NYT's Bret Stephens: Repeal the Second Amendment
Common sense gun laws in the U.S. are an oxymoron, and the only true way to tackle gun control is to repeal the Second Amendment, conservative columnist Bret Stephens wrote in The New York Times.
"Gun ownership should never be outlawed, just as it isn't outlawed in Britain or Australia. But it doesn't need a blanket Constitutional protection, either," Stephens wrote.
Statistics don't lie about the real gun story in this country, but politicians do.
More guns mean "more murder" and "less safety," Stephens writes, stats that put a wrinkle in the protestations of conservatives.
Liberals "argue their case badly and in bad faith" and pay nothing more than "lip service" to gun control while they spout "endless liberal errors of fact," Stephens says.
The only solution — repeal it.
"The more closely one looks at what passes for 'common sense' gun laws, the more feckless they appear," Stephens writes. "Americans who claim to be outraged by gun crimes should want to do something more than tinker at the margins of a legal regime that most of the developed world rightly considers nuts. They should want to change it fundamentally and permanently.
"The 46,445 murder victims killed by gunfire in the United States between 2012 and 2016 didn't need to perish so that gun enthusiasts can go on fantasizing that 'Red Dawn' is the fate that soon awaits us," Stephens writes.
Stephens ends by anticipating blowback from conservatives about James Madison's position in the Federalist Papers.
"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," Stephens concludes.
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/bret-stephens-repeal-second-amendment/2017/10/05/id/817816/
Tags
Who is online
99 visitors
Time for honesty.
How many progressives feel this way?
All of them. They want to revoke fundamental human rights.
You sound like you are on the fucking warpath. It's hilarious.
Is that your assumption or biased false stereotyping kicking in again
It's a nice concept but not remotely close to practical. It's a constitutional amendment which would require an additional amendment to repeal.
It's not a popular view, but I'd like to go one better. There's a lot in our current constitution that is way out of date and not relevant to the context of the early 21st century. We should look at a Convention - and redo the entirety from scratch.
Thank you for your honesty.
I want everyone to read what you just said
Scary.
Change is always scary but it's best to confront your fears. Just a few items I'd touch on for why I favor a from scratch Convention - one is back in the late 18th Century, it wasn't possible to transmit any message over 800 miles in less than 10 days making any sort of democratic institutions impossible. Today we can easily do it. I'd like to introduce initiatives and referendums to our system to allow the people to inject sense into the government when they're corrupt or self serving like they are now. Second is the role of commander in chief - the world has been plagued by putting so much power into the President, but today we need to consider that if there was a threat of war, there is very little time to decide. One big for me is corporations - in the 18th century they didn't exist except as specific limited term enterprises for the public good. Do we need them? And if we have them, what are they? Do we really want them to have legal personhood rights? Specifically on 2nd amendment, obviously the world we live in with firearms is drastically different than it was at the end of the 18th century. Personally I wouldn't take away people's firearms if they are not criminals, have a history of spousal abuse, or have known mental issues. But then I would. I'd also add a requirement of testing for proficiency with weapon safety because I've known too many total morons that have firearms but I realize that's monstrously controversial - one guy's opinion I guess.
Is it less scary to do nothing? I often see in life that the one thing a person should be monstrously scared of is to continue to do what they're doing right now. But they refuse to budge.
I must admit I don't agree. I live in California and we have an initiative and referendum system that to me has served us very well, It's not perfect - some people try to pass very unconstitutional initiatives and sometimes special interests try to inject something that is in their interest. But our people are good at spotting the lipstick on the pig ones. On the Federal level, I have no idea how else we could possibly get any meaningful campaign finance reform we have a corrupt government now where the fox is guarding the henhouse. As partisan as we are, this is one where the left and right would actually agree. But we can't make our voice heard on it. I strongly suspect Madison would have liked initiatives if he had the communications technology we have today but he realized for his time how impractical it was.
And it gets even scarier in comment 2.1.1.1
Take a long look at our Leaders in Washington (left and Right). If the Constitution was rewritten these are the people who would be doing it. Is that Scary ? It's Petrifying ! The possibility of things like this happening are the reason we were given the right to keep and bear arms.
The New Constitution would be 100's of thousands of pages long, and take a boat load of Attorney's to interpret what was actually meant, with all those good ideas they come up with.
You're making a lot of assumptions about how we'd set up a convention. When we did it in 1787, it was a select list of relatively learned and accomplished men from all walks of life. Today we'd include women and minorities, but I'd expect that those selected to draft a new Constitution would not come from those in current elected office.
Second, once a proposed Constitution is developed, 2/3 of the states have to ratify it. Just looking at the issue of gun ownership alone, if the new Constitution outright banned firearms, I'd say there is 0 percent chance ratification would even be possible.
There's lots of theories about what the Constitution should look like. I'm in California and the constitution here is very long with huge sections that are obsolete but no one has bothered to change. But I'd imagine any new Constitution we come up with for the country would emulate the statement of principle - short and sweet like we have it now.
As for thousands of pages long, just looking at the 1st Amendment (or the 2nd for that matter), they are not straightforward at all and difficult to get a full handle on. They are working as designed. I'd say if one taught a college level seminar on just the 1st Amendment, you'd barely scratch the surface. There have been probably hundreds of thousands of pages of analysis of the limits and scope of each of its provisions.
So my point is the current brevity of the Constitution or any future Constitution most certainly does not guarantee clarity. And our Founders knew that was going to happen.
It's short and sweet now, but has numerous court cases on interpretation, depending on the circumstance of the court case. Courts interpretations, have been over ruled by other courts.
Short and sweet is difficult these days, with the mindsets of the 21st century. So much "Want", not enough living.
"just looking at the 1st Amendment (or the 2nd for that matter), they are not straightforward at all and difficult to get a full handle on."
The difficulty is getting a handle on who wants what. I have always understood the first amendment has "Buts" to it, only based on individual laws that have been passed in government over the years, over and above what the 1st amendment says.
I also understand that the 2nd amendment has "Buts" to it, based on laws that have also been passed by government, over and above what is said.
I also understand that the 2nd Amendment "Lists" allowances, although the Left will try to make you feel, it only has to do specifically with an organized Militia. I was taught, commas most often than not, are used when listing something.
"A well regulated Militia (comma), being necessary to the security of a free State (comma), the right of the people to keep and bear Arms (comma), shall not be infringed."
I do NOT see it as a sentence stating " A well regulated Militia is allowed to keep and bear arms, which will not be infringed". I see it as It is written.
I have yet to see someone give me a good argument on "Why" the 2nd Amendment isn't a "List" of whom can have what.
I also understand, under Section 311, Chapter 13, Subtitle A, Title 10-AF, of the U.S. Code,
I AM THE MILITIA !
“Militia composition includes all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and under 45 years of age who are, or have made a declaration of intension to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
“Militia classes are the Organized Militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia, and the Unorganized Militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.”
Morning. Not sure why we are often dragged into the discussions everytime there is a massacre in the States. We have guns here in Australia, always have and always will. But we have a very different mind set and mentality regarding guns and we are happy with that. I dread when I turn on the news here and the headlines are "There has been another mass shooting in the States". I hold my breath and wonder "how many this time"??? But Las Vegas is just plain mind boggling and to be honest really can't comprehend it all. Feel so sorry for all the lost souls, their families and the injured. No one associated with this will ever be the same again.
Thanks mate
Where in Australia are you located shona1?
A/noon Kavika...Victoria one of the Southern States...I changed over from Newsvine so all this is very new to me...
Welcome to NT....I lived in Sydney, actually a suburb, Elizabeth Bay for a number of years. I have kids, grandkids and great grandkids scattered all over Aussie. Orange in NSW, Perth, Bridgetown WA, Augusta WA to name a few.
Your question regarding why is Australia always referred to in gun rights arguments. It used by supporters of gun rights here as the poster child for gun control..You've lost your rights, can't defend yourself etc etc...They mostly have no idea that guns are legal in Aussie, and the mind set is completely different than the US.
Sounds like you and your rellies live/lived in some very nice parts of the world. Yes we know the reason why we get dragged into the debate and as you/I said we have a very different mind set to guns. One massacre for us with a gun was enough after Port Arthur. It shattered and mortified this country. Does not mean it will not happen again but at least we have tried to do something to stop it. Why on earth do you need an AK47 or what ever in your possession or in your home is beyond me. My brother has guns I am from a hunting family and know the ins and outs. The guns here are to be in a safe, bolted to the wall and floor. Keys are to be kept away from the safe and the cops come into your house and check etc. If it is not right you have to change what ever and the cops come back to inspect it etc. Some people over there go down into a massive melt down over that, but like all things do it right and there is not a problem.
All of my kids/grandkids have rifles. Most are hunters and the Aussie laws are right for them and you. That's what counts.
No worries, we don't have a problem with them and suits us to a "T"....
A/noon Hippo..A murderer and a thief....No hero in my eyes and can't believe the number of people who truly think he is some sort of "hero and was just a larrakin"....
Evening Hippo..We call it as we see it...I say what I think and I don't follow the mob. I back the cops here 100% but at times I must admit they do test that. To be honest I am somewhat perplexed with the US cops though and not at all impressed re the shooting of Justine Damond by the Minneapolis cop..We are watching and waiting and we are very patient...to see if Noor is charged.
The constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe has an interesting take on the right to bear arms. He says the arms should be directly pertinent to the right to defend your person , and nothing more. In his opinion, this means handguns, nothing more. People don't defend themselves with AR-15's , 100 round magazines, and bump stocks.
Too bad there is no logic to such a position. A long arm is much better to protect your home.
The second amendment fit a time when guns were very different and the way people lived was very different. In this day and age, the second amendment SHOULD be repealed.
REPEAL THE SECOND!!
Given the mentality of people in the US and our history with firearms, a repeal of the 2nd amendment that actually entails not allowing people to own firearms is never ever going to happen here.
The more realistic goal is to accept that people will be able to own firearms but make sensible rules on requirements to own firearms and make sure society fully requires anyone that owns a firearm to be responsible for what they do with it. We try to use the 2nd Amendment the way it's now written to help people weasel out of that. An amendment that might actually work allows weapons but makes people who own them fully responsible for them.
I`m not saying we should take everyone`s guns away, neither is Bret Stephens. There is no need for it to be a constitutionally protected right.
The thing is - that it is a right explicitly granted in the Constitution. So that means you can't just write a piece of legislation that disallows firearm ownership. You would have to repeal and rewrite the amendment. Given that this requires approval by Congress and ratification by 3/4 of the states, any attempt at actual repeal has zero chance of getting off the ground.
I'm not trying to disallow firearm ownership, Marky, in fact, my idea on gun control does not ban any guns or gun related equipment, I'll even allow fully auto. Hell you can have hand grenades. There's a catch, of course...
Incorrect, the Bill of Rights doesn't grant anything, it is a statement of prohibition. prohibiting things that governments are always wont to do to it's citizens.....
It protects rights we already have.
It's also possible for me to win the Lotto. I'd say the chances of outright repealing the 2nd Amendment given the requirements to do that are even less likely than that.
Gidday Lenny...Or at least "modify" them to suit today's standards...Wonder where Mr Steady is on this ???
Shona!! Glad you made your way here, many viners have. They clamp down pretty hard on the insults, so I've had to tone down my attacks on dumba- I mean, righties, lol. Butterfies has been a positive influence in this regard...
Yes you will have to tone down your "feral" side or you will be cactus....
Too often we just default to treating the most obvious symptom of a problem while ignoring root causes and then pass easy (read: lazy) legislation in response. For example, people are poor, so we give them money (welfare). But lack of government handouts isn't why people are poor.
Firearm homicides in America make people want to look at guns, but while guns can facilitate murder, they aren't the reason people murder other people. Other countries, like England, Canada, and Australia particularly in earlier generations and centuries had guns just like America, but America has always had a higher murder rate than these countries. Shouldn't those other countries have had the same murder rate as America if they had guns, too?
Actually, per gun homicide in America is pretty low. Estimates are that there is more than one gun for every man, woman, and child in the US. Yet firearm homicides average around 11,000 or so. That means about 3/1000ths of 1% of all guns in the US are used to kill anyone.
Other causes exist, but addressing them requires the citizenry to be willing to look at itself judgmentally. Much stronger than guns, there are other correlating factors to gun violence. For example, a general sense that society or government is just and fair, or a strong sense of community. So much gun violence becomes rooted in a feeling that there is no other way to succeed in life, whether it's socially or economically.
So yeah, we could make getting some guns harder. Heck, it's probably not a dumb idea to do something about bump stocks that circumvent restrictions on automatic weapons. But that will never get at why a person would think it's a good idea to open up on a crowd of thousands or why some young gangbanger thinks it's smart to drive by someone's house and pump bullets at the residence.
The 2nd will never get repealed. No matter how loud the hyperbole gets it will never happen. Too many people are pro 2nd Amendment. Most anti gun ownership people are smart enough to realize this. So their real tactic is to chip away at it by limiting the type of guns we can own, limit magazine size, make ammo more expensive and tougher to get, etc, etc.
This is why we must remain vigilant. It won't be readily apparent like an Amendment repeal but rather slow and insidious like a termite eating your house. There are signs but they won't be readily apparent unless you are paying attention.
I think that if the founding fathers saw events like Orlando, LV, Aurora, Sandy hook, etc.. They would have penned the 2nd amendment MUCH differently.
This is one of many reasons we need a brand new Constitution. The fact is that the 21st Century is in so many ways fundamentally different from the late 18th.
This doesn't mean firearms are banned. Just for starters, that will never happen we'd never get a ratification if we required that.