Bang / Guns
See other Bang / Guns Articles
Title: Vanity Fair: “Let’s Repeal the Second Amendment”
Source:
Infowars
URL Source: http://www.infowars.com/vanity-fair ... s-repeal-the-second-amendment/
Published: Jan 4, 2013
Author: Melissa Melton
Post Date: 2013-01-04 23:09:29 by Hondo68
Keywords: Congress AND the President, reasonable restrictions deemed, secure the well being
Views: 2798
Comments: 6
Yesterday Kurt Eichenwald, contributing editor at Vanity Fair Magazine, wrote an article that did not beat around the bush about his agenda: “Kurt Eichenwald: Let’s Repeal the Second Amendment.” Filed under politics, the piece begins with Eichenwald saying “gun-rights folks” have consistently tended to “whine” that “it’s politicizing tragedy to talk about” gun control in relation to the Sandy Hook shooting. So instead, Eichenwald mentions several other shooting incidents and proclaims, “Enough. We talk now. And my position is going to be direct: America needs to repeal the Second Amendment.” While banker-run The Economist proclaimed, “If you want to be safer, change the Constitution” in its anti-Second Amendment propaganda piece a few weeks ago, this Vanity Fair article literally gets right to the point with several arguments against our Bill of Rights and an outright call to do away with our Second Amendment altogether. Argument #1: “As written [...], the amendment has nothing to do with modern America.” Eichenwald says this particular amendment has been “twisted and bastardized in ways that could never have been conceived at the time of the nation’s founding.” So the Constitution is automatically time- and technology-dependent? He makes this claim with the point that Michigan now allows concealed carry in daycare centers. Nevermind that history has shown concealed carriers would actually help to deter a gunman from shooting up a daycare center. The people’s right shall not be infringed by repealing the Second Amendment or pretending that, because time has passed or technology has improved, it means our rights can now be infringed. Argument #2: The Second Amendment is “a grammarian’s nightmare.” While the Second Amendment seems straightforward enough, Eichenwald claims that the actual meaning is “almost impossible to discern,” then notes what he claims is a grammatical issue that changes the meaning: “Let’s start with the words that now exist. As adopted by Congress, the amendment reads:” “But is that really the amendment? Check out the version of the Bill of Rights held by the Library of Congress, and compare it with the Bill at the National Archives—they’re different. The one at the Archives was passed by Congress, while the other includes the words and punctuation ratified by the states and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson. It reads:” According to Eichenwald, the punctuational difference of a missing comma means the first clause qualifies the second. He also states it is “incomprehensible under any normal rules of grammar.” Again, this amendment ends with, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” To this end, there is not a grammatical argument. Comma or no comma, the amendment’s conclusion is the main point here as evidenced by the words of our founding fathers, including Thomas Jefferson: “To disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them.” — George Mason, 1788 “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.” — Richard Henry Lee, 1788 “Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” — Tench Coxe, 1788 “The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves,…or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed…” — Thomas Jefferson, 1824 “That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms…” — Samuel Adams, 1850 Argument #3: “A free State” does not mean “A free country.” The argument here is that the Second Amendment is referring to individual state militias at the time the Constitution was conceived because the “s” in “State” is capitalized. In addition, he believes it is specifically State militia fears of being disarmed by the federal army that this amendment is based on. Supposedly, then, the Bill of Rights was talking about state rights Eichenwald says, “since the states didn’t trust the federal government.” State distrust at the time the Constitution was conceived is worthy of an amendment, but our distrust now somehow isn’t? Again, this claim ignores the “the people” part at the end of the amendment as referenced above. We’ll get to that part next. Argument #4: The phrase “the people” does not mean all people. (So it can mean even less people?) Eichenwald says voters and representatives have passed laws to disallow mentally ill people and convicted felons from legally obtaining guns, so all people having the right to bear arms without exception no longer applies to the Second Amendment anyway. The bottom line here is that Congress does not actually have the power to contradict the Constitution. It never did. As Stewart Rhodes of Oathkeepers and others have pointed out, when congresspeople take office, they swear an oath to obey — and are thus subordinate to — the Constitution of the United States of America. They do not have the power to pass laws that contradict it. The only way the Constitution may be changed is to amend it. Conclusion: We need a new amendment and gun owners should be forced to purchase insurance. Eichenwald then writes his own version of a “new amendment” to replace the Second Amendment once it’s gone. He claims it should read: “The people retain the right to keep and bear arms, subject to reasonable restrictions deemed necessary by the Congress and the President to secure the lives and well being of others.” Really? So we turn over the power to the government to determine and interpret what “reasonable restrictions” are “deemed necessary” when it comes to our rights to protect ourselves against said tyrannical government? Eichenwald also goes on to say, “But here’s the restriction I really want to impose: force all gun owners to purchase liability insurance.” Obamacare for gun owners? So, to recap, we are to give up our rights and trust the government that Eichenwald even admits in argument #3 the state militias did not originally trust when this country was conceived, which is supposedly what caused the Second Amendment’s necessity in the first place? Eichenwald concludes with this: “Some gun owners—some—will rage about this idea, saying that they have the right to protect themselves. Well, so do the rest of us—the right to protect ourselves from them.” Democide — or death by government — has actually killed so many more people than legal gun owners could ever possibly conceive of. Nearly 300 million people were killed by their governments in the 20th century alone. Governments were able to do so primarily when when their people were disarmed. The Second Amendment is absolutely necessary. We need to be able to protect ourselves from the greatest cause of unnatural death in human history: government. Thomas Jefferson said it best: “On every question of construction (of the constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” The mainstream media needs to stop inventing meaning against the Constitution and stop helping the establishment dilute and dismantle our rights and the law of our land. The Second Amendment was written to protect us against government tyranny. Again — The right. Of the people. To keep and bear arms. Shall. Not. Be. Infringed. PERIOD. Jakari Jackson and I sat down to discuss this article at-length in relation to the mainstream media’s immediate post-Sandy Hook war on the 2nd Amendment last night:
Poster Comment: The same old tired idiotic arguments that the gun grabbers have been using for decades. One comma, two, or three? Some versions that were sent to various States for ratification had three. Oh my, we have to throw the whole thing out! /s What part of "shall not be infringed" do you dumbclucks not understand?
Screen Capture.
Not only is their "new" 2nd amendment useless, but it seems to require each successive presidents' approval. That's not the way we make laws in the US. A presidential veto can be overridden by a 2/3rds majority. So is this only for gun legislation, or everything else too?
(1 image)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: hondo68 (#0)
It would be a better idea if these asswipes just stopped breathing my air.
I think it would be funny if this guys head got blown off by a tornado. Then he died.
While I think the 2nd Amendment should be left alone as it is, I do appreciate the basic approach taken by Eichenwald here. If the People, through the ratification process in the Congress and the the requisite number of states, decide that it is time for the 2nd Amendment to be repealed, they have that right. If the right has become odious enough to enough of the population, then the People have the right to get rid of it, just as they have the right to amend the Constitution to change anything else other than equal representation in the Senate (they can do that too, but it requires unanimity among the States to achieve). It is legitimate to want to amend the Constitution to remove the right to keep any bear arms, or any other right. It probably won't pass, because there is not enough public support for it, but if it did, then the People will have spoken. That's the way the Constitution is SUPPOSED to work. Gun rights, or speech rights, or the free press, are not absolute. The Constitution could be amended to permit their abridgment. But until the Constitution IS amended, speech is free, the press is free, and people have the right to keep and bear arms, period. Eichenwald's basic approach does not bother me. It is honest, straightforward and constitutional. He doesn't like the 2nd Amendment, so he calls for its repeal. Fair enough. What is NOT constitutional or acceptable is the efforts of politicians to override the 2nd Amendment WITHOUT amending the Constitution. THAT is what the President, Congress, and several States are up to. It's illegal.
I would disagree. The second amendment didn't give anyone any rights. It simply recognizes and existing god given right. Or natural law trumps the constitution would be another way to put it.
Yes, you have to give him credit for trying to do it legally, with a constitutional amendment. In that regard he has the moral high ground, compared to the other tyrants. But he's still a numskull!
In that regard he has the moral high ground, compared to the other tyrants. But he's still a numskull! That's the credit I give him: what he is proposing is legal and he proposes doing it the only correct way. He feels bound by the Constitution, which means he operates by rules, which means that he can be worked with because he will be just. I don't agree with him at all on the policy itself. Striking down the Second Amendment would be very unwise.
#2. To: hondo68 (#0)
#3. To: hondo68 (#0)
#4. To: Vicomte13 (#3)
While I think the 2nd Amendment should be left alone as it is, I do appreciate the basic approach taken by Eichenwald here. If the People, through the ratification process in the Congress and the the requisite number of states, decide that it is time for the 2nd Amendment to be repealed, they have that right.
#5. To: Vicomte13 (#3)
(Edited)
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#6. To: hondo68 (#5)
Yes, you have to give him credit for trying to do it legally, with a constitutional amendment.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]