Privacy   |    Financial   |    Current Events   |    Self Defense   |    Miscellaneous   |    Letters To Editor   |    About Off The Grid News   |    Off The Grid Videos   |    Weekly Radio Show

‘Repeal The Second Amendment,’ NYT Columnist Argues

‘Repeal The Second Amendment,’ NYT Columnist Argues

Image source: Pixabay.com

A Pulitzer Prize-winning conservative writer is calling for repealing the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

New York Times op-ed columnist Brett Stephens wrote Oct. 5 that he wants to abolish the right to bear arms in the name of public safety. The column came under the headline, “Repeal the Second Amendment.”

“There is only one way to do this: Repeal the Second Amendment,” Stephens wrote. “Repealing the Amendment may seem like political Mission Impossible today, but in the era of same-sex marriage it’s worth recalling that most great causes begin as improbable ones. Gun ownership should never be outlawed, just as it isn’t outlawed in Britain or Australia. But it doesn’t need a blanket Constitutional protection, either.”

You Don’t Need A Firearms License For This Weapon!

It is difficult to amend the Constitution. Under the present system it would require a vote of two-thirds of Congress and approval of three-fifths of the state legislatures.

Recent Republican successes, and the Vegas shooting, inspired Stephens’ proposal.

“Donald Trump will likely get one more Supreme Court nomination, or two or three, before he leaves office, guaranteeing a pro-gun court for another generation” Stephens wrote. “Expansive interpretations of the right to bear arms will be the law of the land — until the ‘right’ itself ceases to be.”

Stephens has penned several conservative columns this year, including one titled “On North Korea, Trump’s On The Right Track,” and another column that defended Education Secretary Betsy DeVos against liberals (his term).

“I have never understood the conservative fetish for the Second Amendment,” he wrote Oct. 5. “From a law-and-order standpoint, more guns means more murder. … From a personal-safety standpoint, more guns means less safety.”

“And now we have the relatively new and now ubiquitous ‘active shooter’ phenomenon, something that remains extremely rare in the rest of the world,” he wrote. “Conservatives often say that the right response to these horrors is to do more on the mental-health front. Yet by all accounts Stephen Paddock would not have raised an eyebrow with a mental-health professional before he murdered 58 people in Las Vegas last week.”

Stephens acknowledged his goal is lofty.

“Some conservatives will insist that the Second Amendment is fundamental to the structure of American liberty,” he wrote. “They will cite James Madison, who noted in the Federalist Papers that in Europe ‘the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.’ America was supposed to be different, and better.

“I wonder what Madison would have to say about that today, when more than twice as many Americans perished last year at the hands of their fellows as died in battle during the entire Revolutionary War. My guess: Take the guns—or at least the presumptive right to them—away. The true foundation of American exceptionalism should be our capacity for moral and constitutional renewal, not our instinct for self-destruction.”

Do you agree or disagree? Share your thoughts in the section below:

© Copyright Off The Grid News

8 comments

  1. ““I have never understood the conservative fetish for the Second Amendment,” he wrote Oct. 5. “From a law-and-order standpoint, more guns means more murder. … From a personal-safety standpoint, more guns means less safety.””

    Benjamin Franklin: “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.”

    Here is something for New York Times op-ed columnist Brett Stephens to learn from.

    Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859): “THE RIGHT OF A CITIZEN TO BEAR ARMS, in lawful defense of himself or the State, IS ABSOLUTE. He does not derive it from the State government. IT IS ONE OF THE “HIGH POWERS” DELEGATED DIRECTLY TO THE CITIZEN,AND ‘IS EXCEPTED OUT OF THE GENERAL POWERS OF GOVERNMENT.’ A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, becauseIT IS ABOVE THE LAW, and INDEPENDENT OF THE LAWMAKING POWER.” (caps are mine)

    Colin Greenwood, in the study “Firearms Control”, 1972: “No matter how one approaches the figures, one is forced to the rather startling conclusion that the use of firearms in crime was very much less when there were no controls of any sort and when anyone, convicted criminal or lunatic, could buy any type of firearm without restriction. Half a century of strict controls on pistols has ended, perversely, with a far greater use of this weapon in crime than ever before.”

    Yoshimi Ishikawa, Japanese author, in the LA Times 15 Oct 1992: “Americans have the will to resist because you have weapons. If you don’t have a gun, freedom of speech has no power.”

    ilveira v. Lockyer, 328 F.3d 567 (2003), Judge Alex Kozinski of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reminded us that the Second Amendment is not about duck hunting: “All too many of the other great tragedies of history – Stalin’s atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few – were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations. Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act required here. … If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars.
    “My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed – where the government refuses to stand for re-election and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.
    “Fortunately, the Framers were wise enough to entrench the right of the people to keep and bear arms within our constitutional structure. The purpose and importance of that right was still fresh in their minds, and they spelled it out clearly so it would not be forgotten.” Judge Alex Kozinski

    We are were the language is being controlled, people are being silenced, homes UNLAWFULLY invaded, police trained as military.

    This person needs to understand that his opinions, his words, his ideas were generated for him. None can see this so well as one who has almost NEVER wateched TV, refuses cell phones, etc. Takes no big pharma drugs, etc.

    Bertrand Russell,1953: “… Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible…” (“The Impact of Science on Society”, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1953)

    • Silveira v. Lockyer, 328 F.3d 567 (2003), Judge Alex Kozinski of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reminded us that the Second Amendment is not about duck hunting: “All too many of the other great tragedies of history – Stalin’s atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few – were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations. Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act required here. … If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars.
      “My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed – where the government refuses to stand for re-election and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.
      “Fortunately, the Framers were wise enough to entrench the right of the people to keep and bear arms within our constitutional structure. The purpose and importance of that right was still fresh in their minds, and they spelled it out clearly so it would not be forgotten.” Judge Alex Kozinski

  2. I’m sorry, this person is not a conservative. He refuses to acknowledge all of modern history that demonstrates the genius of the founders when they stated clearly that only an armed citizenry will prevent the creeping recurrence of tyranny. They did not even want a standing army , and feared a strong navy would simply take over ! Furthermore , his statement that more guns means more murder is WRONG ! The free states have far lower murder rates than the subject states that violate the Constitution with infringing guns laws. Gang warfare and drug abuse – fueled suicides are the main cause of our gun deaths. Other than those , even counting mass shootings , our gun death rate is actually lower than most of the rest of the world. And they all have mass killers too , though many go unreported. Keep your gun rights !

  3. Really well said Cal. The truth is there are mass shootings now days…I think it’s 91 mass shootings within the last 35 YEARS in the United States. The media loves to spread fear throughout society, painting a horrific picture of how easy it is to get a gun in the U.S. leading the public to the obvious conclusion that where there are guns, there is violence…THE TRUTH is less sensational, and therefore not really news worthy.
    Around a third of our population in the U.S. own a gun, (most of us have more than one) and that number is on the rise. Every day, these gun owners go about their day and NOTHING HAPPENS… no mass shooting, no murder, no drive by shooting, just ordinary, law abiding, tax paying citizens. Why do we need guns? Most of us view it as protection. We train regularly to use our guns and handle it safely. We teach our children how to handle a gun safely, like teaching children how to handle a knife in the kitchen safely. We view our guns/rifles as both tools for hunting as well as crime deterrents. There are many stories that happen everyday, everywhere of crimes stopped because either the almost-victim, or someone around them, was a concealed carry permitted gun owner. These stories go unnoticed by the media.
    I’m often asked by anti gun family and friends why it’s necessary? The fact is, home invasions are on the rise too…on average, there are 3.7 million burglaries that occur each year, in 1 million of those burglaries a homeowner was present. 270,000 of those burglaries become violent and are broken down further into assault and rape. Only around 8,000 of the 270,000 violent home invasions were stopped by a gun owner (no one was hurt, not even the criminal)…the rest chose to wait for someone to call the police. On average, police response time with a 911 call, is between 10-12 minutes.
    I personally choose to protect my family. I choose to be prepared for the worse case scenario, but hope for the best.
    In the unlikely event that my home is invaded by multiple attackers, I wouldn’t snub having an assault rifle in my safe, would ANYONE? Zombie invasions? Highly unlikely, but if it did happen I would much rather be prepared than helpless, wouldn’t everyone?

  4. My father served in the Marine Corps in Korea and I during Vietnam. The point being I had a father. If I got out of line I got spanked with a belt. Now we have both parents working and the children, although old enough to be alone are NOT old enough to supervise themselves or their siblings. They’re raised on MTV, members of the same sex kissing on prime time television during “the family hour” and being influenced by violent video games, movies and music. Many have no fathers to keep them in line and their mothers fear young men when they become mid teens. A HUGE part of the problem as I see it is the lack of supervision and discipline in the home. I spent summer camp with the local YMCA and among the activities were archery and shooting BB guns at pie pans. This wasn’t that far long after the second World War and Korea so people understood the importance of learning skills necessary for defending a country. When I was 14 years old I joined a shooting league in my home town (a small coastal town in Massachusetts if you can believe it). It was run my the police department and we had to go to glasses once a week for eight weeks before we were allowed to shoot. When we did shoot it was at the police range, we fired bolt action rifles (one round at a time) and each shooter had a police officer – volunteering to teach us on their own time – so there was no chance of a mishap – and there never were. Additionally we were taught by our fathers that if we ever touched our rifle while not being given permission or supervised by an adult you’d wish you were never born. This was also a time when if we even heard of the possibility that another kid in school had a weapon of any kind we’d report them to a teacher. It was a different world but we didn’t have the kind of crap that we’re seeing today. My gut tells me these are not the random shootings by crazed individuals anymore than what happened on 911 is what we were told. There are just too many facts that don’t add up in all cases. The government has a pattern of creating problems and then offering the solution which just happens to fit into their agenda. Want a war with the middle East? Create a condition (911) where people are screaming for revenge (Afghanistan and Iraq). They want to chip away at our freedoms so propose the Patriot Act on the heels of 911 when everyone is scared (helped by the mainstream media). They want guns out of the hands of the public so create conditions where people are screaming to have guns taken away. If and when that time comes all the evidence that surrounds us today will be clear as day in hind sight. Unfortunately once guns have been taken and destroyed you’ll NEVER get them back. Name one country that has outlawed firearms and then reverted back to firearm ownership – it simply won’t and doesn’t happen. As mentioned above most of the worlds genocidal atrocities could have been prevented had the people retained their gun rights. History WILL repeat itself if we let it. The only thing required for evil to exist is for good men to do nothing.

  5. If we lose the 2nd Amendment, we will soon after lose the other 9 Amendments that make up the Bill of Rights.

  6. if gun ownership is made illegal then only criminals will have guns just as they do in all those countries that have gun bans now or they will use easier to obtain bomb making materials.

Leave a Reply to Randy Cates Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*