Remember when we were told that the NY Times was hiring a conservative for the opinion pages? Now go back and look at the body of work for Brett Stephens. He makes other so-called Republicans, like the Washington Post’s Kathleen Parker and Jennifer Rubin look like the second coming of Reagan.
I have never understood the conservative fetish for the Second Amendment.
From a law-and-order standpoint, more guns means more murder. “States with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides,†noted one exhaustive 2013 study in the American Journal of Public Health.
From a personal-safety standpoint, more guns means less safety. The F.B.I. counted a total of 268 “justifiable homicides†by private citizens involving firearms in 2015; that is, felons killed in the course of committing a felony. Yet that same year, there were 489 “unintentional firearms deaths†in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Between 77 and 141 of those killed were children.
From a national-security standpoint, the Amendment’s suggestion that a “well-regulated militia†is “necessary to the security of a free State,†is quaint. The Minutemen that will deter Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un are based in missile silos in Minot, N.D., not farmhouses in Lexington, Mass.
It’d be a whole lot safer if we banned hammers, baseball bats, and motor vehicles. Oh, and bathtubs. Can’t forget about them.
I wonder what Madison would have to say about that today, when more than twice as many Americans perished last year at the hands of their fellows as died in battle during the entire Revolutionary War. My guess: Take the guns—or at least the presumptive right to them—away. The true foundation of American exceptionalism should be our capacity for moral and constitutional renewal, not our instinct for self-destruction.
He’d say that that enshrining the 2nd as a specific Amendment was designed to make it so gun grabbers (say, does the Times still have armed security in their building?) would have a really, really tough time attempting to take firearms away from citizens. They made it the 2nd amendment for a reason.
Also, some, like National Review, are trying to say this is more of a warning to Democrats. Hogwash. The first 7-8 paragraphs say that Stephens specifically wants to do away with the 2nd.
Setting aside the enormous butcher’s bill that this would require, logistically how do these chuckle heads figure that they can do this?
They haven’t really considered how it would work. They probably think everyone will just gladly turn in their guns, whether it be a gun buy back or simple banning and confiscation. There are way too many how will say “piss on that”, especially since it would be damned impossible for every sheriff’s office to look at the purchase permits and go to each home. And lots of law enforcement would refuse to comply to start with. Lots of guns would be “lost.”
You’d basically have a civil war.
The deep red NE states have upwards of 80% noncompliance rates for the “assault” weapons/magazine laws on their books. The old adage “you can hope in one hand, and shit in the other…” applies.
Why don’t they tackle the real problem which is mental health. The liberals did away with mental health in the 60 s.
Two reasons, I believe, are emotional cripples that cannot function are their core constituency, and they are in the bag for big pharma – all of these spree killers are long term psychotropic drug users (look up the side effects, it’s a known issue for anti-depressants/mood elevators.
A repeal of any amendment would require 2/3rds of both houses of legislature just to get the ball rolling. Then the amendment goes to the several states in which 3/4th of those states must ratify the amendment.
So that means that the Blue states which are the ones that want the amendment superceeded or repealed consist of
Washington, Oregon, California, Hawaii, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, New Hampshire, Ct. Vermont, N.J. Virginia, NY. Minnesota, D.C. Rhode Island and for the sake of argument lets throw in PA, MI and Wisconsin.
That is a total of 21 states…..out of the 37 plus states needed to ratify such measure.
This is not to mention the necessity to even get a 2/3rds vote in both houses to even start the ball rolling. Even when either party is down on its political luck there is now way that either house would have a 2/3rds majority to make it so.
This is political hogwash. In the EU they have taken all our guns. Even half our police walk around with sticks. When real crime happens they have to call for special tactical units which takes from 10-30 minutes to arrive. By this time the damage is done.
The disarming of Europe has almost been fully implemented. As a result the EU is ripe for a political take over with little or no opposition. Lest anyone forget the USSR rolled thru eastern Europe with no objection by the west. Russia just took over part of the ukraine without so much as a protest by NATO….
Take away a billion guns from the EU and its easy picking for the USSR to once again assume power in Europe. Take away guns in America and it is easy pickings taking your country from you. People who gaffaw this idea never lived thru the 30-40-50’s of this world. Nothings changed except the will of the West to fight back.
It requires 38 states, not 37, to ratify a constitutional amendment.
The GOP controls both Houses of Congress; there’s no way that a proposed constitutional amendment to repeal the Second would even make it to the floor. But even if there is a democratic surge in the next few elections, it is highly improbable that the Republicans will drop to less than 1/3 of each House.
It takes only 13 states to prevent a constitutional amendment from being ratified. Does anyone think that the legislatures of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, Missouri, Arkansas, Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Kansas, Nebraska, or Oklahoma would ever ratify such a thing?
We will not repeal the 2nd Amendment even if 70% of Americans want it. The Supreme Court will not allow any serious challenges to the interpretation for a generation. Congress may be able to pass some laws limiting magazine size etc, but not the right to bear weaponry.
If 70% of Americans want to repeal the 2nd Amendment, then it should be relatively easy to pass a constitutional amendment to repeal it. It would be somewhat harder to search ~125 million households spread over millions of acres to seize perhaps 500 million firearms, and kill the 10 million or so that don’t comply. Do I understand what you are looking to do correctly?
boB,
We do not advocate repeal of the 2nd Amendment, nor the confiscation of firearms. We agree it would never work.
Do we understand that you would react with violence to a repeal of the 2nd Amendment?
I don’t recall mentioning violence. Perhaps you’re projecting again?
Then why would gov’t need to kill 10,000,000 Americans? Would they kill you because of your non-violent resistance?
The left talks about murdering people constantly. Your kindred spirits murdered 100’s of millions last century. I take the left at their word, and am mindful of their past.
Bob,
Watch the Vietnam show by Burns. Shows just how the left killed 60,000 young men with their stupidity.
So it’s your psychological projection, or a fantasy of yours.
It seemed as if you suggested that if the majority of states passed a Constitutional amendment, the right would violently resist if they disagreed with it. Is that what you were suggesting?
Again, we do not advocate repealing the 2nd Amendment, because we agree with you that it will not work in America.
dave,
While we agree that the Vietnam War was an even bigger mistake than invading Iraq (and much more deadly), there were some Con Men involved as well, including Nixon and Kissinger.
20,000 US deaths occurred during Nixon’s tenure. Do you consider Nixon part of the left?
LBJ, Nixon and George W were war criminals.