to buy influence: It’s powerful because it’s popular.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
It's ridicule.

.... that they want to own firearms only because their penises are small and they’re not “real men.” ..... Make no mistake: It’ll be unpleasant strolling into Pittsburgh or Youngstown or Pueblo and telling blue-collar Democrat after blue-collar Democrat that he only has his guns because he’s not as well endowed as he’d like to be.


Yep ... and multiple articles popping up about Toxic Masculinity
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
NYT Conservative Columnist: 'Repeal The Second Amendment'


After all, Stephens says, “From a law-and-order standpoint, more guns means more murder.” Now, this is plainly untrue. More guns in certain places means more murder. Stephens cites a study in the American Journal of Public Health, for example, to show that “States with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides.” There’s just one problem with the study: it examines the statistics on a state level, which makes no sense. Virtually all murder happens in major cities, not in the surburbs or the boonies, so we’d have to actually examine gun laws and their efficacy in cities themselves to see how effective they’ve been. And that supposedly bulletproof study actually comes to a rather uncomfortable conclusion that both the study authors and Stephens would prefer to ignore: “For each 1-standard deviation increase in proportion of household gun ownership, firearm homicide rate increased by 12.9%. For each 1-standard deviation increase in proportion of black population, firearm homicide rate increased by 82.8%.” (The study write-up attempts to hide this fact by not showing the data in the text.) The correlation between gun laws and gun death is actually non-existent, according to Eugene Volokh of The Washington Post.

Stephens continues by stating, “From a personal-safety standpoint, more guns means less safety.” He then cites the fact that more people are killed in accidental firearms deaths than in self-defense shooting situations. But that’s not the point of owning a weapon. The point of owning a weapon is not to fire it. While the CDC points out that there were 268 justifiable homicides by firearms in 2015, according to the National Self-Defense Survey extrapolations, people use firearms in self-defense millions of times per year. Brian Doherty at Reason has an exhaustive analysis of just which one is closer to the truth — but it’s certainly not true that only justifiable homicides act as a measure of the value of guns in self-defense.

Stephens next moves on to deriding the founding-era viewpoint that guns could protect liberty. He says that such a suggestion is “quaint” in terms of foreign policy, laughing at the suggestion that guns could deter “Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un.” Except, of course, that small firearms utilized in guerilla warfare have thwarted major states time and again, from Vietnam to Afghanistan. He also mocks the notion that “an armed citizenry is the ultimate check on the ambitions and encroachments of government power,” citing the Whiskey Rebellions and the New York draft riots. Except, of course, that the Whiskey Rebellion likely resulted, politically, in the ouster of President John Adams and the end of the internal federal taxes on whiskey. Most armed insurrections are terrible mistakes, of course, but to say that their threat doesn’t act as a deterrent is historically illiterate (it’s one major reason, for example, that the feds haven’t tried a major gun grab — try telling Texans that the ATF is coming to confiscate weaponry).
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
An interesting statistic if you take the time to research -

Remove all gun homicides directly related to gangs, drugs and collateral damage with gang and drug violence.

And the numbers drop precipitously. Yes, there are mass shootings, but aside from suicide - which you can't prevent -
the overwhelming portion of gun homicides are connected to gangs and drugs.

It's not the wild West with people shooting each other indiscriminately.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
An interesting statistic if you take the time to research -

Remove all gun homicides directly related to gangs, drugs and collateral damage with gang and drug violence.

And the numbers drop precipitously. Yes, there are mass shootings, but aside from suicide - which you can't prevent -
the overwhelming portion of gun homicides are connected to gangs and drugs.

It's not the wild West with people shooting each other indiscriminately.

All of these under the agenda of the left: "never let a crisis go to waste". They don't give a damn about people killing people, they give a damn about telling all of us what we can and can't own, say, do... They want our lives controlled into compliant little leftists.
 
Last edited:

This_person

Well-Known Member
The problem with repealing the 2nd amendment is that it would be meaningless. With or without the second amendment, the right of the people to keep and bear arms would not change.

Our rights are innate within us - having nothing to do with government. Government is there to protect the rights we have, not grant us rights.

The second amendment does not grant us the right to keep and bear arms, it is a reminder to government that their power is only the power enumerated in the Constitution - that the power to infringe upon that particular right does not exist. Each and every gun restriction - be it armor-piercing bullets, or magazine capacity, or outlawing a type of weapon itself, is inherently illegal (read: unConstitutional).

Repeal it, but you'll have to replace it with a specific restriction on gun ownership, otherwise you've changed nothing.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
The problem with repealing the 2nd amendment is that it would be meaningless. With or without the second amendment, the right of the people to keep and bear arms would not change.

Our rights are innate within us - having nothing to do with government. Government is there to protect the rights we have, not grant us rights.

The second amendment does not grant us the right to keep and bear arms, it is a reminder to government that their power is only the power enumerated in the Constitution - that the power to infringe upon that particular right does not exist. Each and every gun restriction - be it armor-piercing bullets, or magazine capacity, or outlawing a type of weapon itself, is inherently illegal (read: unConstitutional).

Repeal it, but you'll have to replace it with a specific restriction on gun ownership, otherwise you've changed nothing.

I'd like to hear from the anti-2A folks what they would like to see as a result of repealing the 2nd. What does this look like to them?
 

Kyle

ULTRA-F###ING-MAGA!
PREMO Member
I'd like to hear from the anti-2A folks what they would like to see as a result of repealing the 2nd. What does this look like to them?
I'm patiently waiting for them to Volunteer for the door-to-door raids taking weapons from citizens.
 
Top