Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Mon 06/20/2016 View Sun 06/19/2016 View Sat 06/18/2016 View Fri 06/17/2016 View Thu 06/16/2016 View Wed 06/15/2016 View Tue 06/14/2016
1
2016-06-20 -Short Attention Span Theater-
Why It's Time to Repeal the Second Amendment
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by badanov 2016-06-20 00:17|| || Front Page|| [11131 views ]  Top

#1 Sorry. Not happening. You punks tried to repeal the first amendment last year. No one listened to you then either.
Posted by rammer 2016-06-20 01:12||   2016-06-20 01:12|| Front Page Top

#2 I think you should quit your job.

The Constitution does not give you YOUR rights,

They are GOD Given.

No one can take these Rights, that is the point.
Posted by newc 2016-06-20 02:24||   2016-06-20 02:24|| Front Page Top

#3 I teach the Constitution for a living.
I could stop reading right there. Thanks.
Posted by Skidmark 2016-06-20 04:47||   2016-06-20 04:47|| Front Page Top

#4 Because Americans have all these guns but not actually using them to defend their liberties? :-)
Posted by g(r)omgoru 2016-06-20 06:24||   2016-06-20 06:24|| Front Page Top

#5 This person is so tone deaf I don't know how he's employed.
Posted by Charles 2016-06-20 07:07||   2016-06-20 07:07|| Front Page Top

#6 
...the essence of American democracy...


There's the problem. We're not a democracy, we're a republic. Our rights are not subject to the whims of popular sentiment.
Posted by Rob Crawford 2016-06-20 07:16||   2016-06-20 07:16|| Front Page Top

#7 As someone who teaches the Constitution for a living, he must not be very good - he implies the 3/5ths compromise was bad because it counted slaves as only 3/5ths of a person for representation, but to have counted them as whole persons would have increased the Congressional strength of the slave states.
Posted by Glenmore 2016-06-20 07:58||   2016-06-20 07:58|| Front Page Top

#8 Ditto Glenmore. And the slave states pushed hard for counting the slaves as full people.

It was a compromise that allowed the convention to go forward. This is a loser who is a fascist that wants to dictate his beliefs to everyone else.
Posted by AlanC 2016-06-20 08:37||   2016-06-20 08:37|| Front Page Top

#9 I revere the document when it is used to further social justice

Ah, but otherwise it sucks, right?

#5 This person is so tone deaf I don't know how he's employed.

Actually, that is how he's employed.
Posted by charger 2016-06-20 08:51||   2016-06-20 08:51|| Front Page Top

#10 What I find amusing is that these "Constitutional scholars" overlook that the language is mostly negative. That the government will not do this or that Congress shall not do that. Must be inconvenient for these nanny-staters.
Posted by AlmostAnonymous5839 2016-06-20 08:55||   2016-06-20 08:55|| Front Page Top

#11 Darth -don't go there.
Posted by DarthVader 2016-06-20 09:05||   2016-06-20 09:05|| Front Page Top

#12 Our rights are granted by God.

The Constitution lays down the laws that protect our rights from infringement by a grasping, power-mad government.

The Second Amendment guarantees that we have the tools to protect all our other rights.

Remember: while not all gun-grabbers are fascists, all fascists are gun-grabbers.


Posted by regular joe 2016-06-20 09:24||   2016-06-20 09:24|| Front Page Top

#13 The editorialist, who teaches at Drexel University's law school (now on its third name), writes frequently for the Rolling Stone on legal issues. Rolling Stone, like most of the legacy media, does not have the sales numbers it once did. In similar straits, Drexel's law school only opened for business in 2006, and its ranking and the caliber of its students reflects that.
Posted by trailing wife 2016-06-20 10:44||   2016-06-20 10:44|| Front Page Top

#14 What I find amusing is that these "Constitutional scholars" overlook that the language is mostly negative.

That's because the Constitution does not grant any 'rights'. It simply acknowledges that the rights exist naturally (or are granted by God) and cannot be taken away. You can attempt to prevent those rights from being exercised (like the Gun-grabbers are now attempting to do) or restrict the exercise of those rights (Felons, etc...) but you cannot remove them.

Something any Constitutional Scholar should know.
Posted by CrazyFool 2016-06-20 11:01||   2016-06-20 11:01|| Front Page Top

#15 The real argument that these fascists have is that rights can't be God given as there is no God.

In my studies many years ago I read a definitive repudiation of this argument vis a vis natural rights but I can't recall the author.

I like to phrase it that all of your rights exist even if you are all alone on an island. You have no rights to anything of anyone else be it material or labor.
Posted by AlanC 2016-06-20 11:42||   2016-06-20 11:42|| Front Page Top

#16 To them Government is God, so Rights are Government-given, and can be Government-taken.
Posted by Glenmore 2016-06-20 11:55||   2016-06-20 11:55|| Front Page Top

#17  In 1776 the history of the world up to that time was dominated by evil institutions and individuals and a subservient populace unable to defend itself from their depredations.
Although our governments have hardly been the quintessence of good, we remain a free people because we are armed and dangerous to those would enslave us.
Posted by Ulusoque Speaking for Boskone3139 2016-06-20 12:45||   2016-06-20 12:45|| Front Page Top

#18 OK, everybody calm down. It's the Rolling Stone and nobody takes it seriously. There is a legal mechanism for changing the Constitution if this twerp thinks he can exercise it. But he won't.
Posted by Ebbang Uluque6305 2016-06-20 13:01||   2016-06-20 13:01|| Front Page Top

#19 There were off duty armed cops AT the gun free zone night club. How well did THAT combination workout.
Posted by Unelet Protector of the Sith2424 2016-06-20 19:31||   2016-06-20 19:31|| Front Page Top

#20 You're assuming, then, that the average CCW individual can effectively return fire in a packed public venue?

Posted by Pappy 2016-06-20 19:43||   2016-06-20 19:43|| Front Page Top

#21 No need to assume. Statistical data shows CCW holders fire less, hit more and more often kill their targets then police officers. They also hit less innocent bystanders.
Posted by Silentbrick 2016-06-20 20:05||   2016-06-20 20:05|| Front Page Top

#22 I would bet that even with CCW holders firing and possibly hitting bystanders, the total body count would have been far less than what there was without them.
Posted by DarthVader 2016-06-20 22:59||   2016-06-20 22:59|| Front Page Top

22:59 DarthVader
22:24 trailing wife
22:04 Zenobia Floger6220
20:40 ryuge
20:31 Silentbrick
20:05 Silentbrick
19:58 Blossom Unains5562
19:43 Pappy
19:40 Blossom Unains5562
19:31 Unelet Protector of the Sith2424
19:15 Thing From Snowy Mountain
18:58 Thing From Snowy Mountain
18:46 Procopius2k
18:41 Procopius2k
18:39 Procopius2k
18:33 texhooey
18:20 Hupeling Whuns6760
18:09 NoMoreBS
17:59 Iblis
17:49 Skidmark
17:25 Besoeker
17:22 Whusotle Grinelet5340
17:19 Silentbrick
17:08 Vast Right Wing Conspiracy









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com