Lichtman: It’s Time to Repeal the Second Amendment to Build a Safer America

Allan J. Lichtman

(AP Photo/Matthew Houston)

This upcoming book from American University distinguished professor of history Allan J. Licthman will have members of the Civilian Disarmament Industrial Complex camped out in front of book stores and repeatedly hitting the ‘BUY NOW’ at Amazon in anxious anticipation of having their world view reinforced.

Why has America lagged behind the democratic world in protecting its citizens from needless death and injury? The culprit is not spending by the NRA on campaigns and lobbying, which other pressure groups exceed. The real problem is that which gun control advocates fear to name: the Second Amendment. Led by the NRA, the gun lobby exploits a historically defective, perverse reinvention of this amendment to inspire their grassroots supporters, sell guns, and provide constitutional cover for their opposition to making us safer by regulating firearms.

The competing movement for gun control has floundered in response to the gun lobby’s triumphant marketing of the Second Amendment. Gun control advocates have righteous zeal and noble motives but lack a winning strategy. Instead of forthrightly refuting the lobby’s bogus claims, the gun control movement has instead fallen into the trap of lamely insisting, “We support the Second Amendment, but we also support responsible gun control.” With such a self-defeating strategy, the movement can never win. It plays on the gun lobby’s home turf and fails to rally the American majority that favors stricter firearms regulations. It provokes only scorn from a gun lobby that dismisses “yes, but” assurances as rank hypocrisy. And it ignores the clear history and the true meaning of the Second Amendment itself.

The movement for gun control must strike hard with a new strategy. Repeal of the Second Amendment is not only right, but realistic. It would break open the political logjam and open a path for the comprehensive, national gun control and safety measures that have eluded the American people for so long. None of these measures would confiscate firearms or stop Americans from using guns for hunting, sports shooting, antique collecting, or legitimate self-defense.

– Allan J. Lichtman in Repeal the Second Amendment: The Case for a Safer America

comments

  1. avatar GS650G says:

    Good luck with that my friend.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      the consensus just doesn’t exist to make that happen…this guy is just spitting into the wind…

      1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

        🎶 You don’t tug on superman’s cape
        You don’t spit into the wind
        You don’t pull the mask off that old lone ranger
        And you don’t mess around with Jim 🎶

        1. avatar Rick the Bear says:

          A classic Croce story!

        2. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          “And you don’t mess around with Jim 🎶”

          At the end of the song, Jim didn’t survive his encounter with Slim… 😉

        3. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

          Yeah, Leroy Brown had a similar problem.

        4. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          Leroy forgot about his .32 gun in his pocket for fun. Would have come in handy for self defense.

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Leroy forgot about his .32 gun in his pocket for fun. Would have come in handy for self defense.”

          The razor blade in his shoe apparently wasn’t much help, either.

        6. avatar Firingpin says:

          Crimson pirate, is that anything like the Crimson trace green laser I have on my my handgun?

        7. avatar enuf says:

          Jim Croce, one of our greatest ever balladeers with a guitar. Taken far too soon, and just as he was becoming successful and well known.

          Hell of a shame.

        8. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          A little piece of music trivia here enuf, Jim Croce had one of the three posthumous #1 singles for a re-release of ‘Time in a Bottle’. The other two were Janis Joplin’s ‘Me and Bobby McGee’ and Otis Redding’s ‘Sittin’ on the Dock of the Bay’. Croce also had a #9 posthumous hit in ‘I’ll Have To Say I Love You In A Song’ and a #10 in ‘I Got A Name’. Otis and Croce went far too young, but they did at least have the decency to die respectably, which wasn’t so common in that era.

      2. avatar Missouri_Mule says:

        Or selling books?

      3. avatar Matt says:

        No, no, no. I think he is on to something. Roll back all gun control. If we want some, repeal or amend the 2nd amendment. Until then…

        So, I’ll wait around for that constitutional convention or 3/4ths of the states actually agreeing to roll back the 2nd. I am young enough, but I still doubt that’ll happen in my life time.

      4. avatar Joel says:

        Lichtman’s April 2017 book was The Case for Impeachment. In the book, the author argues that Trump’s ties to Russia would open him up to charges of treason. So, apparently the distinguished professor is a Russia truther/ Clinton flack.

    2. avatar Herb Allen says:

      Why is the cop dragging the perfesser away? Musta did sumpin’.

      1. avatar Everyday_Carrier says:

        well… probably…

        but if you are a cop and you follow someone long enough, there is bound to be an infraction somewhere…

    3. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      ‘Repeal of the Second Amendment is not only right, but realistic.’

      One has to wonder if he knows that repealing the 2nd Amendment requires a 2/3 majority in congress and ratification by 38 states.

      1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        They have a plan for that, part of it being that ‘states compact’ for electors to vote for the candidate with the highest national vote. They fully intend to use ‘mob rule’ to get their way, while calling it ‘Democratic’…

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “They fully intend to use ‘mob rule’ to get their way, while calling it ‘Democratic’…”

          Democracy is mob rule. It is why Sparta had to defend Athens; the populace could not come to a democratically arrived decision on if, as, when and how to deal with the Persians. “The Mob” could not decide, which was a democratic decision in itself.

        2. avatar Craig in IA says:

          “Democracy is mob rule.” Absolutely correct. I wish more Americans understood that, and also understood that our form of government is a republic. Government through elected representatives. Understanding all that might give some an incentive to actually follow the candidates (for any office) and get off their butts and vote.

    4. avatar arc says:

      Rather than change America, Allan J. Licthman can pick any disarmed country in the world and move to it.

    5. avatar Seentoomuch says:

      The 2nd Amendment is going to be repealed one day. This will happen unless we change our public educational system and the tenure of these liberal professors. Our youngsters are being indoctrinated and under-educated. Keep this up for another generation and you can kiss your freedoms goodbye. The liberals in the mass media, the entertainment industry and the educational system are colluding to fill the brains of our young and our naïve with garbage that will lead to the loss of freedom and the beginning of tyranny in our beloved United States of America. If we don’t wake up soon, it will happen. You can’t even stay on topic on something this serious so I really don’t think you will ever WAKE UP!

  2. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

    Yeah…good luck with that.
    At the same time…get rid of birthright citizenship and make females sign up for the draft.
    Make it 21 to drive…nationwide.
    Background checks and permits in order to have kids or vote.
    How about we get tough on CRIMINALS using guns?
    Oh…that would be racist…I forgot.

    1. avatar Hillbilly says:

      Yes if women want “equal” rights women can be drafted too. This also includes passing the same PT standards as men because after all we are “equal”. Funny how feminist all want to be equal but want none of the responsibilities. Typical progressive thinking.

    2. avatar El Duderino says:

      Permit to have kids?

      Okay there Aldous Huxley.

      The last thing I want the government determining is who should or shouldn’t breed.

      1. avatar Jane F Taylor says:

        It happened in China…just sayin’.

      2. avatar KyKPH says:

        That was one of Hitler’s programs too, as I recall.

      3. avatar Hillbilly says:

        It would be a good start. If you want the state to pay for your kids it’s pretty obvious you are too irresponsible to have children.

        Proof that you are financially responsible to have children should be the minimum requirement to have them. It’s not my job as the tax payer to pay for your bad decisions.

        There is no right to children as far as I know.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “There is no right to children as far as I know.”

          “…promote the general welfare.”

          Those raysez white guys saw it coming from a long way off. Jes another way to keep the non-whites subjugated.

        2. avatar Mark N. says:

          Well, there is such a right. You cannot force women to have birth control to prevent further pregnancies. thee is a clear line of decided case law on this. Once case involved a serially pregnant welfare mother who had had her children taken form her for child neglect. The judge stayed her sentence for whatever crime she had committed on condition that she have the birth control implants in her arm. Although she accepted, she appealed afterwards and prevailed on the basis that there is an immutable natural right to procreation.

        3. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          “Well, there is such a right. You cannot force women to have birth control to prevent further pregnancies.”

          That’s why we need to just shut the fuck up over abortion. Yes, it’s murder, but it is lowering the Democrat population by 400,000 annually. God will get them in the end, so let’s just play the long game on this one…

    3. avatar Hydguy says:

      Birthright citizenship only applies to children of actual Americans.
      The 14th Amendment clearly states that you must be subject to the jurisdiction of the US in order for it to apply.
      The federal government hasn’t followed the letter of the law.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “The 14th Amendment clearly states that you must be subject to the jurisdiction of the US in order for it to apply.”

        It would seem that if a nation has a legal right to arrest, try and convict foreign nationals present in that nation, those foreign nationals are “in the jurisdiction”.

        Therein lies the problem.

        1. avatar The Other Larry in Texas says:

          Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual.

          The fact that tourists or illegal immigrants are subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws means that they are subject to the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S. and can be prosecuted. But it does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual.”

          Yet, the founders found it unnecessary to be so direct and explanatory. Thus it is, “jurisdiction” means locality only. Since the middle of the 20th century, courts have ruled that presence (location) is the determining factor.

          There isn’t “the national will” to modify, clarify, repeal, or establish a new constitutional amendment that definitively explains that squatting does not qualify one’s offspring for US citizenship.

    4. avatar RGP says:

      You forgot the background check they’d require before being born white.

  3. avatar Super Frustrated in VA says:

    We need stronger laws on criminals and longer sentences. This will do more than any gun control law. But what do I know, since the Va House and Senate DEMS do not agree with this since it appears they feel gun control is the ultimate while allowing criminals free. Bloomberg has them trying to make VA another NY…GOD help us all.

    1. avatar Jon in CO says:

      We need less laws, not more. We need less incarceration time, not more. Maybe we should try the freedom thing, instead of just claiming to be in favor of it for a change. There’s no reason for someone to do 25-life for some pot, coke, or meth. There’s no reason for someone to be barred from jobs, voting, gun ownership, because they got high in their dorm room after finals, or because they got into an argument with their spouse, or got pulled over for speeding and “reoffended” on their parole or probation.

      The system is broken, not because it’s not being implemented properly, but because it’s entirely too massive to be used in its current state. Let’s try leaving people alone, and maybe it’ll work out better. We’ve tried the other way, and it’s not working.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “We need less laws, not more.”

        Completely agree. Without laws, there is no crime. Without crime there is no need for police. Without crime and police there is much less need for a judiciary. Money savings all around. People either care for themselves, or they get take care of, permanently. Life would be so much more simple, elegant, and calm.

        1. avatar Phil Wilson says:

          And this general approach is working out so well in New York City, where they are experiencing a rapid and dramatic decline in violent crime. Er, yeah.

      2. avatar UpInArms says:

        ” We need less laws, not more ”

        Exactly why we need an amendment that requires a sunset clause on EVERY law that gets enacted (I’ll give them a 10-year sunset on all the laws already on the books).

  4. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

    It’s quite clear the Leftists will never tolerate a nation where individual citizens can own guns. It’s also quite clear we will never tolerate a nation where individual citizens cannot go about their day being armed if we feel the need to do so.

    These are, quite simply, irreconcilable differences, since neither side has any interest in changing their minds.

    The ‘National Conversation’ we need to have is the terms of the national separation. And it would be a good idea that it happens before drastic measures happen…

    1. avatar Yes he is. says:

      The national conversation about weakening my country and giving up part of its valuable real estate? No. There is plenty of Federally owned land in places like Nevada. We can establish reservations for the leftest, communist, socialist there. Let them make the desert flower through the honest sweat of their brow.

      1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        Aren’t there laws forbidding polluting Federal lands, JWM?

        Written by leftists? 😉

        1. avatar Yes he is. says:

          What you call ‘pollution’ I call ‘fertilizer’.

        2. avatar Jon in CO says:

          @ Yes he is

          What you call fertilizer, the government calls explosive materials/bomb making equipment.

          Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, or in most law makers cases, beer-holders.

      2. avatar Kroglikepie says:

        Keep them out of NV, please. The CA locusts are already eviscerating my hometown, and show now signs of letting up.

        Should things ever turn ugly, we just need to strip the surviving leftist scum of their right to vote and tax them at 95%. Make them live by their own words.🤷‍♂️

      3. avatar DickDastardly says:

        Most of those federal lands in Nevada are radioactive… that would be inhumane…. oh, wait….🤣

    2. avatar Soup to nuts says:

      Essentially the same exact argument for mandatory vaccines, almost word for word.

      1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        And look who’s back, just like a bad smell.

        Mr. One-trick-pony himself, little pee-gee-2 who only comments in TTAG about vaccinatons.

        How about shutting the fuck up with the bullshit nobody wants to hear, and talking guns?

        Can you talk about guns, or are you actually as retarded as you act?

    3. avatar Phil Wilson says:

      “These are, quite simply, irreconcilable differences, since neither side has any interest in changing their minds.”

      And self-defense rights are only one of many issues for which irreconcilable disagreements occur.

  5. avatar Tom Edwards says:

    Democrats keep taking our Guns so the U.S. will be Nation Wide Chicago, Atlanta, New Orleans, Baltimore and 100 more stupid cities. Several cities have mandatory guns. No Crimes. Switzerland by law A Gun in Every Home! No gun crimes. Chicago by Law does not even have gun store in City and one of highest gun crime cities in U.S. Potland Oregon and Seattle Washington tighend up gun laws and shooting has became daily. I does not work! 100 million guns in U.S. and still low gun crime country! We need Mental tightening. That is the problem!

    1. avatar SurfGW says:

      Switzerland has many guns but they are mostly either semi autos for retired military or bolt action hunting rifles (not lever actions, pumps or pistols because those are restricted).
      Typical Swiss urban homes do not own guns. Ammo is not allowed in the house.
      Buying ammo requires a background check form which has three lines for either Ammo or a gun. Don’t use the Swiss case because it actually makes the case for the antis.

      1. avatar Jon in CO says:

        The Swiss require state service for those weapons as well. The only cool thing is tax payer funded range ammunition.

        1. avatar SurfGW says:

          The Swiss make range time such a chore that few want to go even with free ammo.
          And with ammo restrictions in the home, Home defense firearms are very rare.
          To me, the Swiss are a gun culture that exists despite crippling regulations and not an example of gun freedoms.

  6. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

    If you believe this first part,”Repeal of the Second Amendment is not only right, but realistic. It would break open the political logjam and national gun control and safety measures that have eluded the American people for so long”, wouldn’t result in confiscating firearms or stoping Americans from using guns for hunting, sports shooting, antique collecting, or legitimate self-defense then please leave the USA.

    I am a firm supporter of the second Amendment, because it is necessary to keep our states free.

    1. avatar Jeff the Buffoon says:

      You’re a real chubble butting knob gobbler.

    2. avatar Kroglikepie says:

      What always amuses me about these paste-eating leftists, is how they claim no one’s arms will be confiscated while they actively campaign to pass laws that demand confiscation. They don’t even try to hide their intentions anymore.

  7. avatar frank speak says:

    it’s a lot more than 100 million…

  8. avatar Shire-man says:

    Why stop there?
    Stop and frisk from coast to coast.
    Warrant-less searches based on hunches and hearsay.
    All speech and writing should be vetted by a governing body to ensure no hurt feelings or incited emotions.
    A national ID tied to annual background checks and a social credit score.
    Hell, let’s repeal the 3rd and station a soldier in every household. For safety.

    Of course none of this will apply if you’re a crossdressing-trans-ethnic-omni-gendered-islamic-anarchist-furry-identifying-manicdepressive-drug-user-with-social-anxiety.

    It is becoming increasingly difficult to have people that believe this shit call me a nazi for saying the rights of the individual need to be respected. The level of bizarre insanity is reaching ever higher heights. I used to read Kafka for the over the top absurdist imagery. Now I can’t even get through a short story without feeling sick to my stomach.

    1. avatar Shadow says:

      It is already happening in Virginia. The Demon-Rat legislature is having a field day passing enough gun control legislation (Red Flag laws, etc), to make the Second Amendment obsolete. They are now looking at passing laws that would make it illegal to criticize the government. But forgive me, I do not remember the exact bill numbers of those potential laws. Did anyone seriously think it would stop with the Second Amendment being eviscerated? People here know better, but good grief people, others need to wake the hell up! Once they disarm us, they can have a field day. Venezuela anyone?

      1. avatar UpInArms says:

        ” Did anyone seriously think it would stop with the Second Amendment being eviscerated? ”

        Eliminating 2A is simply a keystone act to something bigger. Gun control is not that big an issue to most voters, so one has to ask why the Dems are putting so much political capital into the effort — way more than it realistically deserves. So what are they after that they think this deserves the full-court press? 6% annual growth.

        The Democrats, since the Clinton administration, have been the party of oligarchy, totally beholden to the FIRE segment of the economy (that’s Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate), which is now bigger than manufacturing. In spite of our economy doing well, it still, in a good year, turns in an anemic sub-2% growth rate. China, on the other hand, turned in 6% this past year, and it was their worst year in about 2 decades. Wall Street, and their subsidiary the Democratic Party, is hungrily eyeing those numbers.

        What the Democrats want is to remodel the US economy, and with it the US gubmint, on the Chinese model so they can get those numbers. The Chinese model is one-party rule and half (or more) of the economy under direct gubmint control. In an act of uncommon wisdom, they have figured out there will be a lot of push-back against this plan. That’s where eviscerating the 2A comes in. The Dems have likely (and correctly) assessed that a heavily armed citizenry is not going to let them do what they want. Even if Civil War 2.0 never materializes (and it likely won’t), random acts of armed resistance and sabotage, while maybe not enough to stop the Dems, is enough to deny them their coveted 6+% annual growth. It is essential, then, that the public be completely disarmed. And that makes the gun control issue a whole lot bigger than just saving the 2A.

        So, that’s my conspiracy theory rave du jour. Do with it what you will.

        1. avatar Shadow says:

          I believe your rave may be closer to the truth than most people realize. When I stand back and take a look at the bigger picture, your post makes sense. It also reminds me of “Wag the Dog”. While everyone is busy on the gun control front (either for or against, etc), what else is going on, that crooked politicians do not want us “little people” to sit up and take notice of?

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “…what else is going on, that crooked politicians do not want us “little people” to sit up and take notice of?”

          – Corruption of the language
          – Science denial regards DNA and biology
          – Neutering the EC
          – Unrestricted immigration from and through Mexico
          – Corruption of education
          – Corruption of the First Amendment
          – Destruction of social more’
          – Uncontrollable deficit spending and debt
          – Corruption of the FISA court system
          – Climate change
          – Failure of the solar energy industry
          – – – to name a few

        3. avatar DerryM says:

          What SAM I AM is saying is correct. The actual big picture is like sighting an iceberg on the open ocean. What you see above the water is only a small fraction of the total mass of the iceberg, which is the insidiously more dangerous part of the thing. POTG need to recognize that the ongoing attack on our Second Amendment rights is misdirection. While we worry and bluster about infringements on our gun rights the entire infrastructure of American Society is being corrupted and eroded. POTG need to expand our view of the larger horizon to acknowledge the danger to the Constitutional Republic.

  9. avatar forp says:

    It’s time to have more diversity of thought in higher education. On college campuses, conservative professors are almost extinct.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      forp,

      Let’s apply federal Affirmative Action to universities and require them to have about 50% of their professors be Conservatives to reflect the fact that at least 50% of the population is conservative.

  10. avatar Mike says:

    This guy needs to be beaten with a bar of soap in a tube sock, then deported to someplace where he can live without any kind of rights.

    1. avatar Gordon in MO says:

      Like Iran….

      1. avatar DickDastardly says:

        I was thinking Libya… but yours will do, too..

    2. avatar Dan W says:

      A lot of Americans died to secure Israel for his people. The least he could do is stay there.

  11. avatar RetLEO says:

    ‘Repeal’ the second amendment…you mean something that protects a Right, not privilege granted by a government…
    This would then call into question the concept of Rights in general. If a government can decide that Rights are subject to it’s approval then they aren’t Rights at all. If that’s ok then the very foundation of America, that the people have ‘certain unalienable rights,’ is destroyed.
    Unfortunately, it becomes clearer every day that this is the actual long-term goal of far too many.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “If a government can decide that Rights are subject to it’s approval then they aren’t Rights at all. If that’s ok then the very foundation of America, that the people have ‘certain unalienable rights,’ is destroyed.”

      This is the dichotomy established by the founders. The constitution protects/guards “unalienable” rights, but provides the vehicle for alienating those rights; constitutional amendment. There has yet to be a constitutional amendment ruled “unconstitutional” by the SC (which is its own Pandora’s Box). So, yes, the people, through their representatives, have the codified power to render themselves powerless.

      1. avatar California Richard says:

        “Why has America lagged behind the democratic world…”

        That’s his problem right there, and that’s how he swindles people. We live in a constitutional republic, not a democracy.

    2. avatar Hannibal says:

      Talking about natural rights is meaningless unless you have the power to enforce your idea of what natural rights are. 400 million people in the country have 400 million definitions of what their rights should be.

  12. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

    “It provokes only scorn from a gun lobby that dismisses “yes, but” assurances as rank hypocrisy.” – Got one thing correct in his rant (although the scorn for such rank hypocrisy goes well beyond merely the “gun lobby”).

  13. avatar Country Boy says:

    We don’t have a “gun violence” problem nor a “gun problem” in America.

    What we have in America is a CRIME problem and too many violent criminals who are consistantly turned loose back to our streets and neighborhoods.

    Until this *crime problem* is addressed, the gun violence committed by said criminals willl continue. And escalate. IMHO, the head of the snake or America’s crime problem consists of Hillary Clinton/The Clinton Crime Syndicate, Barry Sotoro, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Shumer, Adam Schiff and likely, the entire DNC.
    lock them ALL UP IMHO.

    FWIW look up who Hugh Rodham (Hillarry’s father) And Thomas D’Alesandro Jr. (Nancy’s Dad) are and I think you’ll agree.

    It takes the criminal to pull the trigger. The gun cannot rod or kill all by itself.

    1. avatar No one of consequence says:

      We also have a prison overcrowding problem, and a populace that’s balking at paying higher taxes to pay for more prisons.

      Solutions are:
      1. Screw the overcrowding, jam ’em all in. (Still need to pay for more food and guards, though.)
      2. Make (many) more things subject to the death penalty (rape, involuntary manslaughter, 10 drunk driving convictions, burrito farts on a subway, etc.). Would need to make the courts work much faster for this to work also.
      3. Escape fro New York / LA type approaches.
      4…?

      1. avatar Cadeyrn says:

        That particular problem can be solved with a three strikes law nationwide. Three violent felonies and you get the chair or needle, your choice.

        Because if you haven’t learned after doing time for the first two there’s no reason to try rehabilitation after the third.

        1. avatar Phil says:

          I fully support this, there is zero point to keeping evil around and alive. Having seen it first hand nothing good comes of it. It amazes me the whiners on here; But the Government should not be executing its citizens. Wrong these “citizens” were tried for their crimes by other “citizens” and sentenced appropriately. The Governement did not decide to kill them, other citizens deemed it appropriate punishment. Other countries execute career criminals without issue and also have a much smaller crime and jail problem.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “…there is zero point to keeping evil around and alive.”

          Actually, in this case, there is a point: body part warehousing. Three strikes, and the criminal registers all body parts with appropriate transplant agencies. When the need arises, take the needed part from the warehouse.

    2. avatar Jon in CO says:

      The question is, WHY is there a crime problem? Maybe we should fix the running blocks at the starting line before we move the finish line. There’s a lot of talk about locking more people up, and making more laws, yet when more laws are made that we (the gun people) don’t like, we get upset.

      Let’s find the way to eliminate the problem instead of continuing to try and fix it.

  14. avatar Josh says:

    Guys like this pretend some kind of intellectual superiority while demonstrating a fundamental inability [or more likely unwillingness] to comprehend basic grammar. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms” is plainly described for anybody who speaks English. If you are too stupid or obtuse to understand the difference between a mention of the militia [whether or not you realize that ALL ABLE BODIED MALES are “The Militia”] and the clearly defined “right of the people,” then you don’t get to lecture us about what is “historically defective” or not.

  15. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    What we need might never happen.
    Its for the dammed Supreme Court to do the right thing and MAKE the 2nd as important as any other amendment. Period. The last 4 words couldnt be any planer that a grade schooler cant understand it.
    What is so hard to understand??
    “Shall NOT be infringed”
    Plain and simple english language.
    Nothing hidden in those 4 words.

  16. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    It does seem like that pesky bill of rights is in these politi-critter’s way a lot lately. People say things, n the authoritah can’t just shut them down. Poor Gov Blackface has to make some case that people who don’t riot, even about guns, should have their guns taken away.

    Inconvenient, all that.

    Prof Lippy there has maybe done a service though, by collecting all the anti-people’s canards calumnies n confusions in one place for easy reference. So, yay academics? They are sometimes good for a survey course, if never for an original thought.

    Along the way he, like the rest, has missed the precondition to being heard: be admirable. If you want people to give you more authoritah, leaving themselves less, n less redress too, double-plus be admirable. Also judicious, measured, n never, ever vindictive. Or the opposite of what these people are.

  17. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    I have seen this professor on numerous history documentaries over the many years now. He’s appeared on public television programs as well as programs on the History Channel, the Discovery Channel, and others.

    And now because of his stance on the Second Amendment I believe now that his opinions on History are suspect. And I would question any of his work that appeared in those television programs.

    I wonder what he is leaving out of his history presentations???

  18. avatar DerryM says:

    The last sentence quoted, “None of these measures would confiscate firearms or stop Americans from using guns for hunting, sports shooting, antique collecting, or legitimate self-defense.” is a bald-faced lie.
    The real reason the Second Amendment is invaluable to our rights and liberty is that an Armed people have the means to protect said rights and liberty from tyrannical Government. Lichtman omits that key acknowledgement, which as a “History Professor” he should be well aware of. So, he is either a very poor “History Professor” or an outright liar. I’ll take the latter assessment of his intellectual acumen for $2000.00…

    1. avatar Ing says:

      It’s sophistry. He can say that and technically be truthful because the measures themselves wouldn’t do any of that.

      They’d just open the door for the government to do it — and as you clearly recognize, that’s the entire point.

      1. avatar DerryM says:

        “Sophistry” THAT’s exactly the word I was looking for this morning and could not bring to mind! Thanks very much!

  19. avatar Yes he is. says:

    We do need to amend the BOR. Ban leftist, socialist, communist from any position in .gov. From all teaching positions. Revoke all their credentials and let them join their struggling brothers in the manual labor industry.

  20. avatar Quasimofo says:

    Well, repealing the 2A would make America safer for the political class, oligarchs, and other misc. criminals. I’m assuming that’s what the prof is arguing for, because it certainly won’t make it safer for the rest of us unenlightened “peons”…

  21. avatar former water walker says:

    How’d Jews being disarmed work out in Deutchland Herr Lichtman? I will never comply!

    1. avatar Jay in Florida says:

      Nor I under any circumstances.
      I fully expect a shooting war of some type over this in whats left of my lifetime. Im ready.
      Ive said it here before try and Ill take a few with me.

  22. avatar possum and the Coons of Doom says:

    . If the right to be armed was not important it wouldn’t have been the second after freedom of speech. I have the right to say FU, no wait can’t say that to a cop, it’s a terroristic threst. Does anyone know of a right that hasn’t been Infringed? ,,,,,, Vote Bloomberg. Why, well because when we’re knee deep in shit we bitch, but when your choking on it we do something to get out, .

  23. avatar doesky2 says:

    What a useless site with disappearing comments.

    1. avatar doesky2 says:

      See ya in a month and maybe you’ll have this sheet fied.

    2. avatar trollhunter says:

      sir, if you find nothing of value in this site or the discussions it sparks, then you certainly have the right (dare i say even obligation) to find a site and discussion to read and join in that fits your opinions and world view. i am quite positive that no one is holding a gun to your head forcing you to read the article or join in the discussion.

      have a blessed day

  24. avatar DaveDetroit says:

    Its an open question at this point whether the violent, ridiculous, ‘feel good’ socialist party that is the Democrats will turn on itself before the rest of the nation will need to do so. The fact that Nancy Pelosi was forced into an unwise impeachment push is proof that their party is splintering. Every month their party becomes more extreme- to the point that many of their icons are literally petulant children. The demographics of Trump’s rallies is another indicator. Watch Virginia in the next election.

  25. avatar doesky2 says:

    Parents who hold conservative beliefs are essentialy being negligent in sending their kids to approx 98% of the universities.

    If you do you must do your parental job by directing them away from coarses that are WJS trash.
    If your kid inists on a WJS class then tell them that the bill for that semester will be paid by them.
    If at all possible have them attend the first 2 years at a local branch so that you can quiz them about what lies the professor spouted that day.

    For God sakes don’t let them major in any kind of liberal arts or “xxxx studies” degree.
    If they are a STEM major watch out for mandatory WJS coarses in the first two years.

    Start saving up for Hillsdale.

    1. avatar trollhunter says:

      now that is a comment that i can agree with to some degree.

      thank you

    2. avatar Texican says:

      Knowing what I know now I wouldn’t let anyone I loved go to any public school whatsoever. Home school or private school when they’re young and, if they must go to college, a conservative one. Few as those may be. It’s nearly impossible to counteract the brainwashing our children get in a public school. It might be challenging but any family can do it if they choose to do so.

  26. This most recent big push by the anti-gun zealots will probably be their final one. As they have been losing in their treasonous attempts for the last 20 years or so. So it is up to us to give them the final knock-out blow. Virginia is just a hiccup that will soon be overturned. As will the treasonous ‘red-flag’ laws that are popping up in various cities/states. The now conservative federal courts will obliterate them.

  27. avatar James Campbell says:

    “protecting its citizens from needless death and injury?”
    That made me laugh.
    The professor may need to explain WHICH countries have made the citizens safer by banning/restricting firearms.
    Firearm bans only make TYRANTS safer, history has proven this!

    1. avatar Jimmy C says:

      What does James Campbell think about this issue?

      -said no one, ever!

  28. avatar Scooter says:

    Medical malpractice, disease of the month, overdoses, abuse, poverty, homelessness, recidivism, revolving door prisons, and politicians for life… and the answer to our woes is chipping away at our right? Try again. Do something useful and meaningful. It requires more effort than passing a law… or nullifying a right.

  29. avatar Someone says:

    Okay, prof. You are right about one thing – the “I support the 2A, but…” stance is nothing but rank hypocrisy.

    Let’s make a deal – you gun grabbers give your best shot to repeal of the second amendment as provided for in the Constitution. If you don’t succeed, you shut up forever about gun control and we reset to beginning of 1930s before the NFA.

    The 2A is not about hunting, sports shooting, or antique collecting. It’s not even only about legitimate self-defense on individual level. The main reason for ban on any infringements on our RTKBA is security of a FREE state. As anyone who can read already knows.

  30. avatar pwrserge says:

    “Summarily Execute all Democrats: A case for a more competitive America.” Yeah. About as likely to happen.

    1. avatar Dan W says:

      I’m all for it, a man can dream.

  31. avatar HEGEMON says:

    Wasn’t Pol Pot a professor as well? Academics such as Lichtman would casually murder tens of millions in order to establish their dystopian world. Soon states like California, New York and Massachusetts will pass “non-binding” repeals of the 2A in order to push their craven gun control agenda. Tyranny is only an election cycle away, more or less, paraphrasing Reagan.

  32. avatar tdiinva says:

    At least he recognizes the right to bear arms is enshrined in the Constitution and seeks a constitutional remedy.

    However, he is underlying assumption is invalid. He believed that without the Second Amendment we be just like Europe. But this is an erroneous assumption. We would be just like Mexico, not because of illegal immigration, but because we have a gang culture like Mexico. If you disarm the public then the gangs have free reign. Places like Chicago have more gang members than many European countries have soldiers. We will then have a murder rate like Mexico. There just aren’t enough police to keep civil order in the face of that threat.

  33. avatar Soup to nuts says:

    If we’re going to accept the public safety argument for the elimination of some rights, why should gun rights be exempt?

    1. avatar James Campbell says:

      Because the removal of 2nd A based rights ONLY effect LAW ABIDING citizens. The removal would disarm countless citizens, leaving them as easy targets for criminals.
      Just remember ONE fact while posting statements along this line of thought, criminals do NOT follow the laws. Just like how they’re NOT willing to wait while a “target” pulls their phone, calls 911, and waits the 30 mins or so for LEO to arrive. Why do criminals ALWAYS seem to be in such a hurry?

      1. avatar Soup to nuts says:

        So using your logic, we could repeal the 1st Amendment because people’s ideas and speech often affects other people?

    2. avatar James Campbell says:

      Additionally, please elaborate on your “accept the public safety argument for the elimination of some rights”……
      Could you list a few of those rights, you know, in the Bill of Rights AND falling into the classification of Natural?

      1. avatar Soup to nuts says:

        So our rights are given to us by the government? And we have only have the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights?

        1. avatar James Campbell says:

          Do you know what “Natural Rights” means? Look into it (Federalist Papers hint hint) then respond.
          Natural right are NOT given by the government.

        2. avatar Soup to nuts says:

          Great idea, you should start there. Based on your comments, you seem to lack the knowledge what the Constitution does do, and what it doesn’t do.

      2. avatar James Campbell says:

        I’m well aware of what the Constitution does, your the one bringing other rights into the discussion.

        1. avatar Soup to nuts says:

          What other rights have I brought into the discussion? Your question proves your ignorance of the document.

        2. avatar Geoff "I got your Super Bowl right *here*" PR says:

          Campbell, who you are debating is little pee-gee-2.

          Watch how he will suddenly change the subject to vaccinations, because that’s all he is capable of doing in TTAG.

          How about shutting the fuck up with your anti-vaxx crap nobody wants to hear?

          Dance, troll-boy, I order you to respond…

        3. avatar Geoff “How dare you!?” PR says:

          Geoff goes off onto a Greta hissy-fit again. Some of the best entertainment online😂😂😂😂

  34. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    Repeal that jackass and it becomes easier to repeal other parts of the Bill of Rights OR maybe at the same time as the repealing of the 2nd. There a 150 or million who would oppose you.

  35. avatar Rusty Nales says:

    Ironic that in the photo, he’s shown being forcibly removed from the premises by a Good Guy With a Gun. Protecting and Serving…

  36. avatar Tom says:

    O.K…… “Persuade your fellow citizens it’s a good
    idea and pass a law. That’s what democracy is all about. It’s not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society.”
    ~Anthony Scalia

  37. avatar Doug says:

    This idiot and so called history professor says we are ignoring the clear history and true meaning of the Second Amendment. It shows he didn’t study history and the Constitution and is just a shill for the leftist, anti-gun crowd. Even if he did study history he’s too stupid to understand and interpret it and should get a job cleaning the shit off the streets in San Francisco. Then he claims there will be no confiscation when his leftist buddies refuse to do anything to actually punish real criminals and are trying everything they can to confiscate our guns and turn America into a Communist shit hole. New flash professor – look at Virginia. As with all the anti’s he thinks all law abiding gun owners are stupid and can’t put 2 words together.

  38. avatar mksthl says:

    I don’t trust any male over the age of 20 that wears bangs. Something really creepy about that.

  39. avatar David W Bennett says:

    Are we really stupid enough to believe anyone that is going to commit a crime or a mass shooting is going to pay any attention to any laws we pass. If we outlaw guns they will use another type of weapon. I can get plans to make a bomb on the internet, can get knives or baseball bats anywhere. The best way to control violence is to get tougher on criminals, instead of slapping them on the hands and hoping that will reform them!

  40. avatar MADDMAXX says:

    It took 48 years to get 38 states (Va.1/15/20) to sign the ERA ….. (38 years past the 1982 deadline)… How long, (and how much Bloomberg money) will it take to turn enough state governments 100% blue to approve something as stupid and irrational as repealing 2A… Lots of luck on that one….

  41. avatar DaveL says:

    If a clear majority really did agree with him, they’d have repealed the 2nd Amendment long ago. They haven’t, because they don’t.

  42. avatar LastOfTheOldOnes says:

    We need a VERY long wall to put the evil ones against it and…..

  43. avatar Paul Thomas says:

    When they push us to far we will know at that moment it’s time to kill or be killed
    And it’s getting close to that time.
    But there will be a sad and good end to it all. They will now work for us again we will keep our gun rights but a lot of life’s will be lost.
    It’s called keeping the checks and balances it needs to happen about every 100 yrs,

  44. avatar m says:

    safer ? who will be safer ?
    Dictatorial Absolutists the ones who know everything…have every opinion, and know they should rule all of us lower types
    my immediate reaction is quite out of their knowledge or comprehension…I am Free, will live FREE, I will never worship the slaver…

    we are there as sheep to feed them and clothe them we are providers of wealth for which they need not work we are the slaves to their wants, needs, opinions, attitudes

    you know them…they are all so very willing to take take take plunder plunder plunder wile telling us it is good for us to recognize their godlike personalities and bend down to please them

  45. avatar H Allen Davis LLD says:

    “None of these measures (repealing the Second Amendment) would confiscate firearms or stop Americans from using guns for hunting, sports shooting, antique collecting, or legitimate self-defense.”
    – Allan J. Lichtman in Repeal the Second Amendment: The Case for a Safer America

    Yeah, so sez he.

    And my ass is a banjo.

    1. Even if the treasonous ‘professor’ and the tyrannical majority did happen to succeed in their treason:

      “All profess to be content in the Union, if all constitutional rights can be maintained. Is it true, then, that any right, plainly written in the Constitution, has been denied? I think not. Happily the human mind is so constituted, that no party can reach to the audacity of doing this. Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the Constitution has ever been denied. If by the mere force of numbers, a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might, in a moral point of view, justify revolution — certainly would, if such right were a vital one.

      –President Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861, Washington, D.C.

      So, as everyone can plainly see, We The true American People would have every justification to rise up and utterly destroy the traitors. Which is of course their whole purpose of desiring to disarm us in the first place, for they are nothing more than cowards.

      1. avatar H Allen Davis LLD says:

        Just how is my obvious opposition to even an attempt to repeal the Second Amendment treasonous???

        1. H Allen Davis LLD – “Just how is my obvious opposition to even an attempt to repeal the Second Amendment treasonous???”

          You have quite obviously misunderstood my comment to you. As it was intended to support/confirm what you had stated. As well as adding precedent to that which you had written.

        2. avatar H Allen Davis LLD says:

          My apologies to you then. I take a lot of crap on another site because of my heretical (e.g., hyper-conservative, strict-constructionist) views on the Constitution. Maybe I’m just getting old.

        3. H Allen Davis LLD – “My apologies to you then. I take a lot of crap on another site because of my heretical (e.g., hyper-conservative, strict-constructionist) views on the Constitution. Maybe I’m just getting old.”

          Understand, and thank you. I get quite a bit of crap thrown at me as well. But I’ve spent years gathering the facts in order to slam the points home concerning our Constitution and the rights secured by it. And the older I get the less tolerant I am of anyone that apparently is attacking our rights. I’ll eviscerate them to a bloody stump if necessary in order to slam the facts home.

  46. avatar Reredacted says:

    I thought jews were supposed to “never forget.”

    1. avatar tdiinva says:

      What makes you think he is a Jew? Lichtman is a German name. He may or may not be. I went to grad school with a woman named Goering. She was Jewish. Herman wasn’t

      1. avatar Reredacted says:

        He may not be a practicing jew but a quick search shows his family most certainly is jewish. And Lichtman is absolutely a jewish German name.

        1. avatar tdiinva says:

          So is Goering and yet there is the Reichsmarschal

  47. The traitor had written:

    “Repeal of the Second Amendment is not only right, but realistic.”

    You cannot “repeal” a preexisting natural right:

    “That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law”–English Bill of Rights 1689.

    Not only was that right placed outside of the purview of our governments, (and tyranny of the majority). We entered into our Constitutional Republic under the impression that that right would be “secured” to the “posterity” of which We The People are most certainly a part of. Which is declared at the very head of that Supreme Law. To Wit:

    “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

    And the right to keep and bear arms for our own self-defense, and this against all enemies foreign and domestic. Has long been considered as the “palladium” of liberty:

    “This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty . . . The right of self defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits…and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”–St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries, U.S. District Court Judge, July 10, 1752 – Nov. 10, 1827. (Mr. Tucker was a Lawyer and Professor of law at the College of William and Mary. He was appointed one of the committee to revise the laws of Virginia, and he served with James Madison and Edmund Randolph as Virginia commissioners to the Annapolis Convention. In 1803 Tucker became a judge of the highest court in Virginia. In 1813 he was appointed by President James Madison to be the United States District Court Judge for Virginia. Tucker also, as District Court Judge, sat with Chief Justice John Marshall on the U.S. Circuit Court in Richmond.)

    This is a fact that the scotus has long recognized:

    “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”–Miranda vs. Arizona, U.S. Supreme Court, 384 US 436, 491, (1966).

    “If a state converts a liberty into a privilege the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.”–Shuttlesworth v Birmingham, U.S. Supreme Court. 394 U.S. 147 (1969).

    And besides all of that there are other amendments which would have to be repealed, such as; “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    We The People retained our right to Self-Defense, for which the right to keep and bear arms is inextricably linked:

    “From among the rights retained by our policy, we have selected those of self defence or bearing arms, of conscience, and of free inquiry, for two purposes; one, to shew the vast superiority of our policy, in being able to keep natural rights necessary for liberty and happiness, out of the hands of governments; the other, to shew that this ability is the effect of its principles, and beyond the reach of Mr. Adams’s system, or of any other, unable to reserve to the people, and to withhold from governments, a variety of rights.”–John Taylor, U.S. Senator, (1792 – 94, 1803, 1822 – 24). An Inquiry into the Principles and Policy of the Government of the United States: Section the Sixth; The Good Moral Principles Of The Government Of The United States, (1814).

    And the right of self-defense is one of the INALIENABLE rights – placed beyond both the control of government and tyranny of the majority. It is a right that can never be surrendered or removed. So this treasonous ‘professor’ obviously has not the faintest conception of Constitutional “history”. And is quite unqualified to present any type of truly legal argument whatsoever.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “You cannot “repeal” a preexisting natural right:”

      Academically interesting; legally irrelevant.

      The founders all agreed that the Constitution granted no rights, only provided protection for existing rights. This was further reinforced by amendments nine and ten, declaring that the constitution was not an exhaustive list of existing rights. Thus it was the right of the people to manufacture, sell, transport and imbibe alcoholic beverages was a non-listed, pre-existing right. So it was that in order to remove the right of the people to drink those beverages, a constitutional amendment was needed to restrict that right (and another to restore it).

      The amendment process self-declares that “rights” can be altered, restricted, or eliminated (see 13th Amendment). This is the difference between theory and reality. One may existentially retain certain rights regardless of government, but restricted rights prevent the lawful exercise. You retain “unalienable rights”, but laws can punish you for exercise. The natural and eternal clash between ideals and what actually happens.

      1. Sam I Am – “Academically interesting; legally irrelevant.”

        Incorrect, as there is ample evidence/precedent that proves most conclusively to the contrary.

        “The founders all agreed that the Constitution granted no rights, only provided protection for existing rights. This was further reinforced by amendments nine and ten, declaring that the constitution was not an exhaustive list of existing rights.

        Had you stopped there, you would have been totally correct. However . . .

        “The amendment process self-declares that “rights” can be altered, restricted, or eliminated (see 13th Amendment). This is the difference between theory and reality. One may existentially retain certain rights regardless of government, but restricted rights prevent the lawful exercise. You retain “unalienable rights”, but laws can punish you for exercise. The natural and eternal clash between ideals and what actually happens.”

        There is NOTHING in the 13th amendment that lends one iota in support of your claim, as it SPECIFICALLY deals with slavery and/or involuntary servitude. And there is a vast amount of founding documents which blows all of the rest of your contentions out of the water. Including a vast amount of rulings by the scotus declaring exactly the opposite of what you are vainly attempting to claim.

        Your claims have no validity whatsoever, as they are without any actual merit, substance, depth or weight. So, you lose.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “There is NOTHING in the 13th amendment that lends one iota in support of your claim, as it SPECIFICALLY deals with slavery and/or involuntary servitude.”

          Drop the platitudes, and think it through. Slavery was an unlisted right retained by the States, the people of those states practicing slavery. If slavery were not a constitutionally protected right (as in not prohibited to the States, or the people), there would have been no need for a 13th Amendment; simple federal legislation would have suffices…and been the law of the land.

          If slavery had not been considered a constitutionally protected right, the Constitution would have failed (hence, the 3/5th accounting for slaves so as to slow the addition of congressional representatives of the slave holding states). It was attempts to abolish slavery via legislation that led to the second civil war.

          The destruction of the Confederacy, and the military power of the Confederacy, should have been sufficient to end slavery. However, military victory did not establish a constitutional ban on slavery. Indeed, the terms of surrender could have been demanded an end to slavery as a condition of slave holding states to be restored to full statehood. Instead, it took an amendment to the constitution. Ergo, if slave holding was not a protected right under the constitution, an amendment to such would have been unnecessary, superfluous. Thus, the 13th Amendment removed an unlisted right retained under provisions of the 9th and 10th amendments.

          The same was/is true of prohibition. Removal of a right required a constitutional amendment. Restoration required a subsequent amendment. This all means that the Constitution itself provides the mechanism for limiting, restricting, modifying, removing “unalienable” rights.

        2. Sam I Am – “Drop the platitudes, and think it through. Slavery was an unlisted right retained by the States, the people of those states practicing slavery. . . .”

          Your flawed legal opinions have no validity whatsoever in the argument. Nor are they a valid cause for providing justification for the infringement of CONSTITUTIONALLY SECURED RIGHTS THAT WERE CLEARLY ENUMERATED.

          Go play pet lawyer somewhere else, as none of your inept drooling is going to fly here. “Shall not be infringed” means precisely that which was originally written:

          Infringe

          INFRINGE, verb transitive infrinj’. [Latin infringo; in and frango, to break. See Break.]

          1. To break, as contracts; to violate, either positively by contravention, or negatively by non-fulfillment or neglect of performance. A prince or a private person infringes an agreement or covenant by neglecting to perform its conditions, as well as by doing what is stipulated not to be done.

          2. To break; to violate; to transgress; to neglect to fulfill or obey; as, to infringe a law.

          3. To destroy or hinder; as, to infringe efficacy. [Little used.]

          —Noah Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828 Edition.

          And any two-year old child has a full grasp of what the words “shall not” mean.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Where in the constitution is the second amendment immune from repeal? If a repeal amendment is ratified, the repeal controls. Interesting the founders forgot to exempt the second amendment from the reach of the amendment process. The “shall not be infringed” is an amendment. The right to counsel is an amendment. Not one word in any of the amendments, or the basic documents states that any provision of the constitution (original or as amended) is immune to the amendment process. Once an amendment is ratified that states personally owned firearms are prohibited, words in the constitution to the contrary are no longer operative.

          Oh yes, the founders were smart enough to insert language into the constitution (or amendments) that exempted certain language from ever being altered, modified, repealed, replaced, amended.

          Platitudes are poor arguments for much of anything. “Shall Not Be Infringed” has been infringed already; no amendment required. Now what?

  48. avatar Truckman says:

    it will never be time to repeal the2nd Amendment or any other one that could cause real problems

  49. avatar Dan W says:

    Anyone else notice a trend in (((who))) keeps trying to take our rights?

    1. avatar Yes he is. says:

      Yep. White people from the democratic party.

      1. avatar Soup to nuts says:

        Nice dodge. Lying by omission is still lying.

        1. avatar jwm says:

          pee gee 2. Are you saying white democrats are not trying to take our rights away?

        2. avatar Soup to nuts says:

          Straw man much? Do you even understand what lying by omission is? My guess is you don’t, because you just did exactly that.

        3. avatar jwm says:

          Give me an example of how I lied by omission.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Give me an example of how I lied by omission.”

          Always found the concept of “lying by omission” rather curious. For instance, failing to ask a question not asked. If a question is not asked, saying nothing in its regard is simply saying nothing.

          Example: a person is on trial for auto theft. The defendant is asked, “Did you steal the vehicle in question?”. Defendant answers, “Yes”. However….defendant does not admit using the car in a bank hold up, for which the defendant has not been charged. Is the defendant somehow lying because he did not volunteer information about a separate crime?

          Another example (real): A. Lincoln issued “The Emancipation Proclamation”. Lincoln is praised for “freeing the slaves”. So far, so good. However….at the same time, and never after, does he admit he once said that if he could preserve the Union by maintaining slavery, he would do so. After receiving accolades for the Proclamation, but not counter-balancing it with notation that he once entertained the idea of keeping slavery as a means to preserve the union, did Lincoln lie by omission?

          Finally, if, after a DGU, the legal gun owner, when asked if she shot the victim, replies, “I cannot make a statement until consulting with my attorney.” Did she lie by omission?

  50. avatar Alan says:

    Regarding the professors preferences and or desires for doing away with constitutional rights, how about doing away with Freedom of Speech, such not especially desirable action possibly riding us of his polemics.

  51. avatar Randy Jones says:

    Return it to the way the Founding Fathers wrote it with their intention behind it. The United States has lasted 240+ years with one Constitution to govern the Nation. When you can find another country that come close to that, maybe we can discuss the changes. Most countries average less than 20 years.

  52. avatar GS650G says:

    None of these measures would confiscate firearms or stop Americans from using guns for hunting, sports shooting, antique collecting, or legitimate self-defense.”

    The very best example of bullshit I’ve ever read.

  53. avatar Chuckers says:

    Obviously History is not something he has studied. Massachusetts outlawed guns in the 70’s and after a 500% increase in homeowners being killed during a home invasion crime they had to repeal their stupid law. Of course Democrats don’t want you to remember that, just like Adam Schiff wouldn’t allow the testimony from the 18th witness the house called to be considered in the senate impeachment hearings. It exonerated Trump according to the one senator who got to see it.

  54. avatar AC says:

    Listen up! I’ll try to make this as simple as possible so that everyone can understand.

    Because the Constitution is a compact and subject to the same rules of contract law as other contract and agreement documents, once the original document has been amended it is the terms and the conditions of the amendment that prevail. And this is always true because the new terms and conditions of the amendment always over ride and “supersede” those of the original document. So it does not matter what can be argued over what is believed to be contained in the original document that they claim grants then the authority to regulate firearms because an amendment over rides and supersedes everything that came before it. Remember that Prohibition was once the law of the land because of the 18th Amendment and it remains so, even though everyone soon after it was passed agreed that it was a big mistake to ban alcohol consumption. However, the only way to correct that big mistake was not with any act of Congress or presidential executive order… No, No, it took passing the 21st Amendment to change, alter and reverse what was in the 18th Amendment.

    And so repealing the 2nd Amendment or making any kind of changes to it requires passing another amendment that alters and changes the provisions of the 2nd Amendment. This is exactly what has to be done in order to make any anti-gun laws lawful under the rule of law in America… However, this has never been done and so the 2nd Amendment remains unchanged and without any alterations or modifications to the original and therefore; “the Right of the people to keep and bear arms Shall Not be infringed” remains as the Supreme Law of the Land.

    That is really the only argument that needs to be presented in court, everything else is falling into the trap of arguing over things that are not relevant and then later realizing that you just renegotiated some more of your Rights away when the the Right to keep and bear arms was never subject to negotiation in the first place.

    The 2nd Amendment does not need to be defended as it already exists and so therefore it merely needs to be invoked whenever the government is attempting to infringe upon your recognized God given and constitutionally protected Right. Do not go to court as a defendant, but instead go as the plaintiff and demand just compensation for having your Rights violated under color of law. See 42 U.S. Code, Section 1983.

    If you can remember anything, remember the following:

    “If you don’t know your Rights then you don’t have any.”

    “If you don’t raise an objection, then you do not have one”. (And that by your silence you have thereby acquiesced to their authority)

    “A Right that is not invoked and asserted is in essence a Right that does not exist.”

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “The 2nd Amendment does not need to be defended as it already exists and so therefore it merely needs to be invoked whenever the government is attempting to infringe upon your recognized God given and constitutionally protected Right.”

      Unfortunately, 2A is not Kryptonite to gun control laws. Indeed, “compelling government interest” (government interest in pubic safety) supersedes even the Constitution. Can’t think of any adjudication of infringement of the Second Amendment where the challenge to gun controls started, and ended with, “Shall Not Be Infringed”. Since the courts uniformly rule that nothing in the Constitution is absolute, “Shall Not Be Infringed” is effectively controlled, limited by acts of legislatures and the court system.

      The “victories” for the Second Amendment are only narrow exceptions to the “compelling government interest” argument. No court decision regarding the Second Amendment begins with the theory that the amendment is absolute. All cases begin with the idea that limits are based on due process that acknowledges “compelling government interests” exists, and the question is only whether that interest is legitimate. Bottom up, not top down, reasoning.

  55. avatar George WashingtonGl says:

    This would be THE defining moment for true Patriots…
    Their stance on the second amendment is EXACTLY WHY there is a second amendment to begin with….
    So yeah….. if they try to repeal the amendment it’ll be a perfect time to USE the second amendment for its original intent.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “So yeah….. if they try to repeal the amendment it’ll be a perfect time to USE the second amendment for its original intent.”

      You are saying that use of a constitutionally provided mechanism to modify the constitution is unconstitutional?

      Amendments are an expression of the will of the states (and presumably the people of the states) to restrict, or delegate to, the national government certain power/permissions. If the national government attempted to use simple legislation to ban all firearm ownership, that would violate the constitution. And if the national government attempted to forcefully confiscate the firearms, that would trigger the founder’s concept of the people disciplining the national government through force of arms.

      The founders viewed tyranny as the central committee ruling without proper authority granted by the people. That is, creating unconstitutional laws, and enforcing those regulations through force answerable only to the central government. The founders did not view the will of the people expressed through constitutional amendments to be tyranny. The founders did recognize the use government could make of the power granted through “the commerce clause”, resulting in constitutional use of granted power to subvert the constitution entirely. They could not find a way to limit government power via “the commerce clause”, but realized that without some set of common standards regarding commerce between the States, and between the States and foreign governments, the entire constitution was imperiled.

  56. avatar Hannibal says:

    I like that he specifically dispenses with the whole “I support the 2nd Amendment but….” crap but he’s a complete idiot if he thinks that the deception is what is holding gun control back. “I support the 2nd Amendment but…” is the only thing that allows gun controllers to get anywhere in politic past the bluest of states (NY, CA, MD, NJ, HI)

    Congressmen from particularly stupid districts can get away with it but that’s about it.

  57. avatar enuf says:

    The Second Amendment does not need to be repealed or re-written. It needs a sticker. A sticker in every printed or online copy that says

    “WHAT IS IT ABOUT SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED THAT YOU MORONS DO NOT UNDERSTAND?”

    Yup, that’s what missing, a sticker….

  58. avatar wiregrass says:

    What planet’s history does this loon teach? Obviously not a student of human nature or any civilization on Earth.

  59. avatar Raymond Houser says:

    Let’s simply face it. With the divisions that exist on so many levels today, a national divorce is really the only solution.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Let’s simply face it. With the divisions that exist on so many levels today, a national divorce is really the only solution.”

      There is a book that talks about the end of empires, describes desperate times around the world. There are stories about calamity, and the old empires expire in war and destruction. Many of the empires we are familiar with from history make an appearance, but the US, one of the greatest empires of all time isn’t mentioned at all (maybe by stretching a vague reference to an old lion).

      National divorce? More like sound and fury, signifying nothing, sliding into ignominy, going out not with a bang, but a whimper of victimhood.

  60. avatar Sam Hill says:

    This guy is living proof of the more education a person gets the dumber they grow.
    Actually I like to put the guy on a lie detector cause I don’t think he believes his bullshit, he just wants to sell books. Believing in the Constitution hurts sometimes like right now I’d like nothing more than burning the book along with hanging the author for pandering treasonous material but that would be a violation of the first and second most important documents in history. I believe in both, the Bible and the Constitution.

  61. avatar anonymous4goodreason says:

    “the gun lobby exploits a historically defective, perverse reinvention of this amendment”

    I’ve been waiting patiently for someone to comment on this little jewel but, as none have been forthcoming, I’ll take a crack at it.

    I liken this to the commercial for some weight loss thing that promises you’ll lose 4x more weight but never says more weight than what. Where is his non-historically defective, non-perverse invention? Or, in other words, what is his interpretation of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”?

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Where is his non-historically defective, non-perverse invention? Or, in other words, what is his interpretation of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”?”

      The dearth of comments may be due to the frequency with which gun-grabbers have made the same claim. The concept has been around for a long time: 2A applies only to an organized state militia; the state militia is the National Guard. There is no reason for individuals to have their own firearms to meet their militia duty. Any idea/opinion contrary to the foregoing is “…non-historically defective…”

      1. avatar anonymous4goodreason says:

        Sam, Sam, Sam, I don’t need your interpretation of his interpretation. I want to hear it from him. Further, if that’s his argument, the 2nd does not say the right of the militia members, it says “the right of the people” – big difference.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Sam, Sam, Sam, I don’t need your interpretation of his interpretation. I want to hear it from him. ”

          His answer/reasoning/opinion will not be presented on TTAG. Requires reading his other writings, or asking directly via social media. Doubt he will respond to we deplorables.

          BTW, you did highlight the lack of people engaging his claim…which I did address in the first sentence of the previous comment.

  62. avatar A says:

    “None of these measures would confiscate firearms or stop Americans from using guns for hunting, sports shooting, antique collecting, or legitimate self-defense.”
    WTG is he talking about?! Wasn’t this the whole point of of Heller and McDonald? That cities we’re infringing on the individual right to retain a gun for self-defense……..
    How theoretically smart people so cognitively dissonant……

  63. avatar Ralph says:

    Lichtman and Kuntzman should get together for a romantic weekend in Bangor where they can discuss all their wet dreams.

  64. avatar Greta van sustren says:

    Test

  65. avatar Soup to nuts says:

    Let’s be honest….most states have already repealed the 2nd Amendment. Any right that is gargoyled into a privilege(licensing, registration, etc) is no longer a right.

    1. avatar Geoff "I got your Super Bowl right *here*" PR says:

      That’s why we need childhood vaxxxinations, at gunpoint, if necessary.

      Refusal means summary execution, sentence carried out immediately… 😉

    2. avatar Geoff "I got your Super Bowl right *here*" PR says:

      As long as every citizen is vaxxinated, at gunpoint, if necessary… 😉

      1. avatar Soup to nuts says:

        Hopefully the trolls and the dupes that support mandatory vaccination at gunpoint are the ones going to door to door…..

  66. avatar It’s Time to Repeal Air,Food,Water 4 crazy liberals! says:

    Another failure of elementary school! Lichtman: It’s Time to Repeal the Second Amendment??

    You can’t repeal air & u can’t repeal basic human rights that are unalienable as part of being born a human like the 2nd Amendment that existed b4 the Constitutional right was codified in the Bill Of Rights!

    If u did not know this…u too failed basic common sense & 1st-6th grades!

  67. avatar adverse6 says:

    Once The National Socialist Party takes over they can repeal the entire Constitution. The Constitution was not written for a totalitarian government, therefore it can be dismissed in it’s entirety by the United Socialist State Republic, or whatever they choose to call themselves. Only one rule of law, theirs.

  68. avatar Craig in IA says:

    “Democracy is mob rule.” Absolutely correct. I wish more Americans understood that, and also understood that our form of government is a republic. Government through elected representatives. Understanding all that might give some an incentive to actually follow the candidates (for any office) and get off their butts and vote.

  69. avatar Steve S says:

    If repealing the 2nd Amendment doesn’t change anything for legal gun owners, why does it need to be repealed?

  70. avatar GrogNerd says:

    I would recommend following the instructions found in Article V

    I wish you luck with that. bad luck, but still wish you it

    Article V is the single most brilliant paragraph in the Constitution and proof the Framers were smarter than all of us

  71. avatar MattD says:

    The end of this country is all that would happen. The divide is not along political or ideological lines. There are supporters for the 2nd in every group. Also, prohibition of alcohol was going to cure our social ills too. The money to be made on everything that the government decides you cannot have, would pay for every program you want to implement. This country would fragment over a social whim.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email