Repealing the 2nd Amendment.

Post Reply New Topic

Not too big into history, huh?
" Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops. "
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

" 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, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

" As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms. "
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

" The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. "
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

" The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed. "
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

" I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. "
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

" To disarm the people...[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them. "
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788


" To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them. "
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

" Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun. "
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778


" The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. "
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

Among my favorite:
" What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. "
- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789


And even Hamilton understood well:
" For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion. "
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, December 21, 1787

" If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist. "
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

The Second Amendment has been interpreted largely to apply to "discriminate" arms (firearms, bladed weapons, martial arts, etc.), not "indiscriminate" arms (bombs, nuclear devices, bio-chem weapons, etc.). It is true that the U.S. federal government enjoy laws which give itself the authority to use indiscriminate weapons, but, if it tried to use those weapons against its own citizens, it would face world treaties against doing so (see Saddam Hussein and chemical weapons against Kurdish Iraqis). There would be a long list of treaty members more than willing to enforce such a prohibition.

But, the attempted interpretation by some that citizens shouldn't have the right to own and use the same discriminate weapons as their governments' military and law-enforcement agencies is wrong.

The peasants slaughtered each other while the Lords looked on with glee.....

Bottom line: Outlaw guns, and only outlaws will have guns----translation: banning guns will not get rid of guns, hello?

I agree with whomever said that secession would ensue / it would be the end of our country.

Well Regulated when it was written meant well equipped, Militia means all able-bodied males over sixteen.

A Militia is self supporting, when they muster they bring guns, swords, axes, blankets, cook pots, food, powder and shot for as long as they think they will be in the field.

Militias did muster in the Town Square just to bring all the men at arms together, and protecting their town was their primary job.

A militia would elect its own Captain, who would chose his aids. They selected scouts, who should stay in camp and cook, and the order of battle if it came to a fight.

This is a very old order of men, from before firearms. Everyone sixteen and older was required to keep weapons, and be trained in their use. They had to show up armed when called.

It is held higher than government, that well armed men are needed for the defense of a free state, that men have a right to defend their homes and towns, and Congress will make no law that infringes upon these rights.

This is, The Right of self defense, The Right to defend your home, your family, your neighbors, and your village, against anyone.

It is also an Obligation that all males sixteen and over be armed, and trained in the use of weapons.

It is an Obligation that when called, they will march out and fight any enemy, to the death if need be, and any who are cowards, who flee, will be killed.

All men owe their service and life to the defense of their people. All men shall prepare to the best of their ability to provide this service when called.

This Obligation to defend your neighbors to the death is what Congress shall not infringe.

When this was written many people owned canon. With solid shot they had a range of three miles. Loaded with smaller iron balls, grapeshot, they had less range but a wider field of fire. Long barreled muskets fired a.50 caliber slug as far as most modern arms. They also carried pistols, tomahawks, knives, and swords.

The United States is different from all other countries, it was founded on the principal that The People are superior to the government. Most of The Constitution is about what the Government is forbidden to do.

All people who take public office must swear to uphold and defend the Constitution.

We like it like it is.

Repealing parts of the Constitution sounds like Treason to me.

Hmm. I find it interesting that some here think that getting rid of the second amendment will create civil war and tear the country apart. So do I, but coming from a .... Presumablyvunpopular standpoint.

When I read the topic, I thought: they can't do that. "America" is a quasi-religious idea, -call yourself the chosen people or call it American exceptionalism, no difference to me- and making a change to one of its central texts would create a schism in the community. You'd get sects of people who believe in their interpretation of the unchanged constitution, and reformed americans on the other side.
Each side calling the others heretics.
Catholics and Protestants.
Sunni and Shia.
Of course, in its content, the American belief varies tremendously from most other religions, but it certainly can be interpreted as such, with its own history, and its own dogmatisms.

I'm, obviously, not a U.S. citizen.
Pardon my blasphemy.

Really?

Successful guerrilla campaigns
• American Revolutionary War (1775–1783)
• Peninsular War in Spain (1808–1814)
• First Boer War (1880–1881)
• Greek War of Independence against the Ottoman Empire (1821–1830)
• Algerian War (1954–1962)
• Afghani Mujahideen against the USSR (1980–1989)
• Burma Campaign (1942-1945)
• Cuban Revolution (1956–1959)
• East Timor (1999)
• Kosovo Liberation Army (1992–1999)
• Eritrean War of Independence (1961–1991)
• Turkish Revolutionaries at Turkish War of Independence against partitioning of the Ottoman Empire by the Allies
• Arab Revolt (1916–1918)
• Haitian Revolution [5]
• Independence War in Latin America [6]
• Indonesian National Revolution
• Hezbollah in southern Lebanon (1982-2000)
• Philippines' during the Japanese occupation of World War II[49]
• Rhodesian Bush War (1972–1980)
• portions of the Wars of Scottish Independence; notably, actions led by Robert the Bruce (13th century-14th century)
• Irish War of Independence (1919–1921); campaign organized by Michael Collins[50]
• First Indochina War (1946–1954)
• Vietnam War (1959–1975)
• Cambodian Civil War (1967–1975)
• Bangladesh Liberation War (1971)
• People's War in Nepal
• The Partisans of Yugoslavia
• China (Communists vs. Nationalists) (1946–1949)
• Nicaragua (1977–1979)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_guerrilla_warfare

For what it's worth, I believe the supreme court has already made a ruling.
And I don't think any conservative worth his weight in gunpowder will be heeding any lessons from a liberal.

Excellent point, Raptor. There have indeed been many successful guerrilla warfare victories. But going up against the most well-equipped, well-trained military in the world? Hey, we're talking about Americans, here! We're a country of zombies staring at our cellphones, and whom the majority of, can't name one branch of government.

I think we'd be pretty much f****d!

Who says a gun control triggered civil war would be gun owners vs the military? The way I see it, I wouldn't have to kill soldiers, killing gun control supporters would be far easier and more productive.

I've never heard of anyone - liberal or otherwise - talking about getting rid of the 2nd amendment. Sounds more like right wing paranoid hysteria to me.

You do it by setting boobie traps, remote detonated explosives, hit & run ambushes, sniping, sabotage, etc.
Obviously, you don't stand in front of an M1A2 Abrams and shoot at it with a 9mm or try to shoot down an A-10 with a shotgun.

Oh?
There've been anti-gun liberals on WP that have said it should be repealed. Those that havent gone that far have proposed legislation what would gut what we now know as gun rights.
How many examples from over the past 8 years do you want me to dredge up post here?

I seriously doubt wishful thinking by some Aspies is going to accomplish that end. Nobody in government is going to end the 2nd amendment, no matter how many crazy people who have relations with their guns under the sheets might convince themselves that that's the case.

The only instances of Constitutional amendments that I recall being successfully repealed or modified involved ending Prohibition, giving women the right to vote, and limiting the terms that a president can serve.

Taking away the right of the people to keep and bear arms - a right that has lasted about 240 years - is unlikely, since it would require ratification by two-third of the States, most of which have very strong gun lobbies and many gun-owning citizens.

There is a better chance that the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) would be ratified, thus giving us a Constitutional Amendment that would guaranty equal rights for all citizens, regardless of sex, ethnicity, religion, disability, et cetera. I haven't heard much lately about the ERA; what ever happened to it?

You know, I have no idea what happened to the fight for the ERA. I do recall, though, how back when I was a kid, there was such vocal opposition to it, especially by people who equated women's rights with lesbianism(!). If brought up today, I'm sure the anti-gay rights bunch would scream and holler how this was going to force that "godless, perverted" lifestyle on America.