George F. Will (courtesy washingtonpost.com)

“The National Rifle Association is perhaps correct and certainly is plausible in its ‘strong’ reading of the Second Amendment protection of private gun ownership. Therefore gun-control advocates who want to square their policy preferences with the Constitution should squarely face the need to deconstitutionalize the subject by repealing the embarrassing amendment.” – George F. Will in Hillary Clinton doesn’t want to repeal the 2nd Amendment. But in 1991, George Will did. [via washingtonpost.com]

BFG-Long-Logo-Blue-JPG-220x39

Recommended For You

55 Responses to Blue Force Gear Quote of the Day: George F. Will’s Call to Repeal the Second Amendment

      • The authortarian Democrats can always wait it out. 2m new 3rd world immigrants per year having 4 kids each, committing a lot of crime, and living off welfare. If immigration isn’t halted and reversed now, they’ll have all the votes and motivation they need to repeal the first 5 amendments.

        Anyone serious about his rights should join numbersusa and tell congress to restrict immigration now.

  1. Why bother with that when the government just ignores the constitution anyway? Good luck getting it repealed though.

  2. I think Obama’s conduct while president has shown the Democrat loyalists that little will happen if they ignore the Constitution. And with the prospect of stacking the Supreme Court with Democrat Party operatives, I think they now believe that they can simply have the Constitution interpreted any way they dictate. Scary freaking times, isn’t it.

  3. Clearly, the constitution has few friends across the entire political spectrum today. However, my right to self-defense exists separate and apart from the Constitution of the United States.

    Don’t doubt me.

      • Exactly.

        If government passed a law compelling women to have sex whenever any man demanded it (e.g. “legalizing” rape), such a law would be an abomination and I, for one, would defend any woman who acted in contravention of such a “law”.

      • I agree with you in principle that no government has the moral right to deny people self-defense, life, property, etc.

        In practice, however, the law is force. Simple, brute, force. So in practice, as long as the government has thugs with guns and clubs who will obey their orders, the government will attempt to deny those rights as a natural process of expansion. Matter of time.

        • Point of reality:

          Government has no rights, except in relation higher governments, and that only because the lower government is the protector of the people against the higher.

          A government is an artificial construct made by the people; it can have no more rights than can a symphony.

  4. Will, in his original article, argues that while gun-specific violence is obviously a terrible thing, the Second Amendment exists for a reason. I’m not sure that at this point Will believed that reason outweighed the “national tragedy” that was blacks being shot eleven times more than their white counterparts (nor do I know what he believes today). But he respected that reason.

    It would appear that Will is not, in fact, advocating the abolition of the Second Amendment. He is simply providing the advice that if gun-control advocates wish to truly control guns, they will need to amend the Second Amendment, to alter its raison d’etre.

    Of course, the quote above this the closing paragraph of Will’s original article, and without having read the rest of the piece (or ignoring it), Phillip Bump simply uses it in a desperate bid to bastardize George Will and find any example of a bid to repeal the Second Amendment.

    In short, just another opinion piece masquerading as “journalism”, to support an idea that some rights are scary, they ought not to be rights at all. But hey Mr. Will, I’m sure John Lott is jealous that your quote was even included at all.

    • Agreed, Will was just saying what has been said before even on this website. If you want to repeal the 2nd, then there is a process. Go do it. Call a Constructional Convention and see how that works out. The left will not, so they try to screw with it in other ways.

    • George Will should stick to writing books about baseball, it’s something he’s (apparently) pretty good at. (I know nothing about baseball, but I’ve heard from credible sources.)

      As for his ‘conservative’ credentials, they’re rather weak. He relies on verbiage to add gravitas to his helium. It seldom works.

      William F Buckley Jr he ain’t. Will is just a part of the Beltway machine, a decorative cog with a role to play, a show to put on, nothing more. At the end of the day, the machine rolls inexorably forward.

      • WFB and Will are two peas in a pod. They’re both sophistic dispensers of oleaginous treacle for pay, men of no tangible accomplishment, who revel in their country club upbringings whilst looking down their long, blue noses at the working man.

        • I proffer no rebuttal to your premise on the whole. I would merely suggest that WFB (Jr) was far more skillful oratorically, and has at least some bona fides to back his rhetoric. Served in the Army, worked for the CIA, outpublished Will 10:1 (books on children’s games not included), and founded National Review. Of which Will was a lackey for half a dozen years. Will accomplished almost nothing, save for in the halls of academia.

          They are both part of the landed gentry that we are not. However, Will’s old man was a professor at U of Illinois. Buckley senior owned oil wells. WFB Jr was educated all over the world. Will had a short stint at Magdelen College Oxford, otherwise he was North America only.

          We both know who was towel-boy at the club.

          Buckley believed, Will is merely a tool.

        • As a child of the ’70s (when young people still strove to be adults) I looked forward to Firing Line. I didn’t always agree with WFB Jr’s views, but they showed far more thoughtfulness than Will’s blather.

    • ^^This^^

      I think pro-gun folks should keep hooking the anti’s on that pesky constitution thing.

      If the anti’s can’t get the backing to do an amendment, maybe they aren’t so much speaking for “the people.” More like “some people”, maybe.

      If they’re just smarter and the rest of us shiuld just shut up and do what we are told, well, that’s something else, isn’t it?

      Politically, “Reform stuff” types never got over failing to pass the E R A … and took the wrong lesson from that failure to boot. They decided: “Screw it. Go around the law.” Better lessons might have been “Figure out how to make your case better.” and “Write narrow laws.” (Myself, I have a question about the E R A: What could it accomplish that vigorous enforcement of “equal protection” could not?)

      Ironically, as they try ever harder to jam their pereferred results through laws that don’t say that, they only make it harder for themselves. After Title IX “That means you can do what?”, and Patriot Act Section 215 “No, that’s not what we meant, said tha authors.” any proposed law is suspect.

      At this point no law is considered in terms of what they say it is for, but rather: “What shenanigans can they weasel in if we pass this?” More accurately: “What shenanigans are they planning to weasel in if we pass this, hoping we don’t notice until it is too late.”

      Will made a point citizen gun rights folks can build on. Ok, roll back the 2A. You get yr “No guns for you!” in D C, NYC, N Y State and Chicago. Then what else happens? You keep saying “common sense” but I don’t think that’s what you mean.

      You wanna sell a power grab, these days there are people asking: “O K. Great. Then, where does it stop?” This is a good thing.

  5. Repealing the second amendment does not change anything except that the government, instead of not infringing, will become hostile to our “God given rights” which they CANNOT take away. This will setup intense conflict when further attempts are made to takeaway something they have no authority over. I am confident that after a few disastrous (not just for the armed citizens, but for the police/military as well, plus a few politicians too) violent encounters, this new approach to gun control will be dropped. If not, there is going to be a lot of bloodshed before the people finally win this argument. The attrition of gun control supporters will be heavy and unmerciful. Got that George?

  6. Is there still a Constitution? When you have judges making up the laws according to their political affiliation and “feelings” versus the text of the law, the Constitution has no more relevance.

    Obama has put more than 400 judges into office. Long after he leaves, they will still be there spotting a left ideology versus the actual reading of laws.

    Voting for President is equal to voting for the courts. The Judiciary starting with SCOTUS is a joke and instead of a check on government, it is a check to make sure a certain ideology it put forth regardless of the law.

    You have today most of the judges that are democrats and most of the lawyers who are democrats. If they can continue to go left, the American courts will be no different than the corrupt South American courts.

    The American courts are a joke.

    • Pascal wrote …

      Is there still a Constitution? When you have judges making up the laws according to their political affiliation and “feelings” versus the text of the law, the Constitution has no more relevance.

      You, sir or ma’am, win the Intertubez for the year!

  7. If the government can get away with redefining the term sex in existing law to mean gender identity then just wait until Hillary has her way with the Supreme Court.

    • “If the government can get away with redefining the term sex in existing law to mean gender identity …”

      I don’t think our government has successfully implemented that yet. I anticipate Irish Democracy on a GRAND scale the likes of which Progressives could never have imagined.

      And here is some food for thought: any politician or law enforcement officer who directs the use of deadly force to protect the “right” of male pedophiles to peep, molest, and/or rape females in female bathrooms and locker rooms is going to find themselves wishing that they had NOT gone down that rabbit hole.

  8. This cretin is what passes as a “conservative” pundit. And thus marks the last thought I will give George Will this weekend. Instead, I will be remembering those who died to secure George Will’s freedom to spew whatever garbage he wants.

    • As noted above, Will was not advocating repeal, he was pointing out that If you want to ban guns then there is constitutional mechanism.

      This post summarizes in one paragraph the reason why the Republican nomination came down to Trump and Cruz. Supporters of these two candidates are constitutional illiterates who are As PC as any social justice warrior.

  9. What I find absolutely Crazy about gun control Is the simple fact is they’re trying to repeal the Second Amendment After we fought With the world’s greatest superpower to win our own independence from Great Britain some 220 plus years ago. Now they want to take all of our Bill of Rights one at a time from us. That is the biggest bunch of shit I’ve heard In many years. Say what you want about the NRA But they’re the largest group of people right now fighting the fight against the liberal progressives Who do not respect the Constitution and what it stands for in this country and in the world.

    • “Now they want to take all of our Bill of Rights one at a time from us.”

      And it’s not just ‘they’, meaning the Democrats and their Republican apologists, it’s a large percentage of the citizens who support them.

      I mean the fact that HRC has so many people supporting her tells us all we need to know about what people want out of our government, unrestrained socialism, with no regard for the rule of law or of equality under the law. Ends justify the means political activism, and corruption.

      To these people the second amendment is nothing but a speedbump. It should not be lost on us that the entire constitution is important, and if they cannot respect the second amendment, then the whole thing is out the window.

      This is what the people around us want?

    • The problem is the liberal progressives who at first wanted “social liberalism,” and “equality for all,” etc., have reached far beyond and into complete socialism, marxism, and redistribution of wealth and other anti-capitalistic realms. And… They firmly believe government is the solution. More government and more control.

  10. Children raise their hands to defend against a blow and this is why the second amendment will never be repealed. Government acknowledges this and elected representatives are legally establishing a framework of law to null 2A. Consider the 12000 laws on the books now, selectively enforced to quell any transgression on our liberties.

    California legislators blueprint just how it’s done, create an approve list, amend the list claiming manufactures non compliance then quietly remove them, assign elected representatives in strong democratic districts to bring pre written bills to the floor. Bills for background checks on ammo, bullet buttons, mag limits, and now make a legally purchased rifle legally if you don’t pay for the privilege of registering it.

    Make no mistake, citizens of CA will wake up and their guns rights are gone.

  11. I welcome Hillary’s call to eliminate the 2A.
    Bubba admitted his gun control efforts cost the Democrats the majority control of both houses of Congress in 1994.

    I see this as another example of how out-of-touch Hillary is with mainstream America,
    and another reason Trump will win in a landslide.

  12. Words are actually more dangerous than firearms. I propose a choice: Repeal the First Amendment or repeal George Will!

  13. civil war
    n
    (Military) war between parties, factions, or inhabitants of different regions within the same nation
    Civil War

  14. civil war
    n.
    1. A war between factions or regions of the same country.
    2. Civil War The war in the United States between the Union and the Confederacy from 1861 to 1865. Also called War Between the States.
    3. Civil War The war in England between the Parliamentarians and the Royalists from 1642 to 1648.
    4. A state of hostility or conflict between elements within an organization: “The broadcaster is in the midst of a civil war that has brought it to the brink of a complete management overhaul” (Bill Powell).
    American Heritage® Dictionary of th

  15. What he is saying is true, and more and more the antis are having to fly their anti flags a little bit higher which I think is a net win. They will get themselves in this vicious cycle where everyone is trying to out “California” each other and I think even the most left leaning moderates in this country won’t like that.

    I think there are a lot of people in this country who hate guns/ believe they are the problem with gun violence but would probably rather their elected officials to focus on more pressing issues affecting our country. So ultimately the more anti gun politicians who fly their flag the more they will lose ground. Things might get kind of dicey in the short term though.

    • That self-reinforcing spiral is also historically the most destructive political force there is…

  16. Sadly, they don’t to repeal it to neuter it.

    Look at the nonsense in California.

    No wonder Northern California wants a separation from Southern California.

  17. Does Will not currently still write for the Post? Isn’t this dredging up of a 20 year old, out of context snip-it (he was factually stating how the opposition should dismantle the 2nd, not advocating doing so) to support a conclusion he was opposed to, something of a “dick move” as far as journalism is concerned?

    • You’re right.

      I’ve been a moderator on several internet boards’ on all but one this item would have been deleted because the headline is lying (on the one, it would have been edited towards truth). People here decry lying headlines from the mainstream media; why does the site tolerate lying headlines from its own?

      • I’ve seen the quote before, I assumed TTAG had just dredged it up for clicks, then I saw it was the Post. Like I said, very unprofessional to dig up embarrassing material (esp out of context) on a peer to support your position.

        Makes me wonder if they’re trying to show him the door over there, which wouldn’t be surprising since he’s probably the most well-written conservative voice they’ve got (even then, only in an inside-the-beltway way). I’m sure they’d prefer all Republican punditry to be of Jennifer Rubin’s “quality”

  18. Well Bill O’Reilly(who is far from a conservative) thinks very little of Will. Ya’ know what? Let’s look at every anti-2A missive from whoever writes/speaks it. There is exactly none from me. Let’s look at Trump with a jaundiced eye. Words matter…

  19. On the next big “event”, they will most likely come for the ammo rather than the guns. Buy ammo now before a democrat is elected.

    • ^this

      If you live in a Democrat-controlled state, buy in bulk and stack it deep as those diabolical bastards and bitches in our legislatures have proven time and time again they will resort to most insidious schemes to violate and restrict OUR 2nd Amendment rights.

  20. Wittle Georgie Will, the insufferable prig and bespectacled poindexter, who gives a crap about anything that emanates from his pursed lips?

  21. You know, I don’t like Trump. I think a US foreign policy envisioned and run by a Trump administration will be even more of a disaster than the last 15 years (however hard that is to fathom).

    But this article by George Will is a great example of how sad and pathetic the “GOPe” is. This is why we have the conservative politicians we do with all their faults. Because a-holes like Will have been living in the DC bubble so long and forgot basic principles that are closer and more obvious to like, my mechanic for instance, than they are to the goofballs we pay $200K a year for in DC.

  22. The premise in the first paragraph is wrong, therefore his argument is not acceptable.
    The carnage is not a result of “uncontrolled private ownership”.
    The carnage is a result of not enforcing laws and social issues.
    He is a lemming idiot to throw the discussion out there without facts.

Leave a Reply

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