Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Repeal the Second Amendment (sigh...)
NY Times ^ | 10-05-2017 | Bret Stephens

Posted on 10/05/2017 11:43:03 AM PDT by NRx

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-52 next last
More silliness from the usual suspects. However I will give a very small polite nod to one aspect of this. This lefty is actually making a constitutional argument on the subject of guns. He is not suggesting a bunch of useless laws or using the courts to make an end run around the Bill of Rights. He is actually arguing for a full on repeal of the 2nd amendment, which would itself require a constitutional amendment. Fair enough. Let the debate begin.
1 posted on 10/05/2017 11:43:03 AM PDT by NRx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NRx

Something to think about, Bret Stephens ...

Revolution

The Beatles

You say you want a revolution
Well you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it’s evolution
Well you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don’t you know you can count me out
Don’t you know it’s gonna be alright?
Alright?
Alright?

You say you got a real solution
Well you know
We’d all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well you know
We’re doing what we can
But when you want money for people with minds that hate
All I can tell you is brother you have to wait
Don’t you know it’s gonna be alright?
Alright?
Alright?

You say you’ll change the constitution
Well you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it’s the institution
Well you know
You better free your mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain’t going to make it with anyone anyhow
Don’t you know know it’s gonna be alright?
Alright?
Alright?

Alright!


2 posted on 10/05/2017 11:46:37 AM PDT by NorthMountain (... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NRx

Hell, while we’re at it, do away with the 1st Amendment too. Actually eliminating them all will make things easier for Democrats.


3 posted on 10/05/2017 11:46:45 AM PDT by nobamanomore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NRx

liberals and anti-gun fanatics have a moronic view that no guns means evil stops- i posted the following in another forum- but since anti-gun folks think only militia and single shot guns should be allowed- I’ll repost this here
.
A typical idiotic utopian fantasyland dream- where the world is made up of only good people who always help and never hurt others because hell, we will have gun laws that ’prevent bad people from acquiring guns illegally’
.
Cripes- liberalism is a mental disease that portends that everything can be solved by creating more laws- that bad people will all of a sudden start to ’see the light’ and turn over a new leaf to never hurt others again
.


4 posted on 10/05/2017 11:50:29 AM PDT by Bob434
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NRx

Evil exists- and you don’t make people safer from evil by taking their means of self defense away from them when the evil perpetrators are armed to the teeth- They- the bad guys – will ALWAYS be armed- whether it be with guns, vehicles, bombs- planes etc- and WE THE PEOPLE have an INALIENABLE RIGHT to Self Protection, and the RIGHT to them ost effective means possible to self protection- regardless of demented liberal think.the FACT is there is evil in this world- period- it’s a fact we have to live with- and one way to live with that fact is to make sure law abiding citizens can protect themselves against those FEW who cross the line and break the law – The overwhelming majority of gun owners live their whole lives as law abiding citizens- You can never stop the few who decide to cross the line from doing so no matter how many gun laws you have- but by enacting severe restrictions on legal gun owners- you ensure that law abiding citizens no longer have adequate means of self protection- AND you ensure that in times of foreign invasion, ordinary law abiding citizens are not able to effectively protect themselves and the nation. You know why America hasn’t been invaded more often? Because the enemy isn’t stupid- They know they would be walking into a hornet’s nest- We proved that armed citizenry is an effective means of securing AND holding onto our sovereignty-
.
”I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
.
”Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”
George Washington
First President of the United States
.
”The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.”
Thomas Paine
.
”The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … ”
Thomas Jefferson
letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.


5 posted on 10/05/2017 11:50:43 AM PDT by Bob434
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NRx

By all means, try to repeal it. I am serious, this is a big step forward for the NY Times. They are proposing repealing the Second Amendment which IMPLIES by the process outlined in the Constitution. The problem is, of course, that 2/3 of the states will not ratify such an amendment and the NY Times proposed amendment of repeal of the Second Amendment will GO DOWN IN FLAMES.

What the NY Times really means is, “yo, some judge out there, just end this.”


6 posted on 10/05/2017 11:52:00 AM PDT by FlipWilson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NRx

Stephens is a globalist open borders pussy.


7 posted on 10/05/2017 11:52:38 AM PDT by Uncle Miltie (The difference between Rs and Ds is what lies they tell to get power over you and steal your cash.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NRx

That will never happen. To repeal the Second Amendment, it would require a new Amendment to the Constitution—and that means 2/3 majority vote in both sides of Congress on the language of the Amendment and 38 state legislatures to pass the Amendment. An extremely tall order indeed.


8 posted on 10/05/2017 11:58:39 AM PDT by RayChuang88 (FairTax: America's Economic Cure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nobamanomore

Agree. After you take away the 2nd amendment then the 1st amendment and rest of the Bill of Rights will go into the dustbin of history shortly thereafter.

The 2nd amendment ultimately guarantees and protects the rest of the Bill of Rights, including the 1st amendment, from being taken away!


9 posted on 10/05/2017 11:59:36 AM PDT by dsm69 (Boycott News Media/Hollywood Advertiwsers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NRx

It’s about time somebody made that call publicly!!!!

I encourage the Democrat party to adopt this as a platform plank at their 2020 convention. Even sooner, if possible.

‘Bout damn time.


10 posted on 10/05/2017 12:01:12 PM PDT by Mariner (Pink Pussy Hats for the NFL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlipWilson
What the NY Times really means is, “yo, some judge out there, just end this.”

That'll never work because the United States Constitution has very specific language on how to add Amendments--one that even Lefty judges won't touch.

11 posted on 10/05/2017 12:01:19 PM PDT by RayChuang88 (FairTax: America's Economic Cure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: NRx
why do liberals keep losing the gun control debate?

Because progs are irrational ideologues.

12 posted on 10/05/2017 12:03:03 PM PDT by windsorknot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nobamanomore

Let’s do this logically. In numerical order. Take away the First Amendment. No more HuffPO, Vox, NewsWeak, AP, Reuters just the government newspaper and that’s it. No more Jimmy Kimmel or Stephen Colbert. No more NFL games because they too are political (now). Let’s try that for a month and then see if we all agree freedom and liberty is better than tyranny.


13 posted on 10/05/2017 12:03:19 PM PDT by BipolarBob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NRx

He is actually arguing for a full on repeal of the 2nd amendment, which would itself require a constitutional amendment. Fair enough. Let the debate begin.


Exactly correct. He should be supported for his honesty and willingness to follow the rule of law.

As for repeal of the Second Amendment... it will be a no go.


14 posted on 10/05/2017 12:06:04 PM PDT by marktwain (President Trump and his supporters are the Resistance. His opponents are the Reactionaries.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NRx
From a national-security standpoint, the Amendment’s suggestion that a “well-regulated militia” is “necessary to the security of a free State,” is quaint. The Minutemen that will deter Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un are based in missile silos in Minot, N.D., not farmhouses in Lexington, Mass.

The author is wrong on this point.

The 2nd amendment is NOT about "national security," it is about "free state," or state security.

When the Framers said "necessary to the security of a free State," they meant to protect the states' sovereignty from federal encroachment. They were not talking about the "state" as the federal entity being protected from foreign invaders. That was the role of the Navy.

-PJ

15 posted on 10/05/2017 12:10:47 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (The 1st Amendment gives the People the right to a free press, not CNN the right to the 1st question.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NRx

I agree.

It took us years, but all we had to do to end the scourge of drug addiction was outlaw drugs.

Why can’t we learn from that?


16 posted on 10/05/2017 12:11:28 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (<img src="http://i.imgur.com/WukZwJP.gif" width=800>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlipWilson

To go down in flames, it would actually have to get off the ground. A full repeal would go nowhere in recordtime. Personally, I hope that the Democrat party runs on this issue. We haven’t ever seen a major U.S. political party commit mass political suicide.


17 posted on 10/05/2017 12:12:00 PM PDT by drop 50 and fire for effect ("Work relentlessly, accomplish much, remain in the background, and be more than you seem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: NorthMountain

Come and get them, NYSlimes.


18 posted on 10/05/2017 12:13:54 PM PDT by RoadieFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NRx

Repeal? They want a full blown civil war on their hands, then be my guest. This is a country founded by rebels with guns. If a lefty or RINO can’t deal with that, then F them! MOVE!


19 posted on 10/05/2017 12:14:54 PM PDT by GrandJediMasterYoda (Trump: Greatest POTUS of all time solely for preventing Satan taking office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

Absolutely! No more of this pu$$$y footing around! Get down to what you really want! Then when your ilk loses without even your opposition working up a sweat to make sure you lose, meditate (if you can) upon the possibility that a wider reality exists outside of your urban cloister... I’m all in favor of open debate and the teaching moments that such debate will open up. The ‘rats will never do it though. They still remember what feinswine’s assault weapons ban did to them in 1994. It ended their dynastic congressional majority as all of the normals saw the fascists underneath the smiling nanny faces.


20 posted on 10/05/2017 12:16:22 PM PDT by L,TOWM (I don't have a preference for politician or a party. I have God and His standards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-52 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson