Bad news for gun grabbers: You can’t ‘repeal’ the 2A

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

I’m not citing any article of talking head here, but I wanted to get this out there as a talking point because some of our mental-midget, collectivist, revisionist, relativist TWITterers are citing this as the ‘solution’. They are wrong for a number of reasons.

The 2A doesn’t ‘give’ me anything. It is an acknowledgement of my right, not a granting or lending me a right until some time in the future for it to be taken back. Bruen doesn’t ‘give’ me 2A rights to new areas- I’ve always had that right and the govt has been trampling those rights. It was perfectly clear that Bill of Rights to to set the record straight- to make it undeniable that we the PEOPLE have these rights. Many thought that they were so implicit that they didn’t need to be written down- and now we see why they had to be.

I have the right to self defense for myself and for my community. That means I have the individual right and the people have the right to self defense from powers and people that would try to take away those rights. Ever notice that the COVID restrictions in Australia, Canada, and the US follow an inverse relationship with firearms ownership? Notice that that Canada has learned its lesson and is trying to disarm people more now? Ran the experiment, got the results.

A little thought experiment. If we repeal the 13A and 14A, does that mean that we can put black people back into slavery? No. Slavery was the violation of people’s rights- rights so basic that they can’t be given or taken. They were ignored, but that doesn’t mean that they didn’t have them.

Which on the other hand, aborting your baby was never a ‘right’, and ‘privacy’ is never a cover for an act. That is why there isn’t a constitutional right to it. It can be restricted by the states. Even more of a issue going forward, it is pretty clear that at the very least a viable baby has 14th protections. Even more relevant is that all abortion arguments seem to start with an ‘immaculate conception’ and the issue that consensual sex was the real initiating event and by engaging in consensual sex you entered into a non-verbal agreement that pregnancy is a well known outcome of the act.

So that is why “Guns have more rights than women” that you here from people that don’t understand laws.

That is why you can’t ‘Repeal the 2A’.

[Backfire]

+1 and I will add something I came across a while back. I didn’t post it.

All of your Constitutional Rights come at the cost of safety.

For example, you would be much safer if I could search houses, cars, and people whenever I wanted to, for any reason, or no reason at all. I’d catch more real bad guys. You know those stories about creeps who keep sex slaves locked in their basements for years? I’d find those victims and rescue them. That neighbor of yours who might have a meth lab that is going to send poisonous fumes into your child’s bedroom window, or explode and burn down your house? I’d find out for sure whether a lab was there.

How about all those guys who are probably child molesters, and we’ve got some evidence, but it isn’t enough to convict in front of a jury, especially with that defense attorney throwing doubt all over our evidence? Those guys are on the street right now, and a child you love may be their next victim.

Give up your rights under the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments, and I’ll make the world safer for you. No question about it.

The only problem is that if you give up all those rights, which are really just restrictions on the things I’m allowed to do to you, what’s going to keep you safe from me?

Every right you have increases your danger from other people who share that right. Free speech? It allows monsters to spread hateful messages, possibly about a group to which you belong, just the same as it allows you to petition your government with legitimate grievances.

That free speech even allows you to argue in favor of discarding freedom and liberty as just too dangerous to trust in the hands of ordinary people. Now that, my friend, is what scares me - that people with opinions like that will spread them to weak-willed individuals who haven’t really thought through the consequences. I won’t argue for taking that right away, though, despite the dangers. That would be even more scary than you are.

Yes, some people in a free society are always going to abuse those freedoms. Criminals are going to hide behind the 4th amendment to conceal the evidence of their crimes. People who commit horrific acts are going to hire excellent defense attorneys who can convince a jury that doubt exists. And, yes, some people are going to use guns to commit murders.

Freedom is scary, but lack of freedom is scarier.

[SteyrAUG]

If you can repeal my 2nd, I can repeal your 1rst, which means you aren’t even allowed to think or talk about repealing my 2nd.

[SteyrAUG]

@Backfire

+1 and I will add something I came across a while back. I didn’t post it.

All of your Constitutional Rights come at the cost of safety.

For example, you would be much safer if I could search houses, cars, and people whenever I wanted to, for any reason, or no reason at all. I’d catch more real bad guys. You know those stories about creeps who keep sex slaves locked in their basements for years? I’d find those victims and rescue them. That neighbor of yours who might have a meth lab that is going to send poisonous fumes into your child’s bedroom window, or explode and burn down your house? I’d find out for sure whether a lab was there.

How about all those guys who are probably child molesters, and we’ve got some evidence, but it isn’t enough to convict in front of a jury, especially with that defense attorney throwing doubt all over our evidence? Those guys are on the street right now, and a child you love may be their next victim.

Give up your rights under the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments, and I’ll make the world safer for you. No question about it.

The only problem is that if you give up all those rights, which are really just restrictions on the things I’m allowed to do to you, what’s going to keep you safe from me?

Every right you have increases your danger from other people who share that right. Free speech? It allows monsters to spread hateful messages, possibly about a group to which you belong, just the same as it allows you to petition your government with legitimate grievances.

That free speech even allows you to argue in favor of discarding freedom and liberty as just too dangerous to trust in the hands of ordinary people. Now that, my friend, is what scares me - that people with opinions like that will spread them to weak-willed individuals who haven’t really thought through the consequences. I won’t argue for taking that right away, though, despite the dangers. That would be even more scary than you are.

Yes, some people in a free society are always going to abuse those freedoms. Criminals are going to hide behind the 4th amendment to conceal the evidence of their crimes. People who commit horrific acts are going to hire excellent defense attorneys who can convince a jury that doubt exists. And, yes, some people are going to use guns to commit murders.

Freedom is scary, but lack of freedom is scarier.

Most cogent thing I’ve ever seen you post.

[OutofBatt3ry]

Nevermind.

[SomeOtherGuy]

If Con-gress wants to emanate and penumbra a magical “privacy right” into existence for abortion (as the Roe court once did) then the same privacy right would shield any other potential crime that could theoretically be done in private. Possession of rifles they want to ban, drugs, various sex crimes, financial crimes, etc.

Not that anyone cares of course, the people pushing this crap are at the moral level of 4 year olds.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

I forgot to add, that the collectivist, progressive legal theory of finding rights where they didn’t exist- even for the best intentions- is dangerous in that an entity that can find ‘rights’ an also take them away just as easily. That really is at the core the current conservative interpretation of rights and laws. Found things on solid legal basis. If there isn’t a legal basis, use the system to enable it- the amendment process for the constitution and laws for other maters. You can’t just punt issues to the court to get what you want, what you can reason or get passed as a law.

The left was fine with the courts pushing their agenda, but literally the day that the winds shift and SCOTUS doesn’t want to push their agenda they want to abolish it, pack it, or condemn it.

[ABNAK]

@FromMyColdDeadHand

I forgot to add, that the collectivist, progressive legal theory of finding rights where they didn’t exist- even for the best intentions- is dangerous in that an entity that can find ‘rights’ an also take them away just as easily. That really is at the core the current conservative interpretation of rights and laws. Found things on solid legal basis. If there isn’t a legal basis, use the system to enable it- the amendment process for the constitution and laws for other maters. You can’t just punt issues to the court to get what you want, what you can reason or get passed as a law.

The left was fine with the courts pushing their agenda, but literally the day that the winds shift and SCOTUS doesn’t want to push their agenda they want to abolish it, pack it, or condemn it.

Oh absolutely. A liberal SCOTUS decision is gospel, but a conservative one is to be poo-poo’ed and ignored. Fvck them. Actually, not a necessarily bad idea…what comes around goes around as they say. The next libtard ruling sometime in the future should be ignored too.

[flenna]

They don’t need to “repeal” the 2nd amendment to “grab guns”. Our, yes our, elected officials can regulate, tax and litigate to the point where average Americans cannot own them. They can pass unconstitutional laws that will take years, if ever, to be struck down by the SC.

[Alpha-17]

@FromMyColdDeadHand

The left was fine with the courts pushing their agenda, but literally the day that the winds shift and SCOTUS doesn’t want to push their agenda they want to abolish it, pack it, or condemn it.

We’ve reached a point as a society where institutions only have legitimacy if the notional “our side” controls them. We see that quite openly from the Left, with “resist” and “protests” being the name of the game under Trump, but under Obama or Biden there’s a duty to support the president. The Right is guilty of it too, but it seems to be less open and more subtle, mostly. This does not bode well for the future of the country.

[HKGuns]

Never forget that even creating the “bill of rights” was fairly controversial, as our rights are certainly not limited to those enumerated. The fear was, and it was certainly justified that highlighting those left the appearance they were the only rights or they were somehow special as to be called out. It was a deal brokered to get the Constitution ratified.

The best way to fix this is to go back to the requirement to own property to vote. It was correctly envisioned that in order to have a say you had to have a stake and without a stake you legitimately run the risk of mob rule, which is “exactly” what you see playing out today in the so called “democracy”. They knew the dangers of mob rule very well and there were safeguards against just that risk that are no longer in place to check and balance the mob.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

Property ownership, they’ll pass out 1sqft plot deeds like the one that makes me an Irish Lord. I’d like to repeal the 17A. Oh my God, less democratic!!! But taking Senators out of the election via mob game would go a long ways towards getting them to act in a longer term manner.

@Alpha-17

We’ve reached a point as a society where institutions only have legitimacy if the notional “our side” controls them. We see that quite openly from the Left, with “resist” and “protests” being the name of the game under Trump, but under Obama or Biden there’s a duty to support the president. The Right is guilty of it too, but it seems to be less open and more subtle, mostly. This does not bode well for the future of the country.

I saw on twitter that the left is now saying that the Dobbs decision is ‘illegal’ and that illegal military orders are not to be followed, that they can ignore this SCOTUS decision…. Say what you want about Trump trying to coup-surrect, he never ignored legal decisions and his modifications to EOs that ran afoul of decisions was to rewrite them to comply, not to weasel around them. He could have very easily say to things like DACA that current law and his constitutional responsibilities outweigh the issues around changing procedures.

[Alpha-17]

@HKGuns

The best way to fix this is to go back to the requirement to own property to vote. It was correctly envisioned that in order to have a say you had to have a stake and without a stake you legitimately run the risk of mob rule, which is “exactly” what you see playing out today in the so called “democracy”. They knew the dangers of mob rule very well and there were safeguards against just that risk that are no longer in place to check and balance the mob.

Agreed.

@FromMyColdDeadHand

Property ownership, they’ll pass out 1sqft plot deeds like the one that makes me an Irish Lord. I’d like to repeal the 17A. Oh my God, less democratic!!! But taking Senators out of the election via mob game would go a long ways towards getting them to act in a longer term manner.

I saw on twitter that the left is now saying that the Dobbs decision is ‘illegal’ and that illegal military orders are not to be followed, that they can ignore this SCOTUS decision…. Say what you want about Trump trying to coup-surrect, he never ignored legal decisions and his modifications to EOs that ran afoul of decisions was to rewrite them to comply, not to weasel around them. He could have very easily say to things like DACA that current law and his constitutional responsibilities outweigh the issues around changing procedures.

The left likely would find a way around any restrictions, but restrictions are still needed. Absolutely agree with getting rid of the 17th Amendment. We need to make State legislatures important again, and not just a rubber stamp for Leftist-approved Governors and activist judges.

And yeah, the Dobbs decision has really exposed just how willing the left is to ignore any ruling they don’t like. Seeing as damn near every major victory they had in the “culture war” that’s been raging since the 60s was via the Courts, it’s pretty telling that they are willing to abandon the rule of law when it suddenly doesn’t work out as well for them.

[lowprone]

Term limits is really the monkey wrench to all this conniving .