Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Repeal the 2nd Amendment - says Brooking Institution guest scholar

  1. #1
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    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   (CNSNews.com) - The Second Amendment guarantees the right of an individual to own guns and for that reason should be repealed, according to a legal affairs analyst who opposes gun ownership.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,":celebrate 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,":shock: 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 He conceded, however, that the political likelihood of getting the amendment repealed is "pretty limited."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.":celebrate:P



  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Mag-bayonettes!, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,407

    Post imported post

    "from my cold dead hands"? Does that fit in this particular instance?
    -Unrequited

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran kimbercarrier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    hampton, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    721

    Post imported post

    + 1

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    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 ...
    A common misconcerption. The Second Amendment enumerates a God-given and/or natural Right that exists apart from any document penned by mere man.

    If the First Amendment was so infringed as would be the Second Amendment, would we have to read such drivel?

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA *******

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,436

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    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 ...
    A common misconcerption. The Second Amendment enumerates a God-given and/or natural Right that exists apart from any document penned by mere man.

    If the First Amendment was so infringed as would be the Second Amendment, would we have to read such drivel?

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA *******
    Doug You hit that one right on the head

    The amendment was created by man to protect what came from God.

    It can be taken away, but my right to protect my self and my family is something I will not give away and something I will die for

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    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 ...
    A common misconcerption. The Second Amendment enumerates a God-given and/or natural Right that exists apart from any document penned by mere man.

    If the First Amendment was so infringed as would be the Second Amendment, would we have to read such drivel?

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA *******
    He said "guarantee" when he meant "grant". But you're right on, Doug. My right to self defense does not depend on a piece of parchment in the National Archives. All that's for is to spell it out.




  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Heh, heh, heh. I'm reminded of something Mark Twain wrote. He was making an incognito trip down the Mississippi River 20 years after leaving the river. Theriverboat pilot on this journey was telling him lie after lie, loading him up in the good old fashioned way. He thought to himself,

    "I shall have to get out my tomahawk."
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •