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

  • Thread starter Thread starter upant
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
27 Volumes

www.saf.org

Second Amendment Foundation

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) is dedicated to promoting a better understanding about our Constitutional heritage to privately own and possess firearms. To that end, we carry on many educational and legal action programs designed to better inform the public about the gun control debate.
www.saf.org www.saf.org

The Center for the Study of Firearms and Public Policy was established in 1988 by the Second Amendment Foundation. Its primary purpose was to publish The Journal on Firearms and Public Policy. The goal of this project was to expand the audience who had access to legal, economic, historical and other scholarly research about the Second Amendment.

Dr. Edward F. Leddy, who was one of the prime movers behind the Journal served as editor for the first four issues. In 1993, Julianne Versnel assumed the role of editor for one year before becoming its Publisher. David B. Kopel, J.D. became its editor in 1994. In 2011, Dr. Gary Mauser became the editor.

It has been the Second Amendment Foundation’s privilege to distribute over 100,000 print copies of the Journal on Firearms and Public Policy as well as offer significant access to them electronically over the years.

For a complete list of individual articles that have appeared in the Journal on Firearms and Public Policy see the Table of Contents.

To view the entire Journal by year click on one of the links below.

www.saf.org

Second Amendment Foundation

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) is dedicated to promoting a better understanding about our Constitutional heritage to privately own and possess firearms. To that end, we carry on many educational and legal action programs designed to better inform the public about the gun control debate.
www.saf.org www.saf.org

[click on the link above and go from there]

2015: Volume 272014: Volume 262013: Volume 252012: Volume 242011: Volume 232010: Volume 222009: Volume 212008: Volume 202007: Volume 192006: Volume 182005: Volume 172004: Volume 162003: Volume 152002: Volume 142001: Volume 132000: Volume 121999: Volume 111998: Volume 101997: Volume 91996: Volume 81995: Volume 71994: Volume 61993: Volume 51992: Volume 41991: Volume 31990: Volume 21989: Volume 1
 
Last edited:
From the article;
Venker goes on to explain that of CNN’s list of the “27 Deadliest Mass Shootings In U.S. History, only one was raised by his biological father since childhood.
Indeed, there is a direct correlation between boys who grow up with absent fathers and boys who drop out of school, who drink, who do drugs, who become delinquent and who wind up in prison,” she writes. “And who kill their classmates.”
Click to expand...
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markmeckler/2018/02/27-deadliest-mass-shooters-26-one-thing-common/

It isn’t the guns.
 
Last edited:
JonNC said:
I believe…

I also believe…
Click to expand...
I’m glad you acknowledge that the Constitution May be revised. It is also ok to consider that the people of today are no less worthy than those of the past in authoring the peak document of their legal system.
 
Rau said:
40.png
JonNC:
I believe…

I also believe…
Click to expand...
I’m glad you acknowledge that the Constitution May be revised. It is also ok to consider that the people of today are no less worthy than those of the past in authoring the peak document of their legal system.
Click to expand...
lol. If that’s what you got out of my post, okay.
But it goes back to the dangerous premise that rights should be determined by majority rule, like two wolves and one sheep voting on what’s for Lunch.
Let’s look at some the rights targeted by progressives:
The right to arms
Free speech
Due process
Religious free exercise

It’s a start
 
JonNC said:
But it goes back to the dangerous premise that rights should be determined by majority rule,
Click to expand...
The premise is that the process that wrote the “right” into the Constitution was not so special that the result may not be revisited today. As much as you’d prefer to believe something different…
 
Rau said:
The premise is that the process that wrote the “right” into the Constitution was not so special that the result may not be revisited today. As much as you’d prefer to believe something different…
Click to expand...
So, you’re good with the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment being subject to change.
I’m not. I’m not willing to see our rights eroded.
 
JonNC said:
So, you’re good with the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment being subject to change.

I’m not. I’m not willing to see our rights eroded.
Click to expand...
That’s a diversion Jon. “Rights” can be identified and codified as well in the 21st century as they could be in the past. And we’re talking about the operation of your Constitution in respect of weaponry.
 
Rau said:
That’s a diversion Jon. “Rights” can be identified and codified as well in the 21st century as they could be in the past. And we’re talking about the operation of your Constitution in respect of weaponry.
Click to expand...
Rights are inherent. When we talk about denying people a particular protected right, we have to consider how that diminishes the protection of all other enumerated rights. If one right can be eliminated and replaced by government power, so can others. This thought process is dangerous in that it creates an imbalance between individual rights, and the power government has.
At some point, various barriers must remain in place to protect rights, and limit government power. Among these are the daunting task of the amendment process, the distribution of power between the states and central government, the limitations in place by the three branches of government, and as a last resort, the ability of the citizenry to resist, even using arms. That last resort, if eliminated, makes all other rights subject to authoritarian government power.

We cannot view each right in a vacuum.
 
This time, as with illegal immigration, his opponents, intoxicated by what they eagerly embrace as a wedge between the president and his enthusiastic backers in the Civil Rights Movement, Second Amendment Division, let it all hang out, as Susan Ferrechio of the Examiner reported yesterday afternoon: "Democrats to propose weapons ban, gun confiscation powers in bill inspired by Trump."

Shortly after this came out, news arrived that the NRA’s Chris Cox had met with the POTUS in the Oval Office and is confident that the Second Amendment is quite safe.

Read more: It's sweetness and light between NRA and Trump after he chummed the water on gun control
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
 
Last edited:
MonteRCMS said:
Read more:
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link:
Reading beyond the headline, we see that the ban is particular not general, like we we already have in place of “certain weapons”, and that the confiscations are also particular. Good to know.
Senate Democrats said they will introduce a gun control bill that would expand background checks, ban certain weapons, and give the courts the power to temporarily take guns away from people who are deemed to be a threat to themselves or others, after President Trump offered support for these goals in a White House discussion Wednesday.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
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.
Click to expand...
Nope

AZ wasn’t a state until 1912, well past the days of the wild west. Those people in Tombstone didn’t have the means to appeal against oppressive Govt rules that took away ‘rights’. They didn’t have access to the same protections as people living in actual states of the United States, or someone in the District of Columbia who is oppressed by local governance gone wild.
 
Last edited:
My point still stands that gun control in this country goes back to the beginning. You can argue that AZ was not a state, but there are also examples in MA and NY from the beginning.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
My point still stands that gun control in this country goes back to the beginning. You can argue that AZ was not a state, but there are also examples in MA and NY from the beginning.
Click to expand...
Yea, as I recall the Brits were confiscating gun powder.

How do you imagine early efforts justify current efforts? We do have a plethora of laws on the books around gun control, our discussion is about what else is warranted and legal.
 
I’m talking about after the revolution. Under the Constitution, including the 2nd amendment. Gun control goes back to the founding. (Actually, that is an argument for not repealing the 2nd amendment! It should not be necessary.)
 
Last edited:
Is somebody here suggesting we repeal our current plethora of gun laws?

I still don’t see what point you are making. Nobody has suggested gun laws are new.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top