Texas A&M law prof: It’s time to repeal Second Amendment

Common Good
I equate gun grabbers with 3 year old kids at dinner time complaining about "I dont like it-I dont want it".

Well kids, just because you dont like it, doesnt mean mean squat to the rest of the family.

The only ones who say the second amendment is misunderstood- are those who dont want to understand it; because its written-in plain english.

[...]

Exactly. These amendments are God-given rights that we claim, not privileges that have been accorded to us and subject to removal by statute.

That's why the 2nd doesn't say something like: "Well, if the whiners insist, they may have one firearm, of limited utility, as prescribed and approved by the federal government, and if no one else objects"....

reply to post by signalfire


you do realize they had multi shot fire arms longer then america has been a country right? im not even talking about double rifles or drillings(3 barreled guns)china had a semi automatic crossbow(4bc) before the time of christ .hell the puckel gun(invented 1718) had a detachable magazine (and different bullets for muslims and Christians respectively) with higher round counts then some states allow today(11)
the greeks even worked on semi automatic Batista or their version of the modern day assault rifle
en.wikipedia.org...

cartridge fed fire arms date back to 1840 at least so they are pretty old as well

flame throwers also invented by the Greeks( and ironically not federally regulated at all ) so id be carefull saying just because it was not "thought of" when the second amendment was ratified as a qualification for own/not own as hey biologial warfare is older then america and under that logic we can do that as hey the founders knew of it and that makes it fine and dandy? the chinese were using what amounted to primitive MLRS(multiple launch rocket systems)in the 14th century AD www.chinahistoryforum.com...?s=3588833c303869e70471bf5685120900 same for land mines which date back to 13th century ad so i guess that would mean we can own them too.......en.wikipedia.org...
this was the machine gun of its day and its projectiles even exploded (invented in 1592) and 200 rounds before reloading hrrrm sounds like an "assault weapon" to me and with a range of 100-500 meters depending on terrain its range exceeds alot of modern fire arms
www.britannica.com...

The first effective breech-loading and repeating flintlock firearms were developed in the early 1600s. One early magazine repeater has been attributed to Michele Lorenzoni, a Florentine gunmaker. In the same period, the faster and safer Kalthoff system—named for a family of German gunmakers—introduced a ball magazine located under the barrel and a powder magazine in the butt. By the 18th century the Cookson repeating rifle was in use in America, using separate tubular magazines in the stock for balls and powder and a lever-activated breech mechanism that selected and loaded a ball and a charge, also priming the flash pan and setting the gun on half-cock.

so even in the 1600s breach-loading repeating fire arms existed

and multi barrel volly guns were around since the early 1300's en.wikipedia.org...

hell the first detachable (box)magazine for small arms was invented in 1879(bit over 100 years from the original revolution) and they didnt seem to have a problem with people having these kind of weapons then either

the first semi automatic rifle was in 1885 and semi pistol in 1892 so the technology is not as "new" as people think hell the first fully automatic magazine fed rifle was mexican and made in 1882(Mondragón rifle )and as the last "founding father" died in 1836(madison) they very well could have imagined the scope and whatnot of where the fire arms were going to go in the future when they wrote the law and to act as if multi shot fire arms were a pipe dream to the founders is disingenuous

shall not infringe whats so hard to understand about that

signalfire
THAT's what the Second Amendment was talking about. Not freekin' machine guns.

I doubt that.

The framers of the Constitution were smart enough to know that weapons technology advances over time. If they truly believed that an armed populace was necessary to prevent tyranny, and obviously, they did, I find it more than a little difficult to believe that they would have intended to saddle future Americans with obsolete weaponry. Maybe the revolutionaries back in 1776 would have actually been content with swords and longbows to face British muskets and artillery? Somehow, that seems unlikely, but that's essentially the implication of your position.

And BTW, machine guns aren't exactly off-the-shelf items, requiring more legal hurdles and far more expense for a citizen to purchase.

RalagaNarHallas

the first semi automatic rifle was in 1885 and semi pistol in 1892 so the technology is not as "new" as people think

Some would make the argument that the first semi-automatic rifle was the GIrandoni air rifle that was invented in 1779 and spent some time in service with the Austrian military. It was also one of the weapons taken on the Lewis and Clark expedition in 1803. The only catch was that the rifleman had to point it upward to feed the next bullet, given that the 20 round magazine was gravity-fed.

reply to post by Common Good

These days, the word "treason" is almost as popular as the word "troll".

No, her suggestion that the 2A be repealed is not "equal to treason". Personal opinions are a part of Constitutionally protected free speech.

As a matter of fact, what she is suggesting is the proper way to go about changing the law of the land.

Take the 18th Amendment for example. Unlike the current insane overreaching power via the "war on drugs", the law makers at that time actually had enough respect for the law to add an amendment. After they realized it was a failure, they repealed it.

So for her to suggest that 2A be repealed has nothing to do with treason, its actually proper procedure.

That having been said, I dont think the 2A should be repealed, I think it should be strengthened.

Lets do away with the terms which the gun grabbers love to use against us, like the word "militia".

May I suggest the following:

"Every legal resident of the United States is within their God given or natural right to own any weapon owned by the US government. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Should the government try to infringe on these rights in anyway, the individual may defend this right."

Just something off the top of my head.

Growing up in oklahoma, I was hunting by the age of ten. Now my son is nine and my ex-husband is teaching him all the rules of gun safety and how to shoot a .22.

I'm all for the citizenry owning guns. When I was a kid in the early eighties, my dad worked in the oilfield and was laid off when the oil boom started winding down. We would not have been able to eat had my dad not went out and killed supper every night. We ate lots of rabbit, squirrel and frog legs (gigging frogs was something else he insisted I learn how to do even though I was only four or five years old).

Now, living just north of the red river, all I can say for the professor in the article is that she is either very brave or incredibly stupid to call for the repeal of the second amendment in the great state of Texas. That's just begging for an ass whooping, IMO. Those folks down there take their right to bear arms very seriously.

reply to post by Mon1k3r


Everyone is entitled to have an opinion. Thanks to the first backed up by the 2nd

reply to post by Bassago


Please read what she actually said:

"I think the Second Amendment is misunderstood and I think it’s time today, in our drastic measures, to repeal and replace that Second Amendment.”

First, she is correct in stating that the Second Amendment is misunderstood. It is intended to establish a citizen militia, yet people seem to think it is designed to enable citizens to kill one another or even overthrow the government by force. She does not say that no-one should be allowed to own guns, she thinks the Second Amendment should be replaced, ie; have its intent made more clear for modern comprehension. You may now resume your knee jerk Liberal bashing.

pheonix358
The gun grabbers don't want to have a good look at real history. In the days when the 2nd was put in place, private citizens could and did own their own warships IF they could afford them.

The whole idea of the 2nd was to ensure a corrupt government could be tossed out by the people. If you bother to read the literature, news paper articles and the speeches made on the subject of the 2nd, the intent is clear.

So why the hell does someone like me, who does not even live in the US, know all this and yet idiots with law degrees don't. Only in America.

There is a way to alter the constitution, it is set out clearly, so why don't these people use it as it was designed, because they damn well know it would never happen. That is the crux of the matter. You are free to leave the US at any time.

P

I love an Aussie that still knows what it means to be an Aussie. You guys were once unruly like the US. Sadly, neither is really that way anymore.

RE: the OP.....why in the hell do the Ate Em Aggies have her on their payroll? Just to drum up attention for themselves?

I know folks who are rather deep in the Aggie alumni. I can imagine they are not going to be happy about this.

Mon1k3r
I think I have to agree with the general premise. When the second amendment was ratified, there were no assault weapons, there were no high capacity handgun magazines, or auto pistols. If a citizen wants a shotgun or a single shot rifle, ie, they want to hunt, all good, but assault weapons and semi-auto pistols are for one purpose: Killing people.

A lot of people will argue that a well armed militia would need these weapons in case the government got froggy. But if they did, these people and their assault weapons just wouldn't do the trick. The second amendment doesn't allow civilians to own and operate hand grenades, M240B,G, or D, vehicle mounted MaDeuce, artillery, not to mention all of the non-lethal yet effective means that the government has and may employ against the populace in the event of all out tyranny.

I love the idea of the constitution, it's purpose and intent... But I do think it needs to be revamped, and it has to now include an amendment that says if you are a public servant, and you serve a corporate master rather than the public, and if you lie to the public in order to press an agenda that has more to do with profit than the people, then you should be dealt with appropriately.

APPROPRIATELY!

A question. Do you think that the weaponry of the late 1700's were an improvement over the weaponry of the 1400's? Do you think that the framers of the Constitution didn't know of those improvements?

Heck, even during the time that the Constitution was being written, improvements were being made. It's called innovation. I'm certain that the framers of that Constitution, and the 2nd Amendment, were well aware that innovations and improvements would continue to be made beyond their time. They wrote, 'the right to keep and bear arms', not, the right to keep and bear single shot muzzle loading muskets.

You love the purpose and intent of the Constitution. But only to the point that is suitable and agreeable to you. Do you know why the second amendment is about arms? It's there to protect the first amendment. It's there to protect YOUR right to free speech.

Not to worry anti gun people, there will continue to be school shootings, movie theater shootings and any other kind of heinous shootings they can think of all in the name if disarming America. It won't be overnight, but rest assured that most likely 10 years from now America won't be armed the way we are right now.


What I'm done arguing about though is the fact that guns don't kill people. I know I'm not the only pro-gun person who can say this til I turn blue in the face, it just doesn't matter. People of this country are only looking for easy answers and don't want to take a good, hard look at what's really the issue at hand. Issues such as mental instabilities not being treated properly, just treated by throwing pills at a person and sending them on their way. These pills, which are tools by TPTB to treat our conditions, NEVER cure, is what doctors and shrinks think is the best way to treat a person with depression or any type of psychosis ailment. Once guns are gone, these people will still find ways to commit acts of violence.

When people start using their cars as weapons of death, for example driving through a large crowd of people at high speeds, will the morons who wanted to ban guns try to ban cars then too? Of course not, because everyone uses cars and they would never conceive the thought to inconvenience themselves LOL. But most anti gun people don't own guns, so their worthless bias opinion is just that, BIAS and baseless nonsense.

Not sure how many people have realized this but Americans need to grow the f@ck up and stop the shenanigans of looking for excuses and throwing out judgements based on personal opinions; for that type of behavior will never be productive or make changes for the better.

DJW001
reply to post by Bassago

 

Please read what she actually said:

"I think the Second Amendment is misunderstood and I think it’s time today, in our drastic measures, to repeal and replace that Second Amendment.”

First, she is correct in stating that the Second Amendment is misunderstood. It is intended to establish a citizen militia, yet people seem to think it is designed to enable citizens to kill one another or even overthrow the government by force. She does not say that no-one should be allowed to own guns, she thinks the Second Amendment should be replaced, ie; have its intent made more clear for modern comprehension. You may now resume your knee jerk Liberal bashing.

edit on 17-11-2013 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)

Modern comprehension? You mean, liberal comprehension, right?

Here are a few examples of the original intentions...

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.
---Patrick Henry, Virginia ratifying convention, June, 1788.

[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor...
---George Mason

The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals...[I]t establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.
---Albert Gallatin to Alexander Addison, Oct 7, 1789, MS. in N.Y. Hist. Soc.-A.G. Papers, 2.

”A free people ought to be armed.”
~George Washington

”The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits. … and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”
~St. George Tucker

”By calling attention to ‘a well regulated militia,’ ‘the security of the nation,’ and the right of each citizen ‘to keep and bear arms,’ our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy… The Second Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important.”
~John F. Kennedy

And finally...

”A woman who demands further gun control legislation is like a chicken who roots for Colonel Sanders.”
~Larry Elder

reply to post by 2ndthought

Modern comprehension? You mean, liberal comprehension, right?

Your quotations underline my point. The rebels who wrote the Constitution were certainly not Conservatives. They were proud Liberals.

Mon1k3r
I think I have to agree with the general premise. When the second amendment was ratified, there were no assault weapons, there were no high capacity handgun magazines, or auto pistols. If a citizen wants a shotgun or a single shot rifle, ie, they want to hunt, all good, but assault weapons and semi-auto pistols are for one purpose: Killing people.

A lot of people will argue that a well armed militia would need these weapons in case the government got froggy. But if they did, these people and their assault weapons just wouldn't do the trick. The second amendment doesn't allow civilians to own and operate hand grenades, M240B,G, or D, vehicle mounted MaDeuce, artillery, not to mention all of the non-lethal yet effective means that the government has and may employ against the populace in the event of all out tyranny.

I love the idea of the constitution, it's purpose and intent... But I do think it needs to be revamped, and it has to now include an amendment that says if you are a public servant, and you serve a corporate master rather than the public, and if you lie to the public in order to press an agenda that has more to do with profit than the people, then you should be dealt with appropriately.

APPROPRIATELY!

Frankely and arguably parts of the constitution need changing, especially the second amendment, BUT anyone who has been paying attention to 9-11 events in america, the outbreak of arab spring in the middle east also done by NATO, the formation of DHS and its overbearing red tape, would see that now is the worst possible time to be discussing the second amendment and even the constitution itself. We need whatever protection we can get. I would rather have an outdated constitution with somewhat outdated principles than take an incredibly stupid risk and allow neoliberals and neocons to draft me new amendments. Its like asking for satan to come to your house and take you away. Sorry!

And gun control is very slippery slope. NONE will agree to what should be allowed and what should be banned. There is too much emotion involved from both liberals and conservatives. I have been arguing specifics here on ATS for years and it tends to vary from everything to nothing.

Ex_CT2

Common Good
I equate gun grabbers with 3 year old kids at dinner time complaining about "I dont like it-I dont want it".

Well kids, just because you dont like it, doesnt mean mean squat to the rest of the family.

The only ones who say the second amendment is misunderstood- are those who dont want to understand it; because its written-in plain english.

[...]

Exactly. These amendments are God-given rights that we claim, not privileges that have been accorded to us and subject to removal by statute.

That's why the 2nd doesn't say something like: "Well, if the whiners insist, they may have one firearm, of limited utility, as prescribed and approved by the federal government, and if no one else objects"....

Actually they are afforded priviledges given to us by the people who drafted and signed the constitution. We dont live in a religious country to be dominated by god given scriptures like iran for example.

It is misleading to imply "god given rights". Heck even in religious countries the clerics interprate the scriptures and often make mistakes.

DJW001
reply to post by 2ndthought

 

Modern comprehension? You mean, liberal comprehension, right?

Your quotations underline my point. The rebels who wrote the Constitution were certainly not Conservatives. They were proud Liberals.

I'm only going to point out your misapprehension. You can do the research for yourself. Classical Liberalism is more akin to Libertarianism. The Liberalism in question here is the modern debased form, more akin to Progressivism, which is some sort of disease or mental malaise....

EarthCitizen07

Ex_CT2

Common Good
I equate gun grabbers with 3 year old kids at dinner time complaining about "I dont like it-I dont want it".

Well kids, just because you dont like it, doesnt mean mean squat to the rest of the family.

The only ones who say the second amendment is misunderstood- are those who dont want to understand it; because its written-in plain english.

[...]

Exactly. These amendments are God-given rights that we claim, not privileges that have been accorded to us and subject to removal by statute.

That's why the 2nd doesn't say something like: "Well, if the whiners insist, they may have one firearm, of limited utility, as prescribed and approved by the federal government, and if no one else objects"....

Actually they are afforded priviledges given to us by the people who drafted and signed the constitution. We dont live in a religious country to be dominated by god given scriptures like iran for example.

It is misleading to imply "god given rights". Heck even in religious countries the clerics interprate the scriptures and often make mistakes.

I'll go this far: I should have said "Natural rights."

ItCameFromOuterSpace
reply to post by Bassago

 

The private citizen should be allowed to have tanks, howitzers, B-52's, etc. We don't really need them, but what the hell..

edit on 11/16/2013 by ItCameFromOuterSpace because: (no reason given)

Private citizens can have tanks and howitzers and B-52's.. The tank won't have any ammo and neither will the howitzer, and the B-52 won't have any bombs on board, but you can definitely own them, if you can afford them..

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

Actually they are afforded priviledges given to us by the people who drafted and signed the constitution. We dont live in a religious country to be dominated by god given scriptures like iran for example.

It is misleading to imply "god given rights". Heck even in religious countries the clerics interprate the scriptures and often make mistakes.

That's kind of splitting hairs isn't it. While the constitution was crafted by men the rights of free speech or the right to protect yourself, etc, are natural rights and not given by men.

In drafting the constitution these men were acknowledging these rights, not granting them. Or did I read your post wrong?

pheonix358
The gun grabbers don't want to have a good look at real history. In the days when the 2nd was put in place, private citizens could and did own their own warships IF they could afford them.

The whole idea of the 2nd was to ensure a corrupt government could be tossed out by the people. If you bother to read the literature, news paper articles and the speeches made on the subject of the 2nd, the intent is clear.

So why the hell does someone like me, who does not even live in the US, know all this and yet idiots with law degrees don't. Only in America.

There is a way to alter the constitution, it is set out clearly, so why don't these people use it as it was designed, because they damn well know it would never happen. That is the crux of the matter. You are free to leave the US at any time.

P

Incorrect. Civilians could only own firearms, nothing else. Today its the same thing, although gungrabbers have illegally watered down everything.

Only the military can own anything it wants. "Militia" means military. "Well regulated" means well kept.

Even after americans gained independance from great britain, the military was still amateur in status, and I think that is why they used "militia" rather than military. Not sure when our military became professional.

Today militia gets confused with armed civilians to fight a corrupt government rather than professional military outfits.

As passed by the Congress and preserved in the National Archives:[23]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Trying to superimpose yesterdays language and status quo upon today is a matter of interpretation.