“Repeal the Second Amendment. It undergirds every rotten Supreme Court ruling that deprives states and local governments of their jurisdictional rights to regulate firearms as they see fit. While the Founders did not contemplate the Second Amendment as an anti-democracy measure, it is. Without it, guns can be regulated or not, left entirely alone or completely banned and everything in-between. The stupid Second Amendment is a guarantor of more Dylann Roof acts of terror, more Jared Loughner slaughters of innocents, more James Holmes delusional mass murders, more Seung Hui-Cho insane massacres.” – Tom H. Hastings in Four Steps Toward Ending Gun Violence [via floydcountytimes.com]

Recommended For You

113 Responses to Quote of The Day: Repeal The Second Amendment Edition

  1. Of course we should dump the second amendment. No one has EVER been killed by any other means than a gun before, so logically, no guns means no one will ever die again right?

    • The Second Amendment is also a guarantor that we will not suffer under people like Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, Lenin, Hitler, Ceaușescu, King George III, ISIS, Boko Haram, Los Zetas, etc. I am infinitely more frightened of those despots than I am of the “James Holmes” of the world. The Second Amendment is also our only real protection against the “James Holmes” of the world. We live in a world that contains people like James Holmes. I’d like to be able to protect myself and others from them.

    • I don’t know Dude? He’s rockin’ the power pony tail and the blazer over the T-shirt. I think this guy is not only smart but he is stickin’ it to the man!

      • He looks, and dresses, like a certain defense lawyer – a very successful one – I knew from my college days. Unlike this fool, the man I knew was adamantly civil rights minded, a true Constitutional believer, and would have spared no stone unturned to defend against 2nd Amendment infringements – even if he did not care for guns or own one.

      • It has been my observation that there is a very strong correlation between male ponytails and douche behavior.

        • Judging the individual by His/Her/It’s opinion, He/She/It is more closely aligned with a Socialist (Socialism being more for the People, NOT the Socialists). And, of course, since Socialists do not recognize gender, you’d be more correct to refer to that individual as a ‘SHim’.

        • What about the people with no gender. SHim is exclusionary towards them. So you need to go with SHit.

  2. So even this guy understands the 2A protects the right of the people by prohibiting government infringement.

    • And that’s why he’s so pissed. Like ISIS and other totalitarian minded souls, the ruling elite should be able to kill any citizen they see fit if that citizen doesn’t alqays bend to the ruling elite’s whims.

      • Dude, dude, don’t taint ISIS by associating them with this totalitarian backmarker. Most of those guys not only have the sense to arm themselves from what I can see; they even seem sensible enough to award their respective governments all the respect they are due.

  3. Has anyone told him that this sort of things happens in countries without RKBA too, and at a similar rate?

    If you’re going to focus on the mass shooting aspect, which is the least common and least preventable by laws and restrictions, at least be honest about it.

    Also lose that ridiculous ponytail. how old are you, 65? dude. Enough.

  4. At least he is honest and wants to do it the right way instead of executive orders, unconstitutional legislation or court rulings that twist original intent into a pretzel to justify their political agenda. As for repealing the 2A… good luck.

    • So much this. If you want to repeal the 2nd (or any amendment) there is a process. But undermining the rule of law in order to increase the rule of law makes no damn sense whatsoever. Grant the government the freedom to take away your rights and you might be surprised to find out how well that ends.

      • Well put.

        A set of straightforward laws, easy to understand and abide by, are far preferable – to the citizen – than a morass nobody can penetrate.

        Of course the latter is preferable to a totalitarian state because it makes it far easier to charge anyone with something.

    • Yes and no. Instead of doing end runs around the 2A, he just wants it gone so he can waltz right over people’s rights. In the original article he talks about the 2A being an impediment preventing government from doing whatever it wants.

      I’m not seeing him as respecting the Second Amendment and wanting to work within the system, but rather him resenting the Second Amendment and wanting a different system to work with.

  5. scoff all you want, but the ponytail and blazer over a t-shirt give him an unimpeachable level of credibility. this scholar obviously knows more about constitutional law than you or I do.

    • That was the first thought I had. I swear I did not copy you. I just posted it above at the first person to scoff and had not read through all the comments yet. People like to disregard stereotypes. I say to them, stop being so stereotypical.

    • … and we’re all familiar with the good things Constitutional lawyers of this caliber can accomplish, right up to and including in the White House.
      (/sarc)

  6. To repeal the 2nd ammendment is to start a war. It was put in place to allow the citizenry to defend themselves from a corrupt and over reaching government. If you threaten to tale that away, the aftermath will be much like all of these recent movies; Hunger Games, Divergent, etc in which a corrupt govt has absolute control.
    Sheep need to be led, but when the wolf is doing the leading they dont know they made a bad decision until they become wolf excrement.

    • This is why I like these movies. It shows that what people think are the under dogs can rise up against a huge goverment, and to stand up for your rights.

    • I don’t know if anyone here has read the books, but there’s a passage very early in the first one that I found very interesting. Katniss is heading out beyond the fence to hunt:

      Even though trespassing in the woods is illegal and poaching carries the severest of penalties, more people would risk it if they had weapons. But most are not bold enough to venture out with just a knife. My bow is a rarity, crafted by my father along with a few others that I keep well hidden in the woods, carefully wrapped in waterproof covers. My father could have made good money selling them, but if the officials found out he would have been publicly executed for inciting a rebellion.

      Most of the Peacekeepers turn a blind eye to the few of us who hunt because they’re as hungry for fresh meat as anybody is. In fact, they’re among our best customers. But the idea that someone might be arming the Seam would never have been allowed.

      Seeing that made me wonder if Suzanne Collins has some pro-gun leanings. It’s a good thought to put into young readers’ heads, even if it’s only a fleeting one.

  7. Aside from his beliefs on the Second Amendment and foreign policy, the author is a parasite on the taxpayer. “Peace and Conflict Transformation”, zero wars have been stopped by this man and his kind.

  8. Mr. Hastings seems to be an earnest, good natured hippy who happens to be totally detached from reality (natch). Anyway, I saw this up at Sipsey Street yesterday. Mike is right in that these starry eyed dreamers have no idea what the repercussions would be from the forces that they would seek to unleash. The Law of Unintended Consequences is heartless, and that escapes them, if they’re even aware of it. Nor do they have any idea what fourth generation asymmetrical warfare would look like in the American context. Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    • Not just the warfare but the intrinsic privacy violations required to confiscate guns if the 2A were repealed.

  9. While the Founders did not contemplate the Second Amendment as an anti-democracy measure, it is.

    The entire constitution, and especially the Bill of Rights, constitutes an anti-democracy measure – because our form of government is not a democracy, but rather a constitutional republic. Democracy (majority rule) is subservient to the Rule of Law.

    Without it, guns can be regulated or not, left entirely alone or completely banned and everything in-between.

    Yes, that’s the intent. Full points on that answer. Well done.

    The stupid Second Amendment is a guarantor of more Dylann Roof acts of terror…

    The victims in this attack were disarmed by statute, in contradiction to the simple wording of the second amendment. Thus, this attack represents the outcome of an instance where the second amendment was violated by state law.

    …more Jared Loughner slaughters of innocents…

    The victims in this attack were disarmed by statute, in contradiction to the simple wording of the second amendment. Thus, this attack represents the outcome of an instance where the second amendment was violated by state law.

    …more James Holmes delusional mass murders…

    The victims in this attack were disarmed by statute, in contradiction to the simple wording of the second amendment. Thus, this attack represents the outcome of an instance where the second amendment was violated by state law.

    …more Seung Hui-Cho insane massacres.

    The victims in this attack were disarmed by statute, in contradiction to the simple wording of the second amendment. Thus, this attack represents the outcome of an instance where the second amendment was violated by state law.

    Repeal the Second Amendment.

    To the contrary, as your examples so aptly demonstrate: repeal Gun Free Zones.

    • ” In my field of Peace and Conflict Transformation, we analyze the outbreak of destructive conflict as requiring three levels of causation. If any of the three are missing, the conflict will not turn destructive.”

      Chip, your logic bomb crapped on his thesis as well his profession.

    • I don’t think Jared Loughner committed his crimes in a gun free zone. I seem to remember one person had a weapon but had stepped in a store to buy cigarettes and by the time he got out Loughner was being wrestled to the ground so he never drew his weapon. I think his was one of two mass shootings that didn’t happen in a gun free zone in the last 4 or 5 decades.

    • I’m glad I read before posting, as I’ve found someone who has said what I wished to say and has done so with more depth and eloquence than I can muster right now.

    • Well stated Chip.

      The most important statement …

      While the Founders did not contemplate the Second Amendment as an anti-democracy measure, it is.

      The Founders absolutely contemplated and therefore added the Second Amendment as an anti-democracy measure.

      The Second Amendment is there to codify our right to defend ourselves with force of arms from any mob who endeavors to deny our rights to life, liberty, and property. Whether the mob shows up at our property with torches and pitchforks or outsources that activity to government (through elections and passing laws of course) is immaterial.

      And yes … every single example that Mr. Douchebag listed were instances where all the victims were unarmed — just like Mr. Douchebag wants. What amazes me is that he wasn’t able to connect the dots.

    • Yup.
      I was going to contribute to that, but I saw that regular readers there took him to the woodshed quite nicely.

      • The comment section is gold. I really liked this one:

        “”Invest in dialog”. That little meme with the “you’re a special kind of stupid, aren’t you?” applies to the author of this anti-firearm hit piece.”

        Man, I really needed a morale pick-me-up after SCOTUS dropped that turd today.

  10. Don’t worry. I’m from Floyd County, KY and this “newspaper” is possibly the worst written rag of all time. I have counted more than a dozen errors in a two paragraph article and the articles themselves are lacking in any form of intelligence. Only the elderly who sit at McDonald’s all day read this garbage.

  11. Getting rid of the 2nd Amendment does not mean getting rid of guns or gun owners. It means states like Florida, Texas, and Montana should learn to rule wisely after they take over NY, NJ, CA, etc.

    • That’s something that I’ve wondered about myself. What would gun laws look like from state to state? Certainly, states like CA, NY, NJ, & HI would do away with all private ownership of weapons, but states like KS, AK, WY and others might swing the other way.

      They always use repeal of the Second Amendment as the first step of what they really want, no private ownership of firearms.

  12. This guy is the Deepak Chokra of “peace and conflict transformation;” spitting out semi coherent greek salad for hipsters to twirl their goatees to. I’m sure he makes good money on the side teaching womb regression therapy or some nonsense.

    He has other great ideas, too. Get a load of this;

    3. For states that want to radically reduce gun violence, institute much more effective background evaluations that would keep guns out of the hands of those who have websites or any other activities or histories advocating race war or any other violent abomination. Can we use a bit of common sense here?

    I’m gonna go out on a limb here and guess he thinks they’ll be targeting SPLCs “hate list” (Ben Carson, Focus on the Family) and not world star hip hop.

  13. Not to go all ad hominem but this guy is seriously ugly. Is it just me or are most of these Lefties/totalitarians really hard to look at? The women who rant and rave about this issue from the Left are typically fugly as can be. Shannon is not that bad but the rest are truly scary looking.

    Folks like this should not be allowed to walk around in the daytime, they’re too scary looking. That Mark Potok character from the so called Southern Poverty Law Center is another one.

    That is all.

  14. When someone speaks of repealing the 2nd Amendment, I have to wonder what makes them think the 2nd is fundamentally different from any of the others in the Bill of Rights. Such drastic action would set a horrible precedent that would mean that either:
    1. they are not rights, but rather privileges granted by the State, to be revoked at their discretion, or else
    2. that they are not really protected and can be suppressed at any time.

    What makes people believe this will stop with the 2nd? Once that one’s eliminated, wouldn’t it make sense that others will be targeted? If the right to keep and bear arms is some outdated ideal that worked fine in the 18th century but is now unnecessary, what about the amendments concerning the rights of the accused (after all, the founding fathers could never have conceived we’d be facing TERRORISTS)? What about freedom of religion (in this enlightened age, is there a reason to protect “superstitions”) or freedom of the press (surely they meant professional journalists, not every idiot with an Internet connection)?

    It’s bad enough to say that one does not feel that people have the right to keep and bear arms. To say that the a part of the Bill of Rights ought to be repealed, however, is to say that one does not feel that we truly have ANY rights. An attack on any right is an attack on all rights.

    • To clarify, the statements in parentheses are what I imagine arguments against these ideas would be, and in no way reflect my own beliefs.

  15. “While the Founders did not contemplate the Second Amendment as an anti-democracy measure, it is.”

    Well democracy is mob rule, two wolves and a sheep deciding on lunch and all that. So I imagine they did see it as a sort of bulwark for the rights of the individual, particularly against a runaway government.

    “Without it, guns can be regulated or not, left entirely alone or completely banned and everything in-between.” This is almost a proggie ad lib, theyll just replace guns with free speech when they get to that bridge…

    Man, these turds love naming and immortalizing their “buddies” who gave them a particular bloody shirt.

  16. Actually, the Founding Fathers did mean the Second Amendment and the other rights found in the Bill of Rights to be “anti-democratic.” They did not think that these rights should be subject to a democratic vote. We do not live in a democracy. We live in Republic with a written Constitution.

  17. Tom,

    The Second Amendment is an issue of freedom and freedom is worth fighting for it’s worth killing for it’s worth dying for so what do you really think would happen if you repealed it?

  18. Well since you asked in such a nice way, here. Take my guns. Melt them down and make wind mill blades. And while you’re at it, take all of my freedom and rights. Tell me how to live and what to believe. Show me the way of my new master and I will peacefully serve in that capacity. And if I should fail to be of use to this new enlightened society, place me where I can be of service. If I am unwilling or incapable of service, feel free to terminate this organic compound we call a human body for I do not wish to be a burden on this Utopian society.
    Now had you been mean about it and used guns to force me into submission, I would feel compelled to point out the hypocrisy in that act and would be forced to use armed resistance. Get it? It takes the 2nd Amendment to rid the 2nd Amendment.

    • I respect that man’s patience. How does one stare into the slack jawed face of true ignorance and evil and give it an intelligent answer that only an intelligent human deserves?

  19. This is one of those 60’s anti war protesters that just can’t let go. The type that had their college deferment to be exempt from the draft and occupied their college campuses protesting the Vietnam war , which they never would have to go to.
    Then there was the type that went to Canada until Jimmy Carter let them come back with full immunity . That is what this individual represents.
    They amble on and on sputtering out words that amount to nothing. It takes them three paragraphs to explain something that cold could be said in one sentence.
    Then there was the other end of the spectrum. he guys that did what had to be done. Who got greeted from our tours of duty by assholes like that throwing bags of crap at us.
    Yes I am very familiar with this species.

    • ” one of those 60’s anti war protesters that just can’t let go”

      You mean the vast majority of American college and university professors today? :p

  20. If they repeal it then Civil War II will break out and we can make this country great again.

    • It would be called the Weekend War. The actual fighting between the Government Jack Booted Thugs and pro 2A supporters would last a few hours and some citizens would be taken without incident. Others would be killed, yet many tyrants would die as well. Then the bystanders, WOROL, would start the typical looting and rioting. The tyrants would be caught in the middle. They would have to pull out of areas where the riots are exceedingly violent or they would have to direct resources to deal with it. Meanwhile those of us with fire power can organize and plan counter strikes. It will not be a peaceful door to door confiscation while the world burns down around them. They can’t focus on a door breach when they have to also watch their backs. Now couple that with those among their own ranks that will not comply. Imagine Waco but everywhere all at once. Might not even last the weekend.

  21. “I prefer dangerour freedom over peaceful slavery.” – Thomas Jefferson

    I’ll take a few Dylann Roofs, Jared Loughners, James Holmes, and Seung Hui-Cho without gun control over Mehmed V (1.5 million murdered – Ottoman Empire), Hitler (13 million murdered – Germany), Stalin (tens of millions murdered – USSR).

    • What about the plain old increases in vilent crime and homicide seen in countries like the UK and Australia, et al in the wake of gun control? Is it really better to get rid of mass shootings if those deaths are replaced with a surplus by more mundane deaths? Isn’t more people dying worse no matter how you slice it?

  22. bet this Dude was another Hippie Draft dodger like Clinton, Must live in Colorado and sucking down some serious weed to be as mind dead as this person!

  23. The only stupidity here is the writer’s ignorance of the history of the Bill of Rights. In an effort to shine light into the darkness of Mr. Hasting’s mind I will remind him of this. The States, when they were asked to ratify the original Constitution demanded that the Bill of Rights be included. Otherwise there would not be the founding document. These rights were acknowledged as God given and superseding the Constitution. They CANNOT be repealed by anyone for any reason. Statists, such as Mr. Hastings has demonstrated himself to be, would like nothing more than to repeal these rights in order to impose their ideas. We are citizens, not subjects and we never will be.

  24. It’s the incorporation double edged sword. The constitution, and it’s amendments, were sold to limit the general government, not the states or people. Now the bill of “rights” is held against all governments, but the nine infallible in black make the decisions for 310,000,000ish people forever and ever, amen. Until the PEOPLE are truly sovereign and we stop relying on the state to “give us” our rights, we will be under the state thumb. A person has a better chance to turn the mule’s course than the two ton bull that is the Empire.

  25. Here is what makes me laugh about calls for repealing or changing 2A. Even when lawyers talk about it, they never address what that would really take. They rarely seem to bring up Article V of the Constitution that lays out the rules. There are multiple paths and some scholars say that in theory Article V may not be the only route, but it is clear any other route would get tied up in court for years. The “simple” path would be:

    1. 2/3 of the House AND 2/3 of Senate have to propose the change.
    2. Then 3/4 of the state legislatures have to ratify the change.

    Can these idiots possibly imagine that could actually happen with 2A? 2/3 of a Republican federal legislature is going to propose 2A be repealed? Not gonna happen! Then 38 states would ratify, given that we have 43 states that are “shall issue?” Not gonna happen. Witness the fact that even when the political situation was more favorable no one ever started such a proceeding. Doing anything to 2A doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell, so people who talk about it are completely full of shit. I’d actually like to see them try it. It would be such an epic fail that it would send a huge message.

    Their only possible effective strategy is what they have been doing, which is end-running 2A will infringing laws, executive orders and illegal law enforcement actions.

  26. Hahah, outstanding post. As I was reading it a unicorn floated majestically into my life showering me with the love of 1000 kittens! My eyes moistened by the peace and love so beautifully scibed in this article I suddenly realized I have been living life all wrong! No longer will I rely on my extensive collection of freedom sticks to protect my family from evil, foreign or domestice, I will call out to the peace bunnies to quell my quarrel!

  27. You just KNOW Obama and every other Anti feels exactly the same way, despite all of their ‘ohhh, we support the 2nd Amendment’ crap. At least this unicorn-riding, willie nelson wanna-be, flower-tossin hippie came right out and said it.

  28. I’m sure Mr. Hastings would like the RKBA to be decided at state and local levels and he would be fine with that. I’m also sure if you told Mr. Hastings the same ought to be done with gay marriage he would call you a homophobe. Lest his ilk would in the same situation.

  29. His first premise is unspeakably stupid: “First, there are a few necessary conditions without which a conflict cannot become destructive. These necessary conditions are primarily that the means to destroy are available and that a conflict party is willing and able to employ them.”

    Ok smart guy, how do we make the “means to destroy” unavailable? Your answer is gun control / prohibition. Let’s examine some history.

    In the 1920’s we outlawed alcohol in order to reduce drunkenness, violence, and vice. As a consequence, people defied the law. Organized crime stepped up to supply the demand, and gangsters fought bloody turf wars to increase their territory and profits. Those same gangsters brought prostitution, gambling, and all other manner of vice along with the alcohol. Alcohol was available to anyone who knew where to get it. The end result was that Prohibition was self defeating. It increased everything it sought to destroy.

    For the last fifty years we have been fighting the war on drugs. Many drugs are outlawed, yet our streets are flooded with them. Drugs are available to anyone who knows where to get them. Criminal gangs fight turf wars over them, turning areas like the South side of Chicago into war zones. Mexican cartels fight for the right to supply the US, resulting in violence on both sides of the border.

    What do you suppose will happen if we outlaw guns?

      • When they felt empowered. They started as Vietnam War protesters which was a flop until Walter Cronkite uttered his famous words of defeat. Then the activism movement took hold of some of the more ambitious leaders and they ran for office. Their roots are in little people being victimized by the establishment but now they are the establishment. They like the power and control and they fall back on the only thing they know to rile up support. You are a victim. That cry motivated them when they were hippie protesters and they know it will strike a chord with the masses in order to keep the elite in power. I am sure there are some old “free love” generation politicians that would just love to buy the world a Coke live in harmony. But most of them are frauds to the old movement and simply exploited it for power or just became corrupt once they achieved it.
        Maybe I’m wrong.

  30. “…Tombstone Territory USA, where cars are getting safer and guns are getting more lethal?”
    Guns “more lethal”? What? The guns available this year will make you more dead-er than the ones available last year?
    Are his views (however earnest) the result of huffing unicorn farts?
    So many questions…so many strange people out there.

  31. Don’t bogard that joint-pass it over to me. Sadly I have very old friends who look(but don’t ACT) like this doofus. And Silver asked when these hippies turned-when they made some bucks…

  32. A specious argument.

    Perhaps the 21st Amendment that ended prohibition should be repealed and the 18th Amendment that started prohibition of alcohol should be reinstated. After all the number of alcohol deaths each year in the US (from 2006-2010) was 88,000. ref http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm and 2.5 million a year worldwide.
    https://ncadd.org/in-the-news/155-25-million-alcohol-related-deaths-worldwide-annually

    How Hastings sleeps at night knowing so many are killed by alcohol, I cannot say. /sarc

  33. Constitutional protection of human rights is undemocratic? A violation of state’s rights? By this logic the entire Constitution should be repealed and replaced, because it protects the rights of the individual (probably the single most important element of a constitution). I want to see a follow-up article railing against government overreach in ending racial segregation and slavery and calling for a repeal of the entire Bill of Rights (as a start), or the author is being philosophically inconsistent. Somehow I get the feeling that the author does want the end of Constitutional rights, he’s just selectively wanting to remove certain rights with no logically valid metric for deciding which rights the government should not protect. Just the rights of “stupid, dangerous, intolerant, biased, paranoid, demeaning gun nut peabrain rednecks”. No rights he exercises or cares about, just anything he can do to render his political opposition impotent.

    • “I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, have an independent judiciary. It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done.”
      Ruth Bader Ginsburg

    • Exactly this. The Constitution IS undemocratic. It protects the rights of the minority and prevents mob rule.

      And the Supreme Court has been very hesitant to intervene in the state regulation of firearms, 10th Amendment and all. Maybe if he read the entire Constitution instead of stopping at 2A he would have a better perspective.

  34. It’s funny how these kinds of people are all about states’ rights and local control when it comes to guns, but when the topic is healthcare or schools or pretty much anything else, they want a Federal solution.

  35. Mr. Hastings: Your commune called. They’re rolling a fat one. Enjoy the return to your hippie lettuce induced utopia.

  36. I wonder if this guy makes a “State’s Rights” argument on other issues or if this is the only one…

  37. Dear Aging Hippy Douche Nozzle,
    Get bent.

    Sincerely,
    Everyone who’s ever had to suffer through one of your idiotic pseudo-intellectual bloviations.

  38. The failure in the Roof shootings was entirely the governments. Had they acted on the drug charges Roof’s information would have been in the database and he wouldn’t have gotten the gun.
    Repealing the Second Amendment would not have stopped Roof. Unless this was after the nation wide door to door search of all habitations, seizing the guns.
    Then he would likely have resorted to firebombs, pipe mobs, fertilizer bombs, knives, arrows…

  39. Folks, democracy needs to be strictly controlled. Remember learning about the Lincoln Douglas debate? The pro slavery Douglas tried to use democracy to try to allow newly formed states to decide for themselves if they want to be slave states. People also tend to vote with their emotions and not with rational thought. I became anti democracy when Iearned about pseudoscience and how normal it is to vote based on myth.

  40. Actually I bet they DID see it as an anti democracy measure, that makes sense considering they were framing a republic and wanted to defend it against tyrants in the form of both individuals and mobs.

    I wish when these people would use the word democracy in respect to the U.S. government someone would correct them on the spot.

Leave a Reply

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