My Rebuttal to Rolling Stone’s call to repeal 2nd Amendment

June 17, 2016 in Uncategorized

Here’s a link to the article in question

The author of this article is either someone who is intellectually inferior or worse intellectually dishonest or knowingly spreading falsehood. I am not a constitutional scholar but I have read the damn thing and I have the internet. Let’s go line by line or at least paragraph by paragraph. So right in the beginning this constitutional scholar states that the constitution created a “representative democracy” this alone pretty much discredits this source as one of any intellect or intellectual integrity. Nowhere in the document does the word democracy ever appear. It does explicitly state that it creates a Republican form of government. The constitution established a Constitutional Republic which is much different from a Representative Democracy.

He then tells you how the founders were wrong about things. He is correct about this… but then he gives an example which is beyond retarded. The founders were wrong because the VP used to be the second place presidential candidate. Keep in mind that there were no political parties and there was a need to establish some succession path in the event of the president vacating the office. What better choice than the second place presidential contender (usually of a field of 8 or more candidates). Yes. They were wrong for doing this (sarcasm). It wasn’t until the advent of parties (a concept much reviled by many founders) that eventually the constitution was amended to change this policy. Either way the government functions and VP does nothing. What a stupid argument to attempt to demonstrate a black and white, right or wrong position by the founders.

On to slavery he criticizes the 20 year prohibition on amending the constitution to end the slave trade. To me this is very forward thinking of the founders. Keep in mind that without some concessions for the allowance of slavery there would be no constitution at all. This was obviously a negotiated position with the southern states. Note that it is not a permanent ban, only 20 years so by 1818 the constitution was already in line with today’s mainstream thoughts as far as allowing for the abolition of slavery.
He then states that racism was hard coded by the founders in the famous 3/5 clause. Well I am sorry constitutional scholar but you apparently can’t read. The 3/5th apportionment in the constitution applies to all non-Free men and non-indians. So this can be correctly inferred to being slaves. One must keep in mind though that there were many many white slaves in early America. No, not indentures servants but actual slaves. In fact just 10 years after the constitution was ratified England sold thousands of Irish slaves to the Americas after an insurrection in 1798. This is following nearly 300,000 estimated Irish were sold into slavery in the prior century (Approximately 1/5 the entire population of Irland). The derogatory term of Redneck originates as slang for the sunburned Irish slaves in the West Indies. So while this apportionment still isn’t cool in our day and age because 100% slavery is considered not cool by the mainstream world it’s not purely racist.

He off handedly mentioned two other problems with the constitution which should be fixed. Equal Rights for Women and Land area based representation in the senate. Holy shit really?? Mr. Scholar. There was an Equal Rights Amendment proposed in 1923 and passed in the 1970s. But it has stalled out in ratification. The interesting thing is why it has stalled out is that it is a net negative for American women. American woman are the most free and equal in the world already. Old school feminists realized slowly that true equality would only subject them to The Draft, Remove certain welfare benefits of being a woman etc. etc. All negatives when compared to reality of equal opportunity (and in the aforementioned cases preferential over males ) in the USA. In this way true equality is not desired

As far as the Land mass apportionment of the Senate I’ve never heard of this until now. Any “Constitutional Scholar” should know exactly why each state gets only 2 senators each. In fact this is a case where the founders had a more perfect system than we have now and history has shown that they were right in this case. Though the author would disagree with me, democratically elected Senators was basically a coup against the constitution. The federated power of the states was a big deal back then and the Senators were appointed by the state’s representative bodies. These same locally elected bodies could recall a senator at any time if they acted against the interest of the state. The senators tended to be the best and most honored members of the state’s own representative bodies. Now senators have no accountability to state legislatures. All they must do is win a general election once every 6 years. Now all that we have is a big House of Representatives and a Little One (the senate). This is a ridiculous situation from the view of the founders and this idea of apportionment due to land mass is an outgrowth of this original mistake made in 1913 to democratically elect Senators.

“In the face of yet another mass shooting, now is the time to acknowledge a profound but obvious truth – the Second Amendment is wrong for this country and needs to be jettisoned.”

Ok people. Let’s put on our thinking caps for just two sentences here. What is the most comparable event to this one which has happened most recently? Paris, France. I think that is fairly undisputedly true. Terrorists enter a night club with automatic weapons and explosives and begin to disassemble people for no good reason only about 9 months prior to this event. Did anyone call for France’s 2nd amendment to be revoked? NO… because they already don’t have one. In fact until this week Paris Police officers couldn’t even carry their weapons home with them from their precinct. That is until an off duty policeman was stabbed by another extremist. So just this week while the left in the USA is called for the end to citizens carrying gun France, one of the most disarmed societies in the world, is loosening its restrictions. Albeit, not by much.
There is one common thread about all of these shootings. I am sure you’ve heard this before. They all occur in areas where guns are prohibited for one reason or another. You don’t have to be super smart to see that Paris and Orlando are very similar. One thing they do not have in common is the 2nd amendment. People often say that correlation doesn’t mean causation. Well we don’t even have a correlation here with citizen gun ownership!!! But that is, according to left media and administration, absolutely the cause. We do have correlations with them being gun free zones, correlations with the religion of the gunmen, correlations with them all being 2nd generation refugees/middle eastern immigrants in their respective countries but these are not even be considered or discusses. No, it’s ALWAYS and ONLY the AUTOMATIC WEAPONS that are to blame!!!
I find it so infuriating that the left uses every single one of these tragedies to push their political interest to disarm the American citizenry. It’s really insulting to victims and their families that they are treated as pawns in the quest to further narrow the allowable activities of US residents. Please understand that the left does not want to get rid of guns. They want them all to themselves. They have never suggested disarming the police or their personal bodyguards. If Obama is so vehemently against automatic weapons why doesn’t he set a precedent and lead the charge by removing them from the secret service agents? But I digress.
“The Second Amendment needs to be repealed because it is outdated, a threat to liberty and a suicide pact.”
What exactly is it about the 2nd amendment that makes it outdated? He goes on:

“When the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791, there were no weapons remotely like the AR-15 assault rifle and many of the advances of modern weaponry.”

If this argument succeeds then soon the argument will be “The founders never could have foreseen mass communication tools like TV and the internet where people can make hateful comments and have them instantly exposed to the whole world. Therefore I call for the 1st amendment to be repealed”
Scarily enough people are already saying things like this. The fact of matter is ALL of early the amendments are under attack. This attack on the 2nd amendment is part of a larger campaign by both the left and neocons to effectively remove them all. All they want left of the constitution and bill of rights is the General Welfare clause in the preamble.
Next is his example of how the 2nd amendment is a suicide pact. An interesting supposition to make after 200+ years of having a second amendment doesn’t really seem to show this. Here is his paragraph:

“Just think of what would have happened in the Orlando night-club Saturday night if there had been many others armed. In a crowded, dark, loud dance club, after the shooter began firing, imagine if others took out their guns and started firing back. Yes, maybe they would have killed the shooter, but how would anyone else have known what exactly was going on? How would it not have devolved into mass confusion and fear followed by a large-scale shootout without anyone knowing who was the good guy with a gun, who was the bad guy with a gun, and who was just caught in the middle? The death toll could have been much higher if more people were armed.”

First of all I don’t believe it has been released yet if there were any casualties from the police raid which killed the terrorist. It is possible. So in any situation it’s entirely possible to have the “good guys with guns” mess up. That aside, just think for a moment about the scenario. Say you had 5 guys with guns in the club. It’s loud, and busy and now you as an armed person hear shots break out. Even if you can’t see the source, say if another armed citizen has opened fire first and you can only see him shooting at someone. Your best course of action to is to draw your weapon and prepare it and take cover while you are not being actively shot at and assess the situation or vise versa. A human’s first instinct in these crazy situations is well known to be to defend themselves and their immediate friends through fleeing or hiding anyways. Even armed individuals, excepting perhaps those with actual combat experience, wouldn’t be so bold as to stand their ground immediately. Even if they were battle hardened they would be probably be wise to increase their personal odds of survival by obtaining a more strategic or defensible position even if people are dying all around them. Once you are more or less secure you can use the extra tools at your disposal to be a hero. If the aforementioned first shooter is successful he will promptly stop shooting. Things will calm down and triage can commence. These are things and scenarios you actually think about in advance if you carry a weapon. Granted you cannot prepare for all situations or even a small number of them. If you have a better view of the situation you can see two other people hiding behind bars shooting with hand guns at a guy loaded down with ammo and bombs and an assault rifle and you can pretty much figure it out. This is all speculation and purely hypothetical. Only educated guesses of how this scenario might play out from a different perspective from that of the author. Since all these mass shootings happen in gun free zones we don’t know the answer. I would like to point out that the author’s argument is also completely speculative for the exact same reasons. This being his best argument which he saved for last I think it is a pretty damn weak case for repealing one of the fundamental axioms of our Constitutional Republic on sheer speculation. To round out this section I’d also like to point out that the Paris attacker were also strapped with suicide vest and many of them were used in the end. It was reported that the Orlando terrorist also had a suicide bomb of some kind but either he did not use it or it failed to function. Either way I’m pretty certain that suicide vests are already illegal and it is way more difficult to stop a man who walks into a crowded place ‘unarmed’ and blows himself up. Whether there is a 2nd amendment or not doesn’t matter as the threat is gone and the damage done. All without an assault rifle, but that’s a non-issue, right?

His closing statement: “We need a mass movement of those who are fed up with the long-dead Founders’ view of the world ruling current day politics. A mass movement of those who will stand up and say that our founding document was wrong and needs to be changed.[…] The Second Amendment must be repealed, and it is the essence of American democracy to say so.”

Well that certainly is true since, again according to the document (and all supporting documentation) he is an “expert” in and “teaches for a living”, the constitution does not establish a democracy. So his call to repeal the 2nd amendment is in line with his displayed aptitude on the subject and I’m sure it is the essence of whatever the hell he thinks he is talking about.