Home » Blogs » New York Times: Re-Write The Second Amendment

New York Times: Re-Write The Second Amendment

Robert Farago - comments No comments

 Ugly gun (courtesy nytimes.com)

I’m not particularly surprised that the New York Times has published an op-ed calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment. The left-leaning former newspaper of record is so anti-gun they commissioned their artists to create an image of the world’s stupidest, ugliest gun (as above), implying that all guns are stupid and ugly. To them — to Zachary Elkins in particular — they are. As is the bit of the United States Constitution that protects American citizens’ natural and/or human right to armed self-defense. Not that he’d use the word, but Elkins knows his position is extreme . . .

Before you mock the idea of a constitutional amendment, consider that hardly anyone is happy with our unstable status quo: gun enthusiasts fear their rights are under constant threat; gun-control advocates point to the danger of illegal guns and easy access to firearms.

Here’s the thing Zach. One side is right—firearms freedom is under threat—and one side is wrong—making illegal guns more illegal or making more guns illegal won’t do a thing to reduce their “danger” to society. In fact,”easy access” to firearms is precisely what the framers of the Constitution wanted. Which is still the case for those of us who cherish freedom and liberty.

To broker a “grand compromise” (a.k.a., throw the Second Amendment under the bus) Mr. Elkins’ essay delves into U.S. history. Selectively.

First, Elkins discounts settled law (and common sense) that has established the Second Amendment as an individual right, most recently in the Supreme Court’s McDonald decision. To wit: “The 5-to-4 vote also suggests that the decision is not fixed doctrine.”

Second, Elkins ignores the plight of disarmed African Americans, whose suffering formed the basis of the Supreme Court’s McDonald decision. This somehow escaped the attention of the associate professor of government at the University of Texas.

“What part of ‘shall not be infringed’ do you not understand?” the gun-rights advocate asks. “What part of ‘a well regulated Militia’ do you not understand?” goes the retort.

Partly because of this ambiguity, the Second Amendment seemed almost irrelevant for most of our history. In the 19th and 20th centuries, many American towns and states regulated guns. In the deadly confrontation at the OK Corral in Tombstone, Ariz., in 1881, Wyatt Earp was enforcing a ban on carrying guns in public.

“Almost irrelevant.” With two words, Elkins dismisses a world of pain, torture, humiliation and murder inflicted upon disarmed African Americans. Not to mention the millions of citizens left defenseless against criminals by unconstitutional gun control laws.

As for citing the shootout at the OK Corral, what of it? Does the fact that the Alien and Sedition Acts trampled on the First Amendment make the First Amendment irrelevant? More to the point, this guy is a professor?

This constitutional uncertainty should suggest to both sides the possibility of agreeing on a formal clarification of the constitutional text. Zealots will scoff, but many reasonable people would find reassurance in a revised Second Amendment that was properly balanced. Those who propose responsible limits, like background checks, would welcome constitutional support for common-sense safeguards. Those who worry about the slippery slope of encroachments on gun rights would find comfort in an explicit reassertion and reinforcement of the general right to bear arms.

Just for S&Gs, what is Mr. Elkins proposing, exactly? What is the language of this revised Second Amendment that will reconcile two irreconcilable positions on civilian disarmament? Crickets chirping mixed with the sound of zealots scoffing.

Shame on the Times for publishing this drivel, the sole intent of which is to paint gun rights advocates as “extremists.” On the other hand, it’s kind of reassuring that gun control proponents are spouting utter nonsense in a scrape-the-bottom-of-the-barrel kinda way.

Even so, I shudder to think what would happen if another spree killing or high profile assassination goes down within the next few months. We are only a trigger pull away from this kind of crap becoming “common sense.”

0 thoughts on “New York Times: Re-Write The Second Amendment”

  1. If the dealer can not take care of their inventory they dont need any inventory. If they werre really missing 20 guns and didnt know it they dont need to be in the business of selling them. Quite frankly there needs to be some research done before posting stories with bad info. Otherwise you are no different then the rest of the media. This site is supposed to be the truth remember, its in the name. Dont see how this is a second amendment issue. No rights were trampled, calm down.

    Reply
    • Agreed, although almost all the stories about this event make it seem that it has something to do with Sandy Hook. So I’ll give TTAG a pass here. However, 5 minutes of googling is usually all it takes to get to the underlying truth so TTAG should really put in that effort.

      Reply
  2. Well, thank goodness they would have no chance of 75% of states approving such a change, even if they could muster 2/3 of both houses of Congress.

    Reply
  3. I’m excited too!!
    I’m down for a 18 incher.
    Looks prettier than an AUG-A3.

    AUG-A1 owner since ’86.
    Passed on FAMAS in ’88, $1300 was too much. Dumb move.
    FS2000 owner since ’07.
    Safe queens do not exist at mty house.

    Reply
  4. SSDD.

    Let’s rewrite the 1st Amendment while we’re at it where nobody under 180 IQ can publicly speak or express their opinion.

    Reply
    • The lefties complain about “corporate” free speech – the Citizens United Case and all that. We’ll let’s give them what they want. Since the 1st Amendment was meant to apply to people and not to evil corporations, we’ll say that the first Amendment only applies to persons, real or corporate, so long as such person (a) has less than 10 employees or independent contractors, and (b) if a corporate entity has fewer than 15 partners, members and shareholders, and (c) has GAAP consolidated gross revenues of less than $10mm / fiscal year. That should quite nicely stop all corporate speech by large entities like the NY Times Co., while protecting my favority blogs. And large corporations will still have the right to publish newspapers if they choose, they just wont have 1st Amendment protection from government intrusion.

      Reply
  5. “This constitutional uncertainty should suggest to both sides the possibility of agreeing on a formal clarification of the constitutional text.”

    I thought we just did that – it was called Heller. Pretty formal clarification. Has this guy slept through recent history?

    Reply
  6. Someone needs to send him the historical definition of “regulated” as it pertains to guns (where is DG, anyway?).

    Reply
  7. No we are not. We are a trigger pull away from a new level of paranoia and panic but frankly if we were teetering on the edge of losing the Second Amendment, the mimed public outcry by unmanned Twitter accounts and random commentators from fashion magazines would be seconded by organizations that do more than meet a few times with female spokespersons for media coverage.

    If the ability to abolish, rewrite or destroy the Second Amendment was available now it would already have been used. That is not to say in the future it won’t be an issue if we can’t turn the tide now but the tea leaves as they are show that civilian disarmament is only for people with armed guards. It doesn’t show any real measures to create progress. Enough people were taught history, even if they failed it in public school.

    Reply
  8. This constitutional uncertainty should suggest to both sides the possibility of agreeing on a formal clarification of the constitutional text. Zealots will scoff, but many reasonable people would find reassurance in a revised Second First Amendment that was properly balanced. Those who propose responsible limits, like background checks censorship, would welcome constitutional support for common-sense safeguards. Those who worry about the slippery slope of encroachments on gun rights a free press would find comfort in an explicit reassertion and reinforcement of the general right to bear arms free speech.

    Reply
  9. “well regulated militia” is the justification for the right to keep and bear arms. I thought that had long been established. Just goes to show you how uneducated the seemingly educated people are (or think they are).

    Reply
    • It’s NOT established as long as they still hate it. The Second Amendment is ICKY. Thus, it has to go, *by any means necessary*. And I DO mean ANY.

      Reply
  10. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOEBp3eZ8qA

    Heres a longer video…it shows the players were arguing with the refs, with happens at the pro level all the time and they weren’t being aggressive towards the refs, just crowding them. I have no idea why they were mad though, they lost 5-2…the ref didn’t hand the other team the win.

    The refs ultimately have all the power, the game is over…but they can still give out red cards that will suspend a player for the next 3 games. If the players hit them, they’re banned for the next year…at least. So I don’t think the refs are in any physical danger whatsoever.

    So really, there is no reason for the cops to come over…not really…they seem a bit overzealous (all that BOPE training, haha) and consequently it kicks off.

    Reply
  11. While we’re at it, Zach, let’s re-write the Bill of Rights to exclude Liberals, Jews, “journalists”, anyone from New York….. etc….

    BTW, you’d think Zach would have read “Lord of the Flies” and learned a lesson…

    Reply
  12. Are they going to revoke the medical license from the OB that delivered Adam Lanza and shut down the hospital where he was born? What utter bullsh!t!

    This is just a move to further the “Universal Background Check” agenda, aka Universal Gun Registration. If the ATF (Federal Government) can strong arm enough FFL Gun Dealers, they can get them to pass more freedom/liberty stripping legislation.

    Reply
  13. Demon Tactical pin works for my two of three ar’s that have the slight wobble. Not cheap at 40 bucks if you can even find them now but works and looks great.

    Wedges do work but you have to dremel them to get them to fit, easy fix as well.

    Reply
  14. the hilarious part is that his argument – that we need to amend the Constitution to enact “common sense” gun control – erodes one of the biggest claims of antis: that the regulations they seek to impose will not conflict with the Constitution. If he were sure of this, why advocate an amendment?

    Reply
  15. What also is happening amongst gun enthusiasts, whom do their shopping online for ammo, is that they are falling into the trap of: “I should buy this ammo, because it’s in stock and I might not have a chance to get it later.” John Doe is shopping for .223/5.56 and happens upon a site that has PMC 20 round boxes in stock for sixty-five cents a round. He already has a couple thousand rounds sitting in his storage locker in the basement. Thoughts start swimming around, and the little voice in his head says the following: “John, you better buy that, or someone else will – and you won’t be able to find it again at that price. Hurry up! There’s probably ten people already looking at the same item getting read to press the “Add to Cart” button. Get on it!” Mr. Doe falls victim to his urges and misplaced priorities, and quickly orders 10 boxes (because that’s the limit on the site – he would order more if he could,) and breaths a sigh of relief because he now has another 200 rounds of .223! Quod erat demonstrandum.

    When you have many thousands of people behaving like this en masse, it quickly results in sell-outs of the various popular rounds of ammo. It also enables the seller to up the price the next go-around, and test the new economic value model for bullets.

    Lather, rinse, repeat.

    Reply
  16. Hmmm, seems like not knowing where your guns are would definitely constitute them taking your license. Maybe this guy can get someone working for him to get an FFL..cough…cough..RJF…cough…cough. Same story there.

    Reply
  17. I’ve got an AR Frankenstein myself, while accurate and reliable it did wobble pretty bad so I wound up using one of those accuwedge things. The one I use doesn’t feel like plastic though it’s more like a really stiff jelly, you can crush it with your fingers and it springs back. I’ve had it in there for a little over a year now and it seems to work well.

    Reply
  18. Ok, so if we start gathering at our local mustering grounds every Saturday, drilling and training with our weapons in a cohesive fashion, you’ll just leave us alone and won’t beg Obama to send in the drones to dispose of the scary militiamen? Is that what you mean Mr. Professor man?

    Reply
  19. I have had nothing but trouble with mine. Have talked to Doug thru email and on the phone. He’s a good guy. I also installed the update kit with no success. My Zip is currently at the mothership per Doug’s request.

    As crazy as it looks, it really does shoot accurately, the problem is somewhere in the feeding department. I have tried 3 different mags, the BX1 (two new ones), the BX25 (two new ones), and the HC3R (two new ones) with no luck. It wouldn’t even strip the rounds out of the BX1.

    I will post on here once I hear back and get some time with it.

    To all those calling it a joke, shoot one and it will put a smile on your face. At least for a round or two, til it jams. But I have hope that they’ll work the bugs out.

    One more thing, when I left the LGS with it, I opened the box and showed my wife. She then said she thought I was going to buy a pistol. She thought it was an accessory for an AR.

    Reply
    • Spent my March ammo budget on one when I couldn’t find any ammo in town. Very happy. Equal to the target’s role in reliability of splatter/ricocet is bullet composition, I haven’t had any problems yet with my FMJ or HP.

      Reply
      • USPSA rules min 21 feet for handgun. As an RO have been fragged on occasion at between 21-30 ft, usually with low power loads and lead bullets.

        Reply
  20. Funny how some version of the “truth” varies from the actual facts. Instead of listening to someone tell you what your right are why don’t you find out for yourself.

    A: Sales or transfers to and between spouses, domestic partners, children and step-children, are exempt from the private sale/transfer provision.

    Q: I have an antique gun with a magazine that can contain more than ten rounds.
    Can I keep the magazine?
    A: Yes, provided that you register both the gun and magazine using the same simple registration process that is used for assault weapons.

    Q: I have an assault weapon. Do I have to give it up?
    A: No. If you have an assault weapon, you can register it with the State Police. You have until April 15, 2014 to register your weapon. Click on the link to the right to register your weapon.. Under state and federal law, some people are not allowed to possess a weapon, such as convicted felons, individuals who have been involuntarily committed, or individuals currently under an order of protection. These people will not be able to register. There is no fee for registering.

    Q: How does the SAFE Act impact magazines?
    A: Since 1994, magazines sold in New York could contain up to 10 rounds. This continues to be true today. You may buy, sell, and possess any magazine that can hold up to 10 rounds, regardless of when it was manufactured. If you have a magazine that can contain more than 10 rounds, you have until January 15, 2014 to permanently modify the magazine so that it holds no more than ten rounds, responsibly discard it, or sell it to a dealer or an out of state purchaser

    Reply
  21. Good luck to our brothers in Cali. Keep your cool if confronted by anti 2a loons, dress well, speak softly. Keep in mind you will be creating a national visual by which all of us will be evaluated. Any pro gun advancement in the golden state will help everyone. Give it your best people.

    Reply
  22. “Just for S&Gs, what is Mr. Elkins proposing, exactly? What is the language of this “grand compromise” that will reconcile two irreconcilable positions on civilian disarmament?”

    Universal background checks! (complete gun registry of all the people of the US). So when the day comes to confiscate, it is easy to know who has what. And according to the universal background check wording of law, the traceability of the guns as well. And of course if any of the law if violated – the person gets a felony rap and then must turn in their guns.

    Reply
  23. What the learned author (and many others, it seems judging by the comments) fail to recognize is that the Bill of Rights does not “grant” rights, it only enumerates them and that they are “inalienable”; that is, they cannot be taken away, nor even given away by the People themselves. The Second is all about the right to self-defense, whether against criminals, an oppresive government or foreign attack.
    Changing or abolishing the 2nd does not remove the right to self defense by whatever means necessary; it merely identifies the enemy.

    Reply
  24. What’s that line I’ve seen many times before. “If gun control worked prisons would be the safest places in America.”

    How about we let difi, schumer, slo joe and the rest spend a little time in prison and test the theory.

    Reply
  25. Is it true that frequent war is needed to remind the collective population that personal arms are necessary?

    What a distressing thought.

    Reply
  26. I like steel and self healing targets reactive targets are good training and allow for realistic combat style training.

    Reply
  27. So, what are the circumstances that can return most of a bullet back at the shooter, like the famous .50 video, for instance?

    Reply
  28. When I left NYC, I figured someday I would return. There was a time not too long ago that I figured I could get past the consistent harassment of minorities in the boroughs. I even figured I could live with the penalizing fees for owning and keeping firearms. Hell, I might even be able to live with a Mayor dictating what was good or bad for everyone. You can get guns, but the state leaves that info out in the open subjecting you to harassment or theft, unless you beg the powers that be to keep it quiet, and if they choose to honor your request. I miss Brooklyn, but going back would just be walking into a prison without bars. F*ck That. I like freedom, and I like the fact that the state where I now reside keeps info on gun owners secret.

    Reply
    • Incidentally my state does not have mandatory gun registration, one registers with their local PD IF they choose to, which I do not. The state keeps the personal info on permit holders secret from the general public. Each year they release a count of permit holders for general info.

      Reply
  29. “Because it’s none of your fvcking business” should be sufficient in this country.

    Though the truth for anyone should be “Because I do not trust my ‘countrymen.”

    Think I’ll fill a few dozen over the weekend and send them in to harass the process.

    Reply
  30. I’m sure Hamas is laughing right now. I guess some Israelis really don’t care about being alive if it means the guy next door will privately own a firearm that presents no danger to anyone except criminals.

    Reply
  31. something that worried me guns.com reviewed it and found theirs was actually firing TWO ROUND BURST from the factory… did you guys see any of that?

    Reply
  32. This legislation does nothing except punish the law-abiding gun owners of Connecticut. I don’t know which is worse; progressives that are naive to believe that gun prohibition works, or the progressives that know these laws don’t work but just want to disarm the public.

    Reply
  33. “Look, here it is for the last time, pal: Yes, I need to see your hunting licenses; No, I am not going to frisk you.”

    Reply
  34. i really hate HATE hippsters.
    hey excuse me i think you and your buddy left your skinny jeans back next to the bong… or tea kettle… or whatever the hell that apperatus is you kids are getting high with.

    Reply
  35. I can’t imagine what is a bigger deterrent to the criminal element: getting locked up with their pals for a few months, or a bullet in their gut!

    Reply
  36. The First and Second Amendments cannot be conflated. First Amendment jurisprudence is unlike anything else in American law, and Second Amendment jurisprudence is still in its infancy. They are not the same.

    Still, Holmes’ half-witty bon mot (he was a good writer and a bad judge) rears its discredited head from time to time and needs to be dealt with. Falsely shouting “fire” in a crowded theater where it is likely to cause injury or death might be somewhat comparable to an aggressor firing a gun in a crowded theater under the same circumstances. In either case, it’s the action that is punished, not the mere ability to do something bad or the ownership of certain goods.

    Reply

Leave a Comment