When they come for your gun !!!

**puccini** · January 11th, 2013, 07:55 AM

A very good read.

http://dcclothesline.wordpress.com/2...lity-to-fight/

**snaplink** · January 11th, 2013, 10:17 AM

"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say goodbye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling in terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand. The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst; the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!"
-- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

**H&KHawk** · January 11th, 2013, 04:32 PM

The only problem I had with the article was his "99%" argument. I believe he should have at least addressed that it could be possible to amend the Constitution and abolish the Second Amendment if there was really 99% support. Also, I am sure a cCourt would differ as to someone's right to shoot another government official if they were simply implementing a law in good faith.

**TaePo** · January 12th, 2013, 04:56 AM

Originally Posted by H&KHawk

The only problem I had with the article was his "99%" argument. I believe he should have at least addressed that it could be possible to amend the Constitution and abolish the Second Amendment if there was really 99% support. Also, I am sure a cCourt would differ as to someone's right to shoot another government official if they were simply implementing a law in good faith.

The Second Amendment cannot be repealed. This is a fallacy and there are two reasons why it is sacrosanct.

First, the Bill of Rights are enumerations of rights retained by the individual. The Constitution does not grant these rights but recognizes them as pre-existing any and all governmental forms (Federal, State, or local). The last amendment of the Bill of Rights, the Tenth, also states that:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This outlays three 'governing' bodies: Federal, State and people. Further, because rights are inherent (inalienable) to the individual, this means it is beyond the scope of any government to regulate or remove/infringe. This was done for two reasons. We are not a democracy of mob rule. Our founders determined that democracy equals mobocracy which was not good. Individuals had to be protected from government and 'the voting mob'. Second, it is the job of government to protect individual rights, first and foremost. Thus, we are a representative republic with a Constitution that limits powers to the Federal government to only those listed and expresses some of the individual rights that are to be protected.

Second, the enumeration of individual rights as part of the Constitution was argued against by Alexander Hamilton. In the Federalist papers #84, his argument not only explains his position but gives us insight to what the Bill of Rights were suppose to mean/accomplish. In fact, the fallacy that the Second Amendment or any of the Bill of Rights can be repealed is a direct result of why he argued against enumerating the Bills of Rights in the Constitution.

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it, was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.

Lastly, the B.o.R. also suggest that there are other rights not mentioned and should not be thought as not-existing because they are not specifically enumerated. This is, namely, the Ninth Amendment.

In all honesty, what you state could still happen, but it is illegal as it would violate the Constitution. All elected, appointed and hired officials take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, not to destroy, disparage, or weaken it. Therefore, attempting to make such changes could have (and should have) dire consequences. Failing to do so will mean the end of America as we know it. Thus, their careers should be immediately ended by impeachment or criminal charges.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Ninth Amendment

Tenth Amendment

B.o.R. #84 Hamilton

ETA = Removing the 2A would mean that the 9th and 10th would also need to be removed. But even then, removing the enumeration of individual rights does not destroy those rights. Our founders could have not listed them at all for Hamilton's given reasons. But that would not mean they no longer exist.

**H&KHawk** · January 12th, 2013, 09:21 AM

A very thoughtful and reasoned response, but I respectfully disagree. The Constitution can be amended and certain provisions, oincluding the Bill of Rights, can be repealed or changed by appropriate vote of Congress. Unless there is a court decision that I am missing, your interpretation, which I agree with in concept, it just an opinion not supported by case law. If Congress gets the necessary votes, they certainly can repeal the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court has been chipping away at the Bill of Right for the last 200 years.

**PocketProtector** · January 12th, 2013, 09:37 AM

A comfortable majority of Americans support, in total, the 2A, despite the media noise, most of polls have shown this.

Which brings us to the media noise and Demonazi politicians, who are one and the same in cause.

The media spouts their talking points, covers up for their digressions and is purely the media arm of the Demonazis.

I got a great laugh yesterday when the Demonazi media is now starting the narrative that the flu is going to hurt the economy, maybe even cause a recession, and it's not OMao's policies....I mean they really, really, think that Americans are dumber than dirt.

Uhhhhhh peeeeples......this ain't our first fludio !!!

And peeeples fall for this total crock of steaming excrement.

Sorry to digress, but the point is, just because the media says it, doesn't make it so, in fact it pretty much says it ain't so.
But the Low info American eats it up and there lies America's problem.

**the rock99** · January 12th, 2013, 10:12 AM

Originally Posted by H&KHawk

A very thoughtful and reasoned response, but I respectfully disagree. The Constitution can be amended and certain provisions, oincluding the Bill of Rights, can be repealed or changed by appropriate vote of Congress. Unless there is a court decision that I am missing, your interpretation, which I agree with in concept, it just an opinion not supported by case law. If Congress gets the necessary votes, they certainly can repeal the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court has been chipping away at the Bill of Right for the last 200 years.

Any amendment to the constitution has to be ratified by 3/4 of the states, so not only would it have to make it through congress, but then 38 states would have to agree with it. It (amendment) will never happen in our lifetimes, not saying they won't pass any stupid laws, but they can not repeal the 2nd amendment without 38 states, and thank god there are not 38 states that are that stupid, they could probably get around 15-20, but 38, isn't going to happen.

**BucksCountyBob** · January 12th, 2013, 10:13 AM

Originally Posted by H&KHawk

A very thoughtful and reasoned response, but I respectfully disagree. The Constitution can be amended and certain provisions, oincluding the Bill of Rights, can be repealed or changed by appropriate vote of Congress. Unless there is a court decision that I am missing, your interpretation, which I agree with in concept, it just an opinion not supported by case law. If Congress gets the necessary votes, they certainly can repeal the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court has been chipping away at the Bill of Right for the last 200 years.

I'm confused and hoping you can clear this up with some kind of linked citation. My understanding is that the constitution can only be amended providing that three fourths of the STATES ratify the change. Congress by themselves cannot do that, they can only PROPOSE the amendment. This is what is says on Wikipedia (I know, not the final arbiter of knowledge, but certainly, in this case, a reasonable discussion point):

Amendments may be proposed by either:
two-thirds of both houses of the United States Congress; or
by a national convention assembled at the request of the legislatures of at least two-thirds of the states.
To become part of the Constitution, amendments must then be ratified either by approval of:
the legislatures of three-fourths of the states; or
state ratifying conventions held in three-fourths of the states.
Congress has discretion as to which method of ratification should be used.

Regards,

BCB

**the rock99** · January 12th, 2013, 10:16 AM

Originally Posted by BucksCountyBob

I'm confused and hoping you can clear this up with some kind of linked citation. My understanding is that the constitution can only be amended providing that three fourths of the STATES ratify the change. Congress by themselves cannot do that, they can only PROPOSE the amendment. This is what is says on Wikipedia (I know, not the final arbiter of knowledge, but certainly, in this case, a reasonable discussion point):

Amendments may be proposed by either:
two-thirds of both houses of the United States Congress; or
by a national convention assembled at the request of the legislatures of at least two-thirds of the states.
To become part of the Constitution, amendments must then be ratified either by approval of:
the legislatures of three-fourths of the states; or
state ratifying conventions held in three-fourths of the states.
Congress has discretion as to which method of ratification should be used.

Regards,

BCB

It's not going to happen

**H&KHawk** · January 12th, 2013, 10:37 AM

I totally agree it will not happen, but just pointing out that procedurally, it is possible if Congress and states agree. My post was in response to the OP's link to the article stating that if 99% of the people wanted to abolish the second amendment, they could not do so. If 99% wanted this, they could accomplish it procedurally by Amendment to the Constitution. The author of the Article completely left this out which in my opinion, weakened his otherwise well reasoned article.