Repeal the Second Amendment
Americans must ask: Is it prudent to retain a constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms when it compels our judges to strike down reasonable, popularly supported gun regulations? Is it moral to inhibit in this way the power of the country’s elected representatives to provide for the public safety? Does the threat of tyranny, a legitimate 18th-century concern but an increasingly remote, fanciful possibility in the contemporary United States, trump the grisly, daily reality of gun violence? The answer to each of these questions is no. It is time to face reality. If the American people are to confront this scourge in any meaningful way, then they must change. The Constitution must change. The American people should repeal the Second Amendment.
We acknowledge the gravity of our proposal. The Bill of Rights enumerates our most cherished freedoms. Any proposal to change the nation’s fundamental law is a very serious matter. We do not propose this course of action in a desultory manner, nor for light or transient reasons. We also acknowledge that repeal faces serious, substantial political obstacles and will prove deeply unpopular with many Americans. Nevertheless, we believe that repeal is necessary and that it is worthy of serious consideration.
Our proposal is in keeping, moreover, with the spirit in which the Constitution was drafted. The Bill of Rights belongs to a document that was designed to be changed; indeed, it was part of the genius of our founders to allow for a process of amendment. The process is appropriately cumbersome, but it is not impossible. Since its adoption in 1787, the American people have chosen to amend the Constitution 27 times. A century ago, leaders like Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson raised serious questions about the Consti-tution. Amendments soon followed, including provisions for a federal income tax, the direct election of U.S. senators, women’s suffrage and the prohibition of alcohol. The 21st Amendment, which repealed prohibition, established the precedent for our proposal.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »
No way, Jose.
Bob's Kid on February 20, 2013 at 3:07 PM
Why do you link this commie rag?
Blake on February 20, 2013 at 3:08 PM
LOL. Good luck with that. Next it will be “let the Constitution be amended by executive order”.
ddrintn on February 20, 2013 at 3:08 PM
Strike em all down idiot.
Bmore on February 20, 2013 at 3:08 PM
What a freakin’ tyrant.
MoreLiberty on February 20, 2013 at 3:09 PM
Excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me? No, really. Who is this moron writing this crap?
totherightofthem on February 20, 2013 at 3:09 PM
Please, go for it.
cozmo on February 20, 2013 at 3:10 PM
Go ahead and do it. Just don’t be surprised when a formerly law abiding gun owner decides to repeal your life.
crrr6 on February 20, 2013 at 3:10 PM
If the people of this country want to change the Constitution, it will have to be done according to the rules set forth therein. And, if that occurs, we will be well and truly lost to the annals of history, great no more.
totherightofthem on February 20, 2013 at 3:10 PM
Asking for Cibil War.
sharrukin on February 20, 2013 at 3:11 PM
I think the proper response is something along the lines of “Blow it out your a@##”. Typical leftie argument of other civilized countries don’t have guns etc, well go there and leave us alone.
major dad on February 20, 2013 at 3:11 PM
Honestly, when these moonbats failed to get their way via the repeal/amendment process — and they most definitely would fail to get their way — it would be “the amendment process is too antiquated and cumbersome”.
ddrintn on February 20, 2013 at 3:11 PM
Repeal the 2nd and you can kiss the other amendments goodbye.
darwin on February 20, 2013 at 3:11 PM
The editors of the American Catholic magazine.
cozmo on February 20, 2013 at 3:11 PM
What an idiot article.
jake-the-goose on February 20, 2013 at 3:12 PM
YOU bet your sweet bippy it does with all bho/team has/is doing to our Republic!
NO way the 2nd should be repealed with bho/team in the wh, NO WAY!
L
letget on February 20, 2013 at 3:12 PM
I appreciate the honesty. Now, when will the official U.S. Catholic magazine come out for the human life amendment?
Illinidiva on February 20, 2013 at 3:13 PM
Is this a mainstream Catholic publication?
Cindy Munford on February 20, 2013 at 3:13 PM
I concur.
Let’s get this party started.
roy_batty on February 20, 2013 at 3:14 PM
James Martin is completely enamored with hanging out on the Daily Show and writing articles for Time, so this isn’t shocking. But he is at least honest about it.
(BTW, he may be a leftist, but I do recommend his book, My Life with the Saints).
Illinidiva on February 20, 2013 at 3:14 PM
Let’s try to repeal the one about income tax first. That one passed because Wilson pretty much lied and misrepresented WHO would actually be paying it. It was easy to get it passed when voters were told they were going to stick it to the rich.
Hell’s bells, the progs haven’t really changed in a century, have they?
Jett Atwood on February 20, 2013 at 3:15 PM
Cindy: http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/reviews/view.cfm?recnum=1008&repos=2&subrepos=0&searchid=978360
So, not really. They’re in bed with “Call to Action” types which promote ideas that are against long held Catholic doctrine.
Also: lol Jesuits.
Spade on February 20, 2013 at 3:16 PM
I will give them one word of credit. At least they’re proposing to alter the Constitution, not subvert it by normal statist means.
allanbourdius on February 20, 2013 at 3:16 PM
I think they need to rename their magazine. America Magazine it isn’t. “Stupid Magazine” perhaps … or maybe “Useful Idiot Magazine”.
darwin on February 20, 2013 at 3:17 PM
I’ve come across this crap before. They are enamored with Obama. There love of “social justice” trumps every else.
Blake on February 20, 2013 at 3:17 PM
Even if this were possible, wouldn’t this bring civil war? I mean, if even 10% of the current gun owners stood sir ground against such tyranny, that alone would be a force to reckon with.
jawkneemusic on February 20, 2013 at 3:17 PM
This Catholic who has never handled a gun yet, says not just Hell No but F***ity-f*** No!
thebrokenrattle on February 20, 2013 at 3:18 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_%28magazine%29
I would say this isn’t official Catholic anything.
With its Jesuit affiliation, America presents a liberal-leaning view on Catholicism, which has, on occasion, led to conflict with the Catholic Church hierarchy.[2][3] Over the years, America has sought to offer its readers Catholic viewpoints representing more than one side of sensitive issues. Consequently, the magazine has sometimes published articles and opinion pieces taking positions contrary to official Catholic Church teaching on matters such as homosexuality, priestly celibacy, AIDS, and the roles of women in the Church.
This has caused the magazine to come under increasing scrutiny by the Vatican; former editor Thomas J. Reese was forced to resign in May 2005 on the orders of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Catholic administrative office which monitors and enforces adherence to Catholic doctrine.[4] The directive reportedly came in mid-March of that year from Josef Ratzinger—the later Pope Benedict XVI
sharrukin on February 20, 2013 at 3:19 PM
Exactly why they should go for it.
cozmo on February 20, 2013 at 3:19 PM
The 2nd Amendment Protects The 1st Amendment
BigGator5 on February 20, 2013 at 3:19 PM
Well that was interesting.
Now just imagine if it were to actually happen and then all 120 million gun owners refused en-masse to comply and demanded a trial by jury under the auspices of the 6th Amendment.
Bishop on February 20, 2013 at 3:19 PM
Does he realize the rights in the Bill of Rights were given us by our Creator, not government? Puts kind of a different slant on it, eh?
a capella on February 20, 2013 at 3:20 PM
I’m with you allanbourdius. At least this is the way the Constitution is supposed to be changed. It has no chance of passing, but at least it’s the proper way to do such things.
jdpaz on February 20, 2013 at 3:21 PM
me too! i’ve never had a gun before and my parents don’t own one. but lately i’ve been more and more interested in guns… i’m going to get one eventually. well, if they are still legal. XD
yeah and that is really dangerous. they could propose a new amendment process, one that gives more power to the government, specifically, the president…
Sachiko on February 20, 2013 at 3:22 PM
All righty then.
I actually think this is a wonderful idea. Let’s put the repeal of the 2d Amendment to a vote in every state, and see how many actually pass it. Let’s have every member of Congress on record in support or opposition to the 2d Amendment. I’m guessing maybe three states would actually pass such a repeal.
rockmom on February 20, 2013 at 3:24 PM
Nothing more needs to be said. There has not been a reason to listen to a Jesuit in 50 years and it was questionable before that.
Rocks on February 20, 2013 at 3:25 PM
Bishop, if those 120 million gun owners are also voters then this amendment wouldn’t pass the repeal process, what with the whole “3/4ths of the several states” thing.
jdpaz on February 20, 2013 at 3:27 PM
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms hall not be infringed” is pretty tough to deconstruct into a meaningless statement, even for a leftist.
crrr6 on February 20, 2013 at 3:27 PM
Holy crap. Good thing tyranny wasn’t a concern in the 20th Century either. These people are insane.
forest on February 20, 2013 at 3:28 PM
Hahahahaha…
Hey looks guys, tyranny around the world is dead and even if it weren’t nothing but a nuclear armed military could uproot it!
So many morons.
ButterflyDragon on February 20, 2013 at 3:29 PM
While I am against the repeal, the tyranny nonsense is a product of paranoid delusions of radicals on either side depending on who’s in charge, significantly more expressed on the right though.
With the systems we have in place it just can not happen.
lester on February 20, 2013 at 3:29 PM
The Framers, despite crafting a timeless constitutional architecture and structure, made a horrific mistake which resulted in a horribly flawed constitution. Perhaps due to their being cooped-up in secrecy for several months and wanting to get home, and perhaps due to the Federalists being arrogant and dismissive of the Anti-Federalists, they failed to include a Bill of Rights in the Constitution. So many of the Patriots who actually did the fighting said no to the Constitution. It was going down in flames until a Bill of Rights was assured.
The Second Amendment is a plenary natural right. It is not granted by government, only recognized and acknowledged, and cannot be repealed or rescinded. Repealing or rescinding the Second Amendment would not remove this natural right, but it would be an act of war that would provoke armed confrontation with Americans.
Tripwhipper on February 20, 2013 at 3:30 PM
You can’t repeal a Natural Right. The BOR merely enumerates a few of our Natural Rights, it does not create them.
SirGawain on February 20, 2013 at 3:30 PM
No kidding, these people proably believed World War I was the “war that would end all wars.”
No one ever belives tyranny is just around the corner, until it is.
rockmom on February 20, 2013 at 3:31 PM
Go for it! Actually this is the only way it is ever going to be constitutional to try to infringe on the rights of the people to keep and bear arms. I don’t think you’ll get the repeal amendment ratified in the next 200 years, but that is the only avenue open to the left that would not result in an armed conflict. So, write your amendment to repeal the 2nd Amendment. give it your best shot.
MikeA on February 20, 2013 at 3:32 PM
I’ve heard of creatures such as you, but honestly I thought you were inventions meant to scare kids into being good.
Bishop on February 20, 2013 at 3:32 PM
Yes. Absolutely !! This is what the 2nd is made for.
If the author does not understand this, the argument is moot.
Jabberwock on February 20, 2013 at 3:32 PM
LOL
rockmom on February 20, 2013 at 3:32 PM
I don’t think you do.
antipc on February 20, 2013 at 3:33 PM
No need to read any further. We already have layer upon layer of unconstitutional gun regulations.
Pork-Chop on February 20, 2013 at 3:33 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »