Is the time right for a repeal of the 2nd amendment?

[Rau]

Do they not? Do they not hold sets of opinions? Are we not here discussing the differences in those opinions?

No doubt there are people who hold just the set of positions that are typically associated with a label. But this is not required. People don’t all line up behind one or other of these labels. Some people actually judge issues on their merits.

Oh, I’m not. Rights, particularly those enumerated, are beyond discussion. They are non-negotiable

Some are. But the asserting of some rights in your Constitution - accompanied by a means to change the document - means they are negotiable.

 

[JonNC]

No doubt there are people who hold just the set of positions that are typically associated with a label. But this is not required. People don’t all line up behind one or other of these labels. Some people actually judge issues on their merits.

I certainly think that people usually line up with particular benchmarks. Individual rights over collectivist power is one of those.

Some are. But the asserting of some rights in your Constitution - accompanied by a means to change the document - means they are negotiable.

Clearly you come from a non-American perspective. Remember, all rights protected and enumerated in the Bill of Rights are of equal status. There is no hierarchy of rights.

_. The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals … It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of."
– Albert Gallatin, New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789 _

 

[Road-Worrier]

Again, a “ban” seems to work just fine with full-autos Jon. Open those eyes.

Not much demand for full auto. Might be something to do with it costing something north of $300/minute to fire an M-16 on full auto.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

Again, a “ban” seems to work just fine with full-autos Jon. Open those eyes.

Not much demand for full auto. Might be something to do with it costing something north of $300/minute to fire an M-16 on full auto.

I’d imagine there’s virtually as much demand for it.

It’s just at $10k, the equilibrium between demand and supply occurs at a price point that your typical 2nd-Amendment fan-boy probably can’t swing.

And about firing it for a full minute? Forget money. The barrel in it couldn’t fire for a full sustained minute without damage.

Guy on youtube did a burn-out on one. After 5 mags he couldn’t swap without wearing a heavy glove.

As a final consideration; since most of your ARs are “cabinet queens”, the number of rounds one can afford to fire through it at maximum cycle seems to be pretty irrelevant to market demand…

 

[Rau]

The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals … It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of."

Except by the due process of Constitutional amendment, eh?

 

[JonNC]

Except by the due process of Constitutional amendment, eh?

The amendment process has never been used to eliminate the protection of a right. Nor should it be.

 

[MonteRCMS]

Many books and papers have been written about the U.S, Constitution.

One of the current very popular authors is Mark Levin.

Consider reading some of his books on the subject.

https://www.amazon.com/Books-Mark-Levin/s?ie=UTF8&page=1&rh=n:283155,p_27:Mark Levin

List of Mark Levin’s books:

Levin authored the 2005 book Men In Black: How The Supreme Court Is Destroying America, in which he advanced his thesis that activist judges on the Supreme Court (from all parts of the political spectrum) have “legislated from the bench”.

Rescuing Sprite: A Dog Lover’s Story of Joy and Anguish is a non-fiction work written by Levin in 2007 about his experience of rescuing a dog named Sprite from a local animal shelter.[35]

Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto was released in 2009, and became a #1 New York Times best seller for eleven of twelve weeks,[36] as well as No. 1 on Nielsen’s BookScan[37] and No. 2 on Amazon.com’s list of bestselling books of 2009.[38] The book includes discussion of a variety of issues that, according to Levin, need to be addressed in the United States. In Liberty and Tyranny Levin repudiates the use of the term “progressive” to describe “modern Liberals” and instead argues a proper term should be “Statist”. Liberty and Tyranny has sold over one million copies according to Threshold Editions, the book’s publisher.[39] The National Review’s Andrew C. McCarthy wrote, “Levin offers not so much a defense as a plan of attack” against “America’s Leftist ascendancy”.[40] Other reviewers critiqued the book as “analysis utterly useless in understanding more than half of the American political landscape” while charging “Levin resorts to the same old misinformation to sell his brand of conservatism”.[41][42]

Ameritopia: The Unmaking of America was released in 2012. In Ameritopia, Levin discusses the origins and development of both the modern day conservative and liberal political philosophies, the latter of which he refers to as “statist”, through the works of some of the leading figures in American history.[43][44] Included are commentaries on works by Plato, Sir Thomas More, Thomas Hobbes, Karl Marx, John Locke, Charles de Montesquieu and Alexis de Tocqueville.[45] Jeffrey Lord called it “historical X-ray vision in book form”.[46] PJ Media praised the book, “That Levin wrote this book now demonstrates not only his passion for the United States, but his awareness that he is a statesman defending natural law at a pivotal moment in human history.”[47] On the other hand, The Atlantic’s review criticized the book’s argument that statism is based on utopianism,[48] and a review by Professor Carlin Romano in the Chronicle of Higher Education called the book “disastrously bad from beginning to end”.[49]

The 2013 book The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic suggests eleven new Constitutional amendments. The book debuted at #1 on The New York Times Best Seller list.[50]

Levin authored Plunder and Deceit: Big Government’s Exploitation of Young People and the Future in 2015,[57] and Rediscovering Americanism and the Tyranny of Progressivism in 2017.

 

[Rau]

The amendment process has never been used to eliminate the protection of a right. Nor should it be.

The second sentences is opinion. That the Constitution may be revised - is fact.

 

[MonteRCMS]

Rau, you need to spend some time here … in our 50 states.

 

[MonteRCMS]

Rau, the first thing would be to repeal the 17th Amendment:

Repeal The 17th Amendment And End Direct Election Of Senators

Out of manufactured hysteria over nonexistent corruption, the Seventeenth Amendment was born, robbing states of a major check on federal lawmaking.

thefederalist.com

excerpt:

If you asked me to name one thing America could do right now to remedy many of our national problems, my response would be simple: Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment. Do it yesterday.

The Framers of the Constitution originally gave state legislatures the power to participate in federal lawmaking by choosing senators to represent their interests in Washington. Through a campaign of misinformation, progressive reformers successfully removed that rightful power from the states. It’s high time we gave it back.

The History of A Mistake

When the Constitutional Convention first considered how Congress would be constructed, James Wilson proposed that the people should directly elect their senators, rather than state legislatures. His idea was soundly defeated by a 10-1 vote. Indeed, scholars have since noted that legislative election of senators “was one of the few non-controversial decisions reached by the Constitutional Convention.” None of the state ratification conventions objected to the proposal either.

Yet in the late 1800s, the Progressive movement turned its ire on this constitutional provision. With their unshakeable belief in the moral rightness of democracy, progressives argued that legislative election of senators led inevitably to state-level political corruption. Their revisionist historians painted a picture of a vast political conspiracy, in which state elections were regularly bought and sold by local party machines to elect senators who would serve the interests of the elites above those of the people. (For all you film buffs, they argued that the conflict portrayed in the excellent movie “Mr. Smith Goes To Washington” was the rule, rather than the exception.)

But as many historians have recognized, the data simply wasn’t on progressives’ side. Only three senatorial elections were investigated for corruption between 1857 and 1900. And over more than a century of legislative election of senators, only ten total elections were contested for impropriety of any sort. State electoral deadlocks over selection of federal senators were also rarer than progressives claimed, and most state legislatures dealt with such disagreements while continuing to govern.

The progressives dealt with this roadblock to their agenda by spreading “fake news.” Media mogul William Randolph Hearst and his “yellow journalists” spread the idea of widespread senatorial corruption using flamboyant headlines like “The Treason of the Senate.”

 

[LeafByNiggle]

In case anyone thinks gun control is a fairly new phenomenon, it should be remembered that our nation has had gun control as long as it has had the second amendment. During the days of the wild west - a time we normally associate with minimal restrictions - the laws concerning the carrying of guns in Tombstone Arizona were stricter than the laws concerning the carrying of guns in Tombstone today.

What is fairly new is the NRA acting as a mostly political organization devoted to the protection of the 2nd amendment. When the NRA was formed and for many years after, it was dedicated to the advancement of marksmanship skills (on a “scientific basis”) and gun safety. The the NRA was explicitly non-political and prided itself on its non-political nature. Then in 1977 everything changed when a core of hardliners interested in using the NRA as a political organization took over the leadership - ousted the entire board, and that faction has ruled ever since.

 

[Rau]

Rau, the first thing would be to repeal the 17th Amendment:

Why do you want to repeal the 17th - assuming that subject is on topic?

 

[MonteRCMS]

The Framers of the Constitution originally gave state legislatures the power to participate in federal lawmaking by choosing senators to represent their interests in Washington. Through a campaign of misinformation, progressive reformers successfully removed that rightful power from the states. It’s high time we gave it back.

1. 17th Amendment … The Framers of the Constitution originally gave state legislatures the power to participate in federal lawmaking by choosing senators to represent their interests in Washington. Through a campaign of misinformation, progressive reformers successfully removed that rightful power from the states. It’s high time we gave it back.
2. You want to amend the Constitution by repealing the 2nd Amendment. It is a much more complex process than you can imagine.
3. Come to the United States and study it.

A man named Alexis de Tocqueville did just that and published a best selling book:

Democracy in America - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Alistair Cooke visited to report for the BBC.

Alistair Cooke - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[JonNC]

The second sentences is opinion. That the Constitution may be revised - is fact.

I believe that attempts to undermine rights would be received with justifiable ire.
I also believe that is why attempts to do so are always done through activist judges who redefine the meaning of the text from whole cloth. That’s what Justice Stevens tried to do in the Heller decision

 

[JonNC]

A spot on post.
Follow up by repealing the 16th.

 

[JonNC]

What is fairly new is the NRA acting as a mostly political organization devoted to the protection of the 2nd amendment. When the NRA was formed and for many years after, it was dedicated to the advancement of marksmanship skills (on a “scientific basis”) and gun safety. The the NRA was explicitly non-political and prided itself on its non-political nature.

It still is. The NRA-ILA is the political action/ lobbying portion of the NRA. This, too, is a constitutionally protected right.

Then in 1977 everything changed when a core of hardliners

Translation: hardliners are those of us who are willing to defend the individual rights protected by the constitution, including but not limited to the right to keep and bear arms from progressives wishing to increase government power at the expense of said individual rights.

took over the leadership - ousted the entire board, and that faction has ruled ever since.

Ooh. “Took over”. “Ousted”. “Ruled ever since”.
You make it sound like a putsch.

The NRA is a membership body that elects its leadership.

 

[Rau]

You want to amend the Constitution by repealing the 2nd Amendment.

No, I’ve not said that. I suggest it needs revision. IMHO, Legislatures need clarity over what it forbids/permits and they need greater capacity to legislate in respect of weaponry in the community.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

What is fairly new is the NRA acting as a mostly political organization devoted to the protection of the 2nd amendment. When the NRA was formed and for many years after, it was dedicated to the advancement of marksmanship skills (on a “scientific basis”) and gun safety. The the NRA was explicitly non-political and prided itself on its non-political nature.

It still is. The NRA-ILA is the political action/ lobbying portion of the NRA.

The first sentence contradicts the second sentence. Before 1977 the NRA was not making a big political effort. After 1977 it was. The entire board was replaced and the emphasis shifted. But we have had gun control long before 1977. Actually from the founding of our country.

The NRA is a membership body that elects its leadership.

The gun-rights activists in the NRA and much more passionate than the moderate NRA members for whom gun control is not perceived as a threat. Therefore the campaigning elects a leadership that is much more political and not exactly representative of the average membership. How else can you explain the seismic shift in the leadership that occurred in 1977?

If you want to read about the history of gun control, take a look at “Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America” by Adam Winkler.

 

[MonteRCMS]

The most disturbing thing about this book is how Winkler distorts what others have written.

Take this example. Clayton Cramer has written extensively on the history of concealed handgun laws. Winkler claims that Cramer didn’t believe that concealed handgun laws were motivated by racism, but, according to Clayton, the laws in the late 1800s were in fact clearly motivated by racism.

Clayton also rejected the notion that the concealed handgun laws adopted then were done as a way of “reducing public violence” as Winkler writes. It is hard to read Clayton’s work and get these things so backwards.

You can disagree with Clayton and explain those disagreements, but don’t claim that he wrote the opposite of what he actually wrote. This discussion comes across as an attempt to separate gun control from its racist past in the South.

The book also does Clayton a real disservice by completely ignoring his role in the Bellesiles episode.
From the Heller and McDonald cases, it is very clear that Adam also got much of that recent history wrong.

The book’s discussion of concealed handguns is littered with inaccuracies, but one can see what Winkler does to Cramer research as a warning for how facts can be reversed in this book. Winkler didn’t read the first edition of More Guns, Less Crime very carefully (he doesn’t cite either the second and third editions).

 

[MonteRCMS]

Adam Winkler is a law professor at UCLA. This book argues for Gun Control by saying it has a long history in America. But that is a half-truth.

The Second Amendment banned Federal Gun Control until the 1934 Act.

Were individual gun rights tightly restricted until recent decades? No, the historical record refutes his claims. Winkler is not an eyewitness to what he describes.

He claims the Founding Fathers had restrictive gun laws during the Revolution. Any 18th gun laws go back to the English laws when people were subjects under the monarchy. The Second Amendment restricted the Federal Government. States had their own version of the Second Amendment, and municipalities had local ordinances. In claiming the NRA advocated gun control in the past he is implicitly affirming that there was no gun control then! It seems dishonest to claim the Founding Fathers had “very strict militia laws” when the Federal Government never had a militia, unlike town, county, and state governments.