Should the 2nd Amendment Be Repealed?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_II
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Charlemagne_II

Guest
2nd Amendment as ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Something to think about:

thegunzone.com/rkba/rkba-12.html
 
No it should not be repealed, because the reason it was put into place was to have the people be able to protect themselves from the government. If it is repealed, it would open the potential for the government to harm citizens (more than they are already).

As with the rest of the aspects of the ‘culture of death’ the issue here isn’t guns, it is people’s understanding of the value of human life and people not getting necessary mental care.

Think of it like parenting. If your child is hitting his/her sibling with a stick, if you take away the stick, tell them they are not allowed to play with sticks anymore (and the their siblings aren’t either, even though they weren’t using the sticks in that way), and walk off, they will either somehow find another stick and continue hitting their siblings, or they will find something else to hit their siblings with. So the problem isn’t solved. The only way to fix the problem is to take the stick away from that one child, maybe instill a punishment, and tell them what is wrong about what they are doing to hopefully teach in them the value of their sibling.

And the guns they are proposing to take away are not the major problem. Hand guns are used far above and most often in crimes because they are small, easy to hide, and still deadly. This also makes them good for protection of one’s person.

And like I used in my analogy, if you take away all guns, criminals will find other ways to get guns, or use something other than guns that are just as dangerous, like knives, which reside in just about everyone’s kitchen.

While I do agree that there may need to be some stricter gun laws and ways to get guns, I do not think that the 2nd amendment should be repealed.
 
Call a Constitutional Convention, and we’ll find out.

Or to be less exciting, submit repeal to the amendment process.
 
Jim
**
Call a Constitutional Convention, and we’ll find out. **

So what happens at a constitutional Convention? You get more amendments than you bargained for?
 
bzkoss236 said:
No it should not be repealed, because the reason it was put into place was to have the people be able to protect themselves from the government. If it is repealed, it would open the potential for the government to harm citizens (more than they are already).

As with the rest of the aspects of the ‘culture of death’ the issue here isn’t guns, it is people’s understanding of the value of human life and people not getting necessary mental care.

Think of it like parenting. If your child is hitting his/her sibling with a stick, if you take away the stick, tell them they are not allowed to play with sticks anymore (and the their siblings aren’t either, even though they weren’t using the sticks in that way), and walk off, they will either somehow find another stick and continue hitting their siblings, or they will find something else to hit their siblings with. So the problem isn’t solved. The only way to fix the problem is to take the stick away from that one child, maybe instill a punishment, and tell them what is wrong about what they are doing to hopefully teach in them the value of their sibling.

And the guns they are proposing to take away are not the major problem. Hand guns are used far above and most often in crimes because they are small, easy to hide, and still deadly. This also makes them good for protection of one’s person.

And like I used in my analogy, if you take away all guns, criminals will find other ways to get guns, or use something other than guns that are just as dangerous, like knives, which reside in just about everyone’s kitchen.

While I do agree that there may need to be some stricter gun laws and ways to get guns, I do not think that the 2nd amendment should be repealed.
Click to expand...
^ This. Guns are not the problem… the problem is the criminals who use guns for the wrong purposes (either because they don’t respect life or because they are insane).

If government takes away the right to bear arms, then the only people who will have guns will be:
  • the government
  • criminals (who obtain guns illegally)
This leaves the citizens vulnurable to:
  • an oppressive government
  • criminals who have guns (or any sort of weapon for that matter)
The right to bear arms is necessary for the citizens to protect themselves in these situations.
 
vlf7973 said:
^ This. Guns are not the problem… the problem is the criminals who use guns for the wrong purposes (either because they don’t respect life or because they are insane).

If government takes away the right to bear arms, then the only people who will have guns will be:
  • the government
  • criminals (who obtain guns illegally)
This leaves the citizens vulnurable to:
  • an oppressive government
  • criminals who have guns (or any sort of weapon for that matter)
The right to bear arms is necessary for the citizens to protect themselves in these situations.
Click to expand...
👍

The only thing I would add is, Try and take my guns away from me, and see how well that goes.

Chicago has what most would call the most strict gun control laws in the country, and see how well that is working out.
 
The 2nd Amendment presupposes the right to keep and bear arms which would be founded on natural law ( right to life, hence right of self-defense, etc.). The Founders generally did not view rights as something people just agreed by majority vote to grant themselves. Even if the Amendment itself were repealed, the right would remain
 
Guns themselves are no more responsible for violence as pencils are responsible for inciting violence! Remember the pen is mightier than the sword so if anything we should ban free speach.
 
Only Communists, Nazis and the grossly misinformed want the Second Amendment repealed. I apologize in advance for offending anyone. But only free men own guns, slaves do not, and I want to be a slave to Christ only. There is evil in the world and guns HELP to keep evil at bay. As our forefathers believed, a Bible in one hand and a rifle in the other! Again, I am sorry if anyone is offended, but it is my opinion, which at the current time I still have the right to express.
 
What do you honestly think Jesus would say to people owning guns in the USA? Do you think he would agree?
 
ajecphotos said:
What do you honestly think Jesus would say to people owning guns in the USA? Do you think he would agree?
Click to expand...
"He said to them, "But now, let him who has a purse take it, and likewise a bag. And let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one. “”

You might be mixing up Jesus with Barney the Dinosaur.
 
Robert_Sock said:
Yes!
Click to expand...
“To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” - George Mason

“Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not.” - Thomas Jefferson

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.” - Thomas Jefferson

“An armed man is a citizen. A disarmed man is a subject.” - Anon.

As far as guns go, the cat is long since out of the bag, and it’s not going back in. Leaving the guns in the hands of the state effectively neutralizes the public. Repealing the 2nd amendment won’t keep guns out of the hands of criminals or tyrants, it will simply disarm honest citizens and leave them defenseless against those who really are dangerous. Hitler loved pacifists; they just let him waltz in and take their countries.
 
There are a number of prepositions in this debate.
  1. "Government is altruistic and always looking out for our best interests". The truth is, government is made up of people, just like us, who are sinners and do things to insure their job security. This is why government is always growing: agencies need to continually justify their existence and growth so they can get more funds. In truth, government is not all-holy, and history is replete with governments going usurpacious. The one thing that makes the government capable of suppressing the populace and bending them to the government’s will is the threat of force/imprisonment/taxation. An unjust government that is unchecked is something the Framers wanted to prevent because they knew very well that it was a distinct possibility.
  2. "All people who have guns want to use them to kill people." I don’t know why, but so many people think that gun owners are fantasizing about killing intruders and aggressors. I’ve never met a law-abiding gun owner who had a “Rambo-complex”. I’m sure there are some out there, but most people hope they never have to draw their gun on a fellow human being. I mean, who WANTS to kill someone?
  3. "If we didn’t have guns, we’d all get along." This mentality shows the speaker to have no concept of Original Sin. There will always be people in a society that break laws and infringe on the rights of others…sometimes with aggression. If you want to sit and wait to be a victim, fine. but if someone comes after my family, I will protect them. And most of the time, the aggressor in this country will have a gun. I can’t defend myself with a stick.
 
twopekinguys said:
👍

The only thing I would add is, Try and take my guns away from me, and see how well that goes.

Chicago has what most would call the most strict gun control laws in the country, and see how well that is working out.
Click to expand...
Here is a link with the countries with the highest homicide rates in the world.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Almost all the countries in the highest bracket have very strict gun laws. The US is not even in the top 20.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
2nd Amendment as ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Click to expand...
bzkoss236 said:
No it should not be repealed, because the reason it was put into place was to have the people be able to protect themselves from the government. If it is repealed, it would open the potential for the government to harm citizens (more than they are already).
Click to expand...
Yes, it was ratified so that people could protect themselves from the government. Protection from abusive government was a concern when the US was founded (1) because the US was disengaging from Britain, which was perceived as a tyrannical government, and (2) because the founding fathers were initiating a new experiment (democracy, representative government) and did not want to fall into the issues of the French Revolution. What I mean is that out the outset of America, it was not clear that the new government would be stable; they were not sure if the checks and balances that they had put in place would be enough, so a militia would be necessary if the government did wind up being tyrannical.

The government, however, is not tyrannical. Look at the first clause of the the Second Amendment: “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state…” This is the reason that Jefferson is giving for the right to bear arms, ie. you have the right to bear arms because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. If that reason turns out to be invalid (if a well-regulated militia is not necessary for the security of a free state), then the right to bear arms is not inviolable.

I’m not claiming that there is “if” language built into the Bill of Rights that legally implies that if a well-regulated militia ceases to be necessary, then the right to bear arms goes away. I don’t think that would be logical.

What I am arguing is that, given that the Bill of Rights currently offers a faulty premise for the Second Amendment, the Second Amendment should be reevaluated: Is a well-regulated militia really necessary for the freedom of the United States? Can anyone posit a reasonable, contemporary scenario in which gun owners would join a militia? Could a relatively untrained citizen militia actually defend against an abusive government with a modern army? Has this check against governmental abuse ever been necessary, or have the various other checks and balances been sufficient so far? If citizens were to rise against government, would anyone perceive them as the “just” force - could they be more than terrorists? If a majority of the country actually supported rebellion against a tyrannous government, would it not be better to express that discontent through voting or other means of indirect representation rather than violence?
 
ajecphotos said:
What do you honestly think Jesus would say to people owning guns in the USA? Do you think he would agree?
Click to expand...
No it should not. Even though I don’t like guns it should not be repealed. And it depends on what the person had the gun ***for ***as to what Jesus would say. 🙂 Jesus would understand if you keep them for protection.
 
polytropos said:
The government, however, is not tyrannical.
Click to expand...
It’s getting closer and closer to being so every year. Again, history is replete with examples of “stable” governments going usurpatious. I think it is a dangerous assumption to think government is incapable of overpowering the populace. The framers knew this. If you look at the bill of rights, they are all designed to limit the power of the federal government because it is human nature to grab for greater and greater power over others. Bureaucrats who think they have the right vision for a country will be tempted to infringe on the rights of others for the “greater good”.

A disarmed populace is a repressible populace.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top