Reply With Quote
What a whiny little .
Talk is cheap, but persuading Americans to surrender their rights will be expensive, difficult, and time-consuming. A few hours after yesterday’s shooting hit the news, the comedian Rob Delaney penned this tweet: The @NRA & the politicians they own must not know this T. Jefferson quote. The 2nd Amendment is a ING BOY’S COAT. pic.twitter.com/cKR0Nk4Uwm — rob Delaney (@robdelaney) August 26, 2015
For ease of viewing, here is that Jefferson quotation in full (it’s adapted from a July 12, 1816, letter to Samuel Kercheval): I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and cons utions, but laws and ins utions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of cir stances, ins utions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.
We should be absolutely clear about what Delaney is arguing here: He is a) agreeing with Jefferson that “laws and ins utions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind,” b) contending that “progress” suggests that the individual right to keep and bear arms is now counterproductive, and c) concluding that it is time therefore to make a “change in law and cons ution” — in other words, to repeal the Second Amendment. This, it is true, is not a mainstream position on the American Left — at least, it is not one that is argued openly. But it is a reasonably popular one on social media, it has strong support within the more leftward-leaning parts of the political commentariat, it is often implied by the casual manner in which progressives such as President Obama refer to “Australia” and other heavily regulated nations, and it enjoys indirect approval from around one quarter of the American public. When the likes of Rob Delaney and Bill Maher and Keith Ellison say that we need to get rid of the Second Amendment, they are not speaking in a vacuum but reflecting the views of a small but vocal portion of the American population. And they mean it. That being so, here’s the million-dollar question: What the are they waiting for? Go on, chaps. Bloody well do it.
Seriously, try it. Start the process. Stop whining about it on Twitter, and on HBO, and at the Daily Kos. Stop playing with some Thomas Jefferson quote you found on Google. Stop jumping on the news cycle and watching the retweets and viral shares rack up. Go out there and begin the movement in earnest. Don’t fall back on excuses. Don’t play cheap motte-and-bailey games. And don’t pretend that you’re okay with the Second Amendment in theory, but you’re just appalled by the er decision. You’re not. er recognized what was obvious to the amendment’s drafters, to the people who debated it, and to the jurists of their era and beyond: That “right of the people” means “right of the people,” as it does everywhere else in both the Bill of Rights and in the common law that preceded it. A Second Amendment without the supposedly pernicious er “interpretation” wouldn’t be any impediment to regulation at all. It would be a dead letter. It would be an effective repeal. It would be the end of the right itself. In other words, it would be exactly what you want! Man up. Put together a plan, and take those words out of the Cons ution.
This will involve hard work, of course. You can’t just sit online and preen to those who already agree with you. No siree. Instead, you’ll have to go around the states — traveling and preaching until the soles of your shoes are thin as paper. You’ll have to lobby Congress, over and over and over again. You’ll have to make ads and shake hands and twist arms and cut deals and suffer all the slings and arrows that will be thrown in your direction. You’ll have to tell anybody who will listen to you that they need to support you; that if they disagree, they’re childish and beholden to the “gun lobby”; that they don’t care enough about children; that their reverence for the Founders is mistaken; that they have blood on their goddamn hands; that they want to own firearms only because their penises are small and they’re not “real men.” And remember, you can’t half-ass it this time. You’re not going out there to tell these people that you want “reform” or that “enough is enough.” You’re going there to solicit their support for removing one of the articles within the Bill of Rights. Make no mistake: It’ll be unpleasant strolling into Pittsburgh or Youngstown or Pueblo and telling blue-collar Democrat after blue-collar Democrat that he only has his guns because he’s not as well endowed as he’d like to be. It’ll be tough explaining to suburban families that their established conception of American liberty is wrong. You might even suffer at the polls because of it. But that’s what it’s going to take. So do it. Start now. Off you go.
And don’t stop there. No, no. There’ll still be a lot of work to be done. As anybody with a passing understanding of America’s cons utional system knows, repealing the Second Amendment won’t in and of itself lead to the end of gun ownership in America. Rather, it will merely free up the federal government to regulate the area, should it wish to do so. Next, you’ll need to craft the laws that bring about change — think of them as modern Volstead Acts — and you’ll need to get them past the opposition. And, if the federal government doesn’t immediately go the whole hog, you’ll need to replicate your efforts in the states, too, 45 of which have their own cons utional protections. Maybe New Jersey and California will go quietly. Maybe. But Idaho won’t. Louisiana won’t. Kentucky won’t. Maine won’t. You’ll need to persuade those sovereignties not to sue and drag their heels, but to do what’s right as defined by you. Unfortunately, that won’t involve vague talk of holding “national conversations” and “doing something” and “fighting back against the NRA.” It’ll mean going to all sorts of groups — unions, churches, PTAs, political meetings, bowling leagues — and telling them not that you want “common-sense reforms,” but that you want their guns, as in Australia or Britain or Japan. Obviously, the Republicans aren’t going to help in this, so you’ll need to commandeer the Democratic party to do it. That means you’ll need their presidential candidates on board. That means you’ll need to make full abolition the stated policy of the Senate and House caucuses. That means you’ll need the state parties to sign pledges promising not to back away if it gets tough. And if they won’t, you’ll need to start a third party and accept all that that entails.
And when you’ve done all that and your vision is inked onto parchment, you’ll need to enforce it. No, not in the namby-pamby, eh-we-don’t-really-want-to-fund-it way that Prohibition was enforced. I mean enforce it — with force. When Australia took its decision to Do Something, the Australian citizenry owned between 2 and 3 million guns. Despite the compliance of the people and the lack of an entrenched gun culture, the government got maybe three-quarters of a million of them — somewhere between a fifth and a third of the total. That wouldn’t be good enough here, of course. There are around 350 million privately owned guns in America, which means that if you picked up one in three, you’d only be returning the stock to where it was in 1994. Does that sound difficult? Sure! After all, this is a country of 330 million people spread out across 3.8 million square miles, and if we know one thing about the American people, it’s that they do not go quietly into the night. But the government has to have their guns. It has to. The Second Amendment has to go.
You’re going to need a plan. A state-by-state, county-by-county, street-by-street, door-to door plan. A detailed roadmap to abolition that involves the military and the police and a whole host of informants — and, probably, a of a lot of blood, too. Sure, the ACLU won’t like it, especially when you start going around poorer neighborhoods. Sure, there are probably between 20 and 30 million Americans who would rather fight a civil war than let you into their houses. Sure, there is no historical precedent in America for the mass confiscation of a commonly owned item — let alone one that was until recently cons utionally protected. Sure, it’s slightly odd that you think that we can’t deport 11 million people but we can search 123 million homes. But that’s just the price we have to pay. Times have changed. It has to be done: For the children; for America; for the future. Hey hey, ho ho, the Second Amendment has to go. Let’s do this thing.
When do you get started?
http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...endment-repeal
What a whiny little .
repeal?
typical gun fellator straw man
repeal 2nd amendment? confiscate guns? take my precious guns?
all bull strawmen!
who are "those" repealers?
holy ing , you gun fellators are bull frauds
The Second Amendment’s Fake History
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/10/0...-fake-history/
'persuading Americans to surrender their rights'
Muh right to kill with muh shotgun!
" But the government has to have their guns. It has to. The Second Amendment has to go."
This butthurt sounding like a whiny teenager with their constant sarcasm.
" ING GOD DAMN BIG GOVERNMENT I HATE YOU DANG GUM!"
"This will involve hard work, of course. You can’t just sit online and preen to those who already agree with you."
The hypocrisy
a lot of salt itt
Meh, the first change would probably come from the Supreme Court. 2nd Amendment rights aren't unlimited.
Yep, lots of cucks letting out their impotent rage.
Speaking of cucks, I hear Quick is starting the next game for the Kings again. When will Sutter get some balls and bench him?
As soon as the Sharts bench the Cupless wonders Choke Thornton and Gagtrick Marchoke.
"A well regulated...."
truth bomb
"... militia"
... citizen military for defending against threats from slave uprisings, whisky rebels, Indians, foreign nations.
NOT for defending citizens from the US govt.
s Not Glocks: University Of Texas Students Plan Provocative Protest Of New Campus Carry Law
Students at the University Of Texas at Austin are planning to protest a new law that permits the concealed carry of handguns on campus — with dildos.
The “campus carry” law passed by the Texas legislature and signed by the Governor in June, requires UT Austin and the other campuses in the UT system to allow students to carry guns on campus. It gives the schools some discretion on how to implement the law.
The protest is designed to draw attention to the fact that carrying a dildo to class could be “prohibited expression” under university rules. The rules prohibit “any writing or visual image, or engage in any public performance, that is obscene.”
“You’re carrying a gun to class? Yeah well I’m carrying a HUGE DILDO. Just about as effective at protecting us from sociopathic shooters, but much safer for recreational play,” the organizer, Jessica Jin, wrote.
On Facebook, 1,800 people have registered for the event, which is scheduled for next August when the law goes into effect.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...pus-carry-law/
The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appe es and worthy Inclinations."1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
http://www.cons ution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.""... militia"
... citizen military for defending against threats from slave uprisings, whisky rebels, Indians, foreign nations.
NOT for defending citizens from the US govt.
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Cons ution, Elliott, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
.... rightwingnut gun fellators are lying to ya, rightwingnut.
there's no rational ing way to read the 2nd as blocking the govt from regulating guns.
Yup In colonial times speak, a "well regulated militia" means a well armed populace
I'm amazed at how relentlessly you people keep trying to push this nation to the brink. You know how this all ends don't you? The people are well prepared for such a contingency should it become necessary. Keep in mind all records will become public. Voting records, ties to communist activist groups, all of it.
No, it actually meant a well regulated militia.
George Washington was adjunct General of the Virginia militia in the 1750s.
That's where they got it from. They didn't make a new definition for gun nuts to use 200 years later.
And then what?
What are you saying will happen to boutons?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
