Several people have drawn my attention to this Texas A&M professor opining that it’s time to repeal the Second Amendment. These folks have never really engendered the same visceral outrage in me that others who advocate against the Second Amendment do. They at least acknowledge the proper mechanism for having this debate, and understand that the Constitution and Bill of Rights is a meaningful restraint. I get much more annoyed with people who want to treat the Constitution and Bill of Rights like a buffet line, taking from it the parts they find appealing, while leaving the parts they don’t.
12 thoughts on “At Least it’s Honest”
Comments are closed.
I say we start with repealing the 19th Amendment then visit each one to gauge value and impact. The single woman are the main reason we have this health care debacle. It is moms against guns that I worry about the most.
Maybe we can prove the laws currently favor the female gender voter and ask for an amendment to give men equal rights???
So was that Juvenalian satire in the spirit of Swift’s ‘Modest Proposal’, or is Daddy Bloombergbucks paying you to troll gunblogs?
The latter….. I was thinking how obvious, but some are a little slow!
I suppose while we’re at it, we should repeal that silly old 1st amendment as well.
After her presentation, I asked Professor Penrose if she supported returning abortion, homnosexuality, and all those other measures to state legislative control. She said that she does. This is not the first law professor this month who has indicated that gun control is so important he or she is willing to see Roe v. Wade and Lawrence v. Texas overturned.
That’s good news. That means they feel like they are backed up against a wall, which is certainly a reason to double our efforts.
Or that they know that the judges will accept the end of judicial review for the Second Amendment… and then insist that Roe v. Wade and Lawrence v. Texas are different types of judicial review.
I don’t know how relevant to this thread these thoughts are, but I can’t always help what things remind me of these days:
One of the provisions of the Pennsylvania “Declaration or Rights” in the state constitution (analogous to the “Bill of Rights” in the federal constitution is,
It might be construed as an amendment barring amendments to the Declaration of Rights. But I’m sure you can guess how much attention is paid to either.
That provision had existed in our prior constitution (of 1874) verbatim as Section 26, and in early constitutions (verbatim) dating back to the first, in 1776. Our New Age Constitution (of 1968) eliminated the immediately preceding provision, so it then became Section 25.
The provision eliminated was, “Emigration from the state shall not be prohibited.” It too had existed, verbatim back to 1790, and nearly verbatim in the constitution of 1776. Here’s where the analogy to “self defense” enters.
In 1968, the argument was made that such a provision was old-fashioned, “horse-and-buggy,” and it was asked “Who would ever do such a thing?” So, words on paper costing a nickel apiece or something, it was eliminated from the constitution of 1968. To make sure the repeal would pass referendum, the ballot question was stated ass-backward, but courts said that was just fine.
In the early 1970s corporate, business and industry flight from the state started bigtime, and there was more than one attempt at legislation that would have barred businesses from leaving the state! While those were never successful, that was no thanks to our New Age Declaration of Rights, which would have made anti-emigration legislation constitutional, at least at the state level.
Now, whoever would have expected something like that, when a horse-and-buggy constitutional guarantee of rights was being eliminated?
Thank you, Andy B. for both the history and political science lessons! I had no idea of any of those events and find them informative and fascinating! I love the idea of a non-repealable status placed on our bill of rights. I love how your Section 25 words it. I love the great men (and thinkers) of old!!!
I had heard the pretense of “old-fashioned, horse-and-buggy” law applied to both the Second and Third Amendments even back when I was in High School (yes, THAT long ago! ;-)). I could just see Mr. Obama housing his agents in my home to keep me in line after disarming me of my militia arms.
Thank you again, sir!
Arnie
For me the phrase “horse-and-buggy” applied to things in government over the years has become an early warning that somebody is up to no good. It was used extensively in Pennsylvania in the 1967 – 1968 period, when we got not only a new constitution, but a new “professional” legislature (“General Assembly”) to replace our “old, outmoded, horse-and-buggy” legislature. The old met infrequently and was barely paid; the new became full-time and extremely well paid. Now it has grown so bloated that there are proposals to cut it down in size, i.e., cut the number of legislators. But while that sounds good spoken quickly, it of course means it will be less democratic — fewer representatives per citizen, and fewer legislators for lobbyists and special interests to have to buy. Not to mention, fewer districts to gerrymander. But never will you find a suggestion to return to our “horse-and-buggy” founding concept of citizen-legislators who aren’t making a career (or a killing) at it.
Yeah. I’ve love to get rid of our professional legislature. I’d prefer that to proposals to cut the size of the House.
My sentiments exactly, Sebastian! I wrote and scolded the anti-gun editors of my State’s largest metropolitan newspaper for criticizing some of their allies who thought it necessary to repeal the Second Amendment to enact effective gun control. I told them I have FAR greater respect for my opponents who seek honest and constitutional means to take away my rights than those lazy hoodlums who want merely to re-interpret (i.e., mis-interpret) their way past supreme Law to attack my liberty.
Excellent post, sir!!!
Sincerely, Arnie