Letter - Well, effort to repeal Second Amendment is here

Advertisement

I’ve just witnessed something I never thought I’d see in my lifetime, even though I’ve warned that it was coming.

In a recent column, Jerry Large of The Seattle Times (naturally) wrote an absolutely shocking piece titled, “Common sense calls for repeal of Second Amendment.”

As soldiers in Vietnam used to say, “There it is.”

Has it occurred to dupes, like Large, that the amendment he wants to remove from the Constitution is, in fact, the cornerstone of the entire Bill of Rights?

I’ve warned for years that the ultimate goal of the anti-gun lobby is to totally disarm America’s citizens and to erase the Second Amendment from the Constitution.

For my efforts, I’ve been scorned, ridiculed and called paranoid and delusional. After all, the anti-gun lobby just wants to be “reasonable,” right?

After Large’s revelation, I rest my case!

What’s next from the Marxist left? Will it soon be asking for restrictions on our First Amendment rights, especially for conservatives? Leftists are already accusing us conservatives of “hate speech” if we dare to disagree with their evil, America-destroying agenda.

Also, it’s a moot point to argue about Initiative 594. I-594 is a done deal! As I’ve said, Washington state is owned and operated by the far left and it has the majority vote. That’s why we’ve seen a succession of outrages become law here.

I-594 is another repressive gun measure that’s aimed, purposely, at the law-abiding. It’s a solution to a nonexistent problem and another steppingstone to eventual gun confiscation.

Finally, our local cheerleader for I-594 says it will stop violence caused by guns. It’s truly ironic that the liberals, who want to stop gun violence, are the exact same liberals who have no qualms, whatsoever, about the unspeakable violence they’ve committed against the unborn. Altogether now, spell “hypocrisy.”

Curtis E. Stone

Dayton

Comments

barracuda 7 months, 1 week ago

Gun control is like attempting to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.

1

jubilado 7 months, 1 week ago

Mr. Stone you said "After Large’s revelation, I rest my case!" The only revelation you have really is that Jerry Large says he wants to abolish the 2nd Amendment. I'm sure he knows that it would be impossible to do. It a stupid statement to boot. It would be considered an inadvisable thing to do by virtually 100% of proponents of I-594, many of whom are gun owners. I suspect he did it for shock value to advance his career. He did a huge disservice to reasonable proposals like I-594 by allowing people such as yourself to say "There it is" and go on about Marxists.. I'm guessing that if you if you interviewed everyone in Walla Walla County you might find 3 professed Marxists or, more likely, zero. Please note that a recent gun show in Tacoma was asked to insure that everyone would have a background check. The company running the show complied. The sun still rose in the east the next day;.

0

stvsngltn 7 months, 1 week ago

Most of those who support I-594 do so out of ignorance as to the actual problems it will bring. It sounds like sensible legislation on the surface at first blush .... but it is not. Nor will it really do what people think -- prevent criminals from getting guns. It will only hinder law-abiding citizens and worse -- expose them to possible criminal charges if they make an innocent mistake in transferring a firearm to a legitimate recipient. I suspect it will pass, thanks to the Seattle area voters .... but once it becomes law .... then we'll find out what I'm talking about.

1

jubilado 7 months, 1 week ago

For the sake of interest, here is Justice Scalia's dicta in the case of District of Columbia v Heller (he voted with the majority in the case in which SCOTUS said Heller had the right to own a handgun in DC.):

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose. Before turning to limitations upon the individual right, however, we must determine whether the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment comports with our interpretation of the operative clause.

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”
0

VampireNinja 7 months, 1 week ago

Don't fret citizens! If the 2nd Amendment is repealed then , we can still use and modify personal or mounted binary flamethrowers with impunity since they are not regulated whatsoever. Besides, the 2A will be repealed when the Styx's waters reach exactly 273.15 Kelvin,

0

Sign in to comment

Click here to sign in