March 19, 2007


Gun Shy: Ditch the Second Amendment (Benjamin Wittes, 03.19.07, New Republic)

It's time for gun-control supporters to come to grips with the fact that the amendment actually means something in contemporary society. For which reason, I hereby advance a modest proposal: Let's repeal the damned thing.

Makes sense at cocktail parties on the coasts...

Posted by Orrin Judd at March 19, 2007 2:27 PM

Hey, and while were at it, let's touch up the first one, too! All sorts of things we can "improve" in it!

This overeducated fool has obviously never given any thought to the Law of Unintended Consequences. And these are the same fanatics who scream if you dare even look like you want to touch their sacred Roe v. Wade decision.

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at March 19, 2007 3:11 PM

Geez. The new TNR certainly isn't improved...

Posted by: Anthony Perez-Miller at March 19, 2007 3:24 PM

As commented earlier, the issue had not gone away. The gun-grabbers have become like terrorists is the FORMER IRAQ, having run away in shame but ever ready to emerge from hiding to strike their conquerers in the back.

At least this chap at TNR had talked to someone who knew something about the law becoure putting pen to paper.

Of course he is dead wrong about the supposed obselescence of the Second Amendment. Without private possession of the means of self-defense, we are at the mercy of the state to protect us from savage tribes and domestic disturbances, which protection may be withheld for political advantage.

When the rotting social scum presents us with the choice, "Your money of your life!" it is the RKBA which permits us to answer, "None of the above." This is not all that far-fetched; rather, it is what all that "No justice, no peace," business is about.

Now, it may never come to that. Very few of us are actually in immediate danger from the "socially friendly elements," as Engels called criminals. Our spatial mobility enables most of us to remove ourselves and our families beyond immediate danger. It is a cultural thing, a spiritual thing, I might say, and the left does well to fear and hate us.

Let us welcome the coming debate, as we may welcome an al Qaeda offensive. Come out, out into the open--come out and be destroyed.

Posted by: Lou Gots at March 19, 2007 4:22 PM

When Mr. Wittes and his ilk come for mine, they should take care to bring extra ammo and a fair number of body bags since they'll find themselves using up the former and being zipped up in the latter.

Posted by: JR at March 19, 2007 5:57 PM

There is another reason to have guns other than protecting oneself and family from domestic crime. The ultimate gaurentee that democracy will continue is in having a significant portion of the populace with access to guns.

Posted by: lebeaux at March 19, 2007 5:59 PM

Makes sense at cocktail parties on the coast...

You get invited to cocktail parties on the coast? That seems like a bad idea.

Posted by: Brandon at March 19, 2007 6:43 PM

If we repeal the 1st Amendment does that mean we don't have the right to free speech?

Posted by: Pete at March 19, 2007 8:20 PM

Aren't you one of the gun grabbers?

Posted by: Bryan at March 20, 2007 8:43 AM

Yes. It's asinine to read any of the Amendments as absolute.

Posted by: oj at March 20, 2007 8:50 AM

Exactly right, which is why Parker v. Distrct of Columbia,

makes that very point.

Just as the First Amendment is not absolute, but is subject to regulation concerning things like libel, slander and sedition, so the right to keep and bear arms may be adjusted to the needs of public safety. Thus machine guns and destructive devices may be controlled and arms generally kept out of the hands of criminals.

What Parker stands for is that the Second Amendment prevents the RKBA from being regulated into nothingness, which has been the gun-grabber position.

Posted by: Lou Gots at March 20, 2007 10:49 AM