Sunday, August 12, 2012

Repeal the 2nd Amendment



The Second Amendment is dead — a victim of its own making. It has been killed over and over again. It’s been dying since the mass murders at the University of Texas Clock Tower, 101 California in San Francisco, McDonalds in San Diego, Columbine, Virginia Tech, Trolley Square, Fort Hood Army Base, and now Aurora, Colo. It only remains to be declared DOA and repealed — plain and simple.

If we add up all the sorrow, injury, disability, terror, and death caused by guns in this country, compared with the good that personally owned guns have proven to be since 1776, there cannot be any other conclusion. On this one, the Founding Fathers might have had an initial idea, based on their active revolt from the British, and the need for everyone to have a single-shot, barrel-loaded gun at the ready, just in case.

But this gradually disappeared, as a need for the populace to grab a gun and overthrow the oppressors became no longer valid. The chances of this type of "defense of freedom" uprising happening today is not only slim but none. The Communists, North Koreans, Nazis, and various comic-book villains, are not coming for us.

Two hundred years of experiencing this constitutional mistake should be enough to end this death-causing, not freedom-protecting, clause. The self-protection aspect of this thing is incredibly weak — just ask Trayvon Williams in Florida. In the past month alone, we saw two infants shoot themselves in the head and die from guns owned by their grandfather and father, respectively.
I'm not convinced repeal is what's needed. I've always thought, sooner or later, the citizens of the US will wake up to the obvious and relegate the 2nd Amendment to the scrapheap of irrelevance.

But, maybe Jeff's right.  Maybe it'll take something stronger than gradually shifting public opinion.

What do you think?  Please leave a comment.

16 comments:

  1. "What do you think?"

    I think the guy is a moron. I wonder if he only believes that the 1st amendment applies to just print. I mean, radio, TV and the internet didn't exist in 1776 which seems to be his benchmark.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why do you have to refer to the 1A?

      Delete
    2. Because he is using his 1A rights to spew bullshit.

      Delete
    3. Because rights are rights, Mikeb. The arguments that apply to the Second Amendment apply just as well or as poorly to the First. If he or you seriously believe that our rights are stuck in the eighteenth century, feel free to join the Amish. I'll respect that. They've made an honest choice.

      Delete
    4. Rights are not rights, Greg. That's total bullshit that someone made up and you thought sounded good so you keep saying it.

      The 3A is not the kind of "right" that freedom of worship is. The 2A likewise is irrelevant.

      Delete
    5. So you won't object if the U.S. Army quarters soldiers in your home in peacetime? Send your address to the Pentagon.

      Delete
  2. I think that this fellow must be lonely in Utah. That being said, he has the right to his opinion, no matter how crazy. Perhaps he should read about the process for amending the Constitution. Does he really believe that repealing the Second Amendment could happen?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Agreed, Trayvon Williams isn't better off for George Zimmermans 2nd amendment rights.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It shore is funny how thugs end up dead when they attack armed citizens--is that what you meant, Professor?

      Delete
    2. Greg, you know that's not what he meant. What you do though is very telling. You support the gun owner in a blind-loyalty kinda way. That proves your bias and close-mindedness and does nothing to convince others that you're right.

      Delete
    3. You mean the way that you attack gun owners? Go back and look at the articles written here about Zimmerman. You decided that he was guilty. You reached that decision because you were told that he's white and Martin was black. The facts that have come out since the shooting don't make Zimmerman look perfect--that's the standard that you demand from us--but it looks clear that he acted in self-defense that night.

      Delete
  4. Who is Trayvon Williams?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Well first of all we cannot quantify the benefit of how many crimes and invasions didn't happen because citizens were armed. Even more important, we cannot quantify the benefit of how many future crimes and invasions won't happen because citizens will be armed.

    More importantly, all of the amendments are about limiting government's role in people's lives -- basically keeping government subservient to "We the People". "We the People" cannot be superior to government if there is not a robust, almost unlimited application of the Second Amendment ... just as there needs to be a robust, almost unlimited application of the First Amendment.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Seriously. Who is Trayvon Williams?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Are you people talking about Trayvon Martin? At least get his name right when pretending to care about him.

    ReplyDelete