Repeal Second Amendment, Analyst Advises

[WhiteFeather]

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.a...20070612a.html

Repeal Second Amendment, Analyst Advises
By Nathan Burchfiel
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
June 12, 2007

(CNSNews.com) - The Second Amendment guarantees the right of an individual to own guns and for that reason should be repealed, according to a legal affairs analyst who opposes gun ownership.

"The Second Amendment is one of the clearest statements of right in the Constitution," Benjamin Wittes, a guest scholar at the center-left Brookings Institution, acknowledged in a discussion Monday. "We've had decades of sort of intellectual gymnastics to try to make those words not mean what they say."

Wittes, who said he has "no particular enthusiasm for the idea of a gun culture," said that rather than try to limit gun ownership through regulation that potentially violates the Second Amendment, opponents of gun ownership should set their sights on repealing the amendment altogether.

"Rather than debating the meaning of the Second Amendment, I think the appropriate debate is whether we want a Second Amendment," Wittes said. He conceded, however, that the political likelihood of getting the amendment repealed is "pretty limited."

Wittes said the Second Amendment guarantee of the right to bear arms meant more when it was crafted more than 200 years ago than it does today. Modern society is "much more ambivalent than they [the founders] were about whether gun ownership really is fundamental to liberty," he said.

"One of the things that they believed was that the right of states to organize militias, and therefore individuals to be armed, was necessary to protect the liberty of those states against the federal government," Wittes said. "This is something we don't really believe as a society anymore."

But challenging the Second Amendment on the basis that society's circumstances have changed since the drafting would similarly open up to question all other constitutional rights, according to Georgetown University law professor Randy Barnett, who also participated in Monday's discussion.

"The techniques that are used to show that the Second Amendment really doesn't have any contemporary relevance are absolutely available to anybody who wants to show that aspects of the First Amendment and the Fourth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment have no contemporary relevance," he said.

Citing the Fourth Amendment, which protects "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures," Barnett argued, "Sure it was fine that persons should be secure in their papers and effects back in the old days when there wasn't a danger of terrorism and mass murder."

But advocates of warrantless searches could make an "appeal to changing circumstances," on the basis that the Fourth Amendment is "archaic [and] we don't need it anymore," he added.

Barnett recommended that gun control advocates "not favor methods of interpretation [to criticize the legitimacy of the Second Amendment] that you wouldn't want to put in the hands of political opponents."

[ChamberedRound]

I only agree with this guy on one issue, and that is: if people feel the Constitution isn't serving them anymore, it should be amended. That's the whole point of our system of govt.

With that said, this guy is crazy IMHO. His arguments for WHY we should repeal the 2nd and 4th Amendments are exactly the reason why we NEED them.

[MarcS]

you can't repeal the second amendment, nor any of the bill of rights. Read the preamble to the bill of rights.

"THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."

No one granted us the right to keep and bear arms, this right predates the formation of our government and was endowed to us by our creator. The bill of rights does not grant any rights, merely reenforces the point that these rights already existed and should not be tampered with.

[bubba23]

What is an analyst? Just some guy with an opinion...right?

So that is what we have here--apparently a slow news day--one guys opinion.

Alrighty then.

[ChamberedRound]

you can't repeal the second amendment, nor any of the bill of rights. Read the preamble to the bill of rights.

"THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."

No one granted us the right to keep and bear arms, this right predates the formation of our government and was endowed to us by our creator. The bill of rights does not grant any rights, merely reenforces the point that these rights already existed and should not be tampered with.

The 2nd Amendment can't be repealed, but another Amendment can be passed which would nullify it. The 18th Amendment started Prohibition, and the 21st Amendment ended it by nullifying the 18th, even though it's still on the books.

[MarcS]

The 2nd Amendment can't be repealed, but another Amendment can be passed which would nullify it. The 18th Amendment started Prohibition, and the 21st Amendment ended it by nullifying the 18th, even though it's still on the books.

how can you nullify a right that predates the government? The 18th amendment was not a declaration of any rights. While they are both amendments to the constitution, they are very different. The second amendment didn't grant us any rights we didn't already have, it simply declared that the right exists and is not to be tampered with.

[danp]

how can you nullify a right that predates the government? The 18th amendment was not a declaration of any rights. While they are both amendments to the constitution, they are very different. The second amendment didn't grant us any rights we didn't already have, it simply declared that the right exists and is not to be tampered with.

You can nullify the recognition of that right as incapable of being infringed by the government.

Government by its very nature is a willful sacrifice of freedom for the betterment of society as a whole. The bill of rights simply outlines things that we have refused to give up in the process.

[danp]

Also, it appears Randy Barnett (the person the headline refers to) was probably mis-quoted/taken out of context over as pointed out at the Volokh Conspiracy.

[Voolfie]

While it is true that the second amendment merely reiterates the existence - a priori - of a natural right and thus cannot be "repealed" by government, government can convince people (via propaganda and bullying) that they don't need and shouldn't want to exercise that right. Then, ordinances are passed without a peep of protest which enshrine in law the subjection of the people. Thus, a la Europe, is the right to self-defense - for all intents and purposes - extinguished.

Socialism is the real opiate of the masses.

[WhiteFeather]

The reason I posted this originally this repealing the 2nd amendment is there is right now NO political will for 38 state legislators to amend the Constitution in today political climate in this country. Now if a terrorist attacks nukes a bunch of US cities (Jericho scenario) all bets are off.

Still there is a very real danger repealing the 2nd amendment thru a back door approach that is much easier to happen than most believe people it could.

Start watching for series articles from different sources talking about how the Constitution and its amendments are old and out dated or not in touch with the modern world needs… etc……..etc …..

Right now there is beginning a political push in PA to have / authorize a Con – Con (Constitutional Convention) HB 467, HB 469 and SB 291. Same as there was a hard push for a Con – Con back in 1994 – 1995 that barely got stopped before they reached the required number of states to authorize it.

IF the people of this country ever let a Con – Con ever happen it’s all over for gun ownership and the rest off your rights are gone as well. The small but very well funded politically “correct” people and organizations will definitely have their say in sweeping away with the last vestiges of our republican form of government with their “new” proposed constitution.

So just watch those PA state bills and get ready to stop those bills from moving or getting out of committee for a general vote.

Note also there are lots of other bills for amending the PA Constitution including referendum voting which is extremely dangerous and should never be allowed to be enacted in law.