Monday, December 29, 2014

Repeal the 2nd Amendment

Wisconsin Gazette opinion

What country fetishizes, lionizes, valorizes, idolizes, and sacralizes guns as much as does our United States? OK, possibly Mozambique — the only country with an AK47 on its flag, but really, it's long past time to end this obsessive "My Precious" attachment of Americans to instruments of death.


The only logical path, given the clearly decided role of the Second Amendment, is to repeal it. American people are tired of mass shootings and police shootings and family feud shootings and sibling shootings and accidental toddler shootings and teen suicide by gun (highly popular).We are exhausted by the proliferation of death, of threats, of bloodshed, and by the NRA/gun industry moral garbage spewing forth every time someone challenges the ubiquity of guns. 


Repeal the Stupid Second Amendment. Surround it, grab it, bring it in the back room, pull down the shades, and end it. OK, petition for it, get it on the ballot, and get it done by enough of the US populace, by enough people in enough states, to get it consigned to the dustbin of history.

27 comments:

  1. This makes me happy. Not because of my enjoyment of the sound of yet another cud-muncher's anguished bleating (well, not entirely because of that, anyway), but because A) it means he realizes that the "gun control" movement has lost with its discredited "collective right" interpretation of the Second Amendment, and B) because repealing the Second Amendment will never happen, because the refusal of only 13 states to ratify a repeal amendment is enough to block any such attempt (we do, after all, have some history with 13 states standing up against tyranny).

    But carry on, Cud-Muncher--put all your "gun control" effort into the attempt to repeal the Second Amendment.

    ReplyDelete
  2. If Mr. Hastings feels so strongly regarding repealing the Second Amendment, I would certainly encourage him to give it a shot. (Pun intended) the instructions are written right in the document. I look forward to seeing how that goes for him.
    Especially in light of a recent survey coming out showing that a majority place a high priority on gun rights for the first time in twenty years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's a bit premature for an attempt, but's its time will come.

      Delete
    2. Ah--I take it that "a bit premature" means "before the end of time."

      With that, I agree.

      Delete
  3. I have a lot more respect for this kind of talk than "I respect the second amendment, but..."

    ReplyDelete
  4. At least he is honest about his intentions ..Good for you Mr Hastings and good luck with getting 38 states to ratify your dream. Send Tom an email and tell him you appreciate his honesty contact info can be found here. http://www.pdx.edu/conflict-resolution/tom-hastings

    ReplyDelete
  5. As hard as that would be, repealing the 2A would be the easy part. I'd like to hear his views on the messy bit about what to do with the 300+ million guns already in circulation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One has nothing to do with the other.

      Delete
  6. If as the pro gun people say, owning a gun is a pre-existing, natural right, then why fear the elimination of the 2nd A? Courts would find a natural right exists and would not take a gun away.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "If as the pro gun people say, owning a gun is a pre-existing, natural right, then why fear the elimination of the 2nd A?"

      Listing the right gives the citizen an avenue to challenge violations through the judicial system. For example, the Constitution states that all men are created equal, yet it took about 100 years to add the Fifteenth Amendment to prevent discrimination based on race, and then quite a while for most of the violators to be brought into line with that protection.

      Delete
    2. That's fine, if one is confident that the courts will always get it right. Some of us are not so naïvely optimistic,

      Delete
    3. And as we have seen lawyers can make a sentence say what ever they want it to say, so we still argue the 2nd A. With a change of judges comes a change of interpretation. Only recently has the Court defined carry as a right and that could easily change depending on the court. Nothing is written in stone, or permanent, including the Bill of Rights.

      Delete
    4. Really Fred? Actually the Bill of Rights is essentially written in stone with a procedure to amend them. It is meant to protect the people from the government. The courts cannot change them, but interpret them. Sometimes correctly, sometimes not. But that interpretation does not amend them or change them. When the courts stray too far from the original intent then its the power of the people to reign them in. That's why voting matters. That's why lawsuits are important. But the court system is essentially powerless to change them and executive orders from the president are equally as powerless. Anything less equals dictatorship and this country was not built on that idea.

      I know the Bill of Rights pisses off those politicians who want power over the people but are blocked by the Bill of Rights, it's meant to be that way. Politicians are to serve the people, not control them.

      Delete
    5. Fred's right. The main thing the 2A does is stand in the way of reasonable discussions on how to reduce gun violence. You guys fall back on it when all else fails. All the natural human rights are not specifically named in the Bill of Rights, for the simple reason that if they really are natural human rights they don't need to be named.

      What Gunsmoke says is nonsense. The restrictions on the 2A, which the most favorable Court to gun rights in the history of the country said are allowed, can be widely interpreted. I predict that a future more reasonable Court will eventually adopt my version of Proper Gun Control.

      http://mikeb302000.blogspot.it/2014/09/proper-gun-control-laws-not-exhaustive.html

      Delete
    6. "The main thing the 2A does is stand in the way of reasonable discussions on how to reduce gun violence. "

      The main reason the Second Amendment stands in the way of "reasonable discussion" is that one side is refusing to acknowledge that its an individual right, as you very well demonstrated in the very next paragraph.
      The wide interpretation of what is allowed is quite evident by the levels of state level laws in force. All of the advocates out there work hard to protect whatever liberty they value most. One has but to look at statements of free speech, privacy, etc advocacy groups and you'll see the same level of what you consider to be a lack of reasonableness.

      Delete
    7. All the natural human rights are not specifically named in the Bill of Rights, for the simple reason that if they really are natural human rights they don't need to be named.

      So the rights not mentioned in the Bill of Rights are more fundamental, and thus more worthy of protection, than those that are? Wow--now that's a . . . novel, and creative(ly stupid), theory. So there is no natural human right to free speech and freedom of religion?

      I predict that a future more reasonable Court will eventually adopt my version of Proper Gun Control.

      I get it--that's very humorous, but on a serious note, you do know, right, that the Supreme Court doesn't "adopt" laws? If the U.S. really does become sufficiently dumbed down to pass your "Proper Gun Control" (I like the capitalization--no grandiose egotism there!), and it's challenged in court, and the case makes it all the way to the Supremes, they can rule that it's Constitutional (apparently we expect them to be barely sentient by then, too), but they don't suddenly become Congress, and put the laws in place to begin with.

      Delete
    8. "The courts cannot change them, but interpret them.........But that interpretation does not amend them or change them."
      What Gun?
      As proven by legal history, interpretation means a change because ones interpretation is different than another's. Original intent IS a judicial interpretation, and that judgment is given to the court (judges) by the Constitution. You are at the mercy of judges to decide your right to do something, or not, and all judges are not the same. Different Supreme Courts have made different interpretations of the 2nd A. We happen to have a Court now that is gun friendly. I can promise you that it will not always be that way.

      Delete
    9. "Different Supreme Courts have made different interpretations of the 2nd A. We happen to have a Court now that is gun friendly. I can promise you that it will not always be that way. "

      True Peter. Then a challenge needs to work its way up through the system and then SCOTUS uses some beer math to decide whether to even hear it.
      And with the steady expansion of individual rights over a wide front not limited to gun rights, your promise isn't a forgone conclusion. And the effects of Heller have spread to Illinois, DC, California, and the list will surely grow.

      Delete
    10. "So the rights not mentioned in the Bill of Rights are more fundamental, and thus more worthy of protection, than those that are? Wow--now that's a . . . novel, and creative(ly stupid), theory. "

      Misrepresenting what I said and then arguing against it as if I had said it is another one of the complicated ways that you lie. I guess what I actually do say isn't enough for you, huh Kurt?

      Delete
    11. I simply restated my interpretation of your words (with a direct quote, by the way, and only two comments below yours--it's not as if I tried to hide your actual words).

      So tell me, Mikeb, how is this:

      All the natural human rights are not specifically named in the Bill of Rights, for the simple reason that if they really are natural human rights they don't need to be named.

      . . . significantly different from this:

      So the rights not mentioned in the Bill of Rights are more fundamental, and thus more worthy of protection, than those that are?

      Did you not say that truly natural human rights "don't need to be named"?

      Delete
    12. "I predict that a future more reasonable Court will eventually adopt my version of Proper Gun Control." Not in our lifetime Mike

      Delete
    13. "And with the steady expansion of individual rights over a wide front not limited to gun rights'
      I would agree with that , but I'm still sure a change in the political slant of the court can change legal precedent. Heller isn't that old of a decision in Court history.

      Delete
    14. "As proven by legal history, interpretation means a change because ones interpretation is different than another's."

      Its a change in the interpretation. It does not change the enumerated right. You need to amend the enumerated right to change it.

      "Original intent IS a judicial interpretation" The original intent is laid out very clearly by the original authors of the Bill of Rights and the intent has been challenged since the sighing of the Bill of Rights. The challenge comes from a two party system in which one believes in personal liberty and the other does not. Here again, votes matter and litigation is important.

      Read your history Fred, it will help you.

      Delete
    15. BS Gun, or our Supreme Court would not have spent the last 260 making different decisions on the same articles in the Constitution. Read your history Gun, it will help you.

      Delete
    16. Better yet Gunsmoke, address who said that.

      Delete
    17. Ok, done. Peter.

      Sorry Fred, my mistake.

      Delete