Repeal The Second Amendment? Really?

by

Obama has not even been inaugurated yet and the liberals are already discussing how to get their agenda implemented.  I found a link this article posted at Salon.com which discusses the need to repeal the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment says

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.

The exact meaning of this amendment has been debated for decades.  Liberals want to say that this amendment refers to local militia groups only and does not extend to individual citizens.  Conservatives have always applied the rights conveyed in this amendment to individuals.

The article starts out saying

The best way to reduce the odds of another blood bath like the one at Virginia Tech is to amend the Constitution and abolish the right to bear arms.

I think this is a SHAMEFUL use of the Virginia Tech tragedy. What happened there had nothing to do with the guns, it was about a sick individual.  The guns were only the tools he chose to use.  GUNS ARE ONLY TOOLS.  They are neither good nor evil.  They are simply tools. The author says “While there is no way to guarantee that another Cho Seung-Hui would be deprived of access to a Glock, hitting the delete button on the Second Amendment surely would lower the odds against future mayhem.”  You should read that statement again.  He actually admits that repealing the Second Amendment would not stop a tragedy from happening again.  But he still uses the tragedy as a basis to accomplish his desire to repeal the Second Amendment. This is flawed logic at best but more likely it is simple dishonesty.

The really scary part of this article comes toward the end.  The author sets forth the game plan that liberals will use to get the Second Amendment repealed.  It is the same game plan that has been successful in other areas.

At the moment, of course, repealing the Second Amendment seems as politically plausible as welcoming Iraq as the 51st state. But think of how many other causes have gone from the radical to the routine in a single generation. Not even a decade ago, civil unions for gay couples seemed laughably utopian. Now it is the bipartisan middle-ground position in both parties (insert second Cheney reference). When the conservative Federalist Society was founded in 1982 with the goal of combating the liberal tilt to the federal judiciary, not even its founders could have imagined how successful they would be a quarter-century later.

Times change, generations pass and attitudes evolve. As fears of crime recede in many places, nervous homeowners may no longer be obsessed with having a .45 by the bedside to blow away phantom intruders. There is also an implicit racial component here with the bygone Archie Bunker generation having a specific image of exactly whom they feared climbing in a window at night. Even the fearsome NRA may well sharply decline as a political force, much as once-fierce-jawed interest groups like the American Legion and the labor movement have grown increasingly toothless over the past quarter-century.

Against this backdrop, liberals should look at the firearms issue from a long-term perspective, instead of going into a fetal crouch over how gun control will play in the next election. A repeal movement would at best take 15 to 20 years to reach critical mass, so this is not the moment to play litmus-test politics and require White House contenders to take self-defeating positions guaranteed to be excoriated in attack ads in West Virginia. But this would be an appropriate time for overly earnest gun-controllers to rethink their tone and their rhetoric to better understand why their opponents are so politically adept at tarring them as elitists. After all, hunters and marksmen no more need the Second Amendment to practice their sports than archers and race-car drivers require similar constitutional protection.

The liberals are telling us what they are going to do.  Are we going to listen and respond accordingly or will our Second Amendment rights be taken away slowly over time?  When will conservatives begin to pay attention to the fact that liberals have adopted an incrementalism approach to getting what they want?  They are focused and relentless.  It is time we stop playing by their rules and begin to take back our country…little by little, if necessary.

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , ,

One Response to “Repeal The Second Amendment? Really?”

  1. Michael Says:

    Tom,

    Thank you for laying out the argument clearly.

    In our Second Amendment we enjoy the stated protection of a right which is unique to our country, if I’m not mistaken.

    As a nation, we should be different, and not just a Western Hemisphere version of Europe, particularly as regards private ownership of weapons for personal defense.

    I believe that you are right–we will not continue to enjoy the freedom we have in this area unless we go on the offense. We have been comfortable for too long just defending ourselves, but over time we will begin to wear down. After, that’s the whole point of a siege, isn’t it?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: