Perhaps Twitter is not the best place to announce that you want to repeal the Second Amendment… Molon Labe.
When Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens said that the right to bear arms had run its course and called to “repeal the Second Amendment”, Democratic Party officials largely laid low.
Fox News provides a look at his reasoning and why he argues it should be repealed.
Karen Carter Peterson, the vice chairman for civic engagement and voter protection for the Democratic National Committee, picked up the gauntlet and issued a tweet urging “Repeal the Second Amendment,” with a link to Stevens’ op-ed:
Repeal the Second Amendment https://t.co/iAIJGmWtlR
— KarenCarterPeterson (@TeamKCP) March 27, 2018
The response on Twitter was part education, and part shock at her audacity.
The Bill of Rights is to limit government, not the people. Those rights are given to us by God, not by her or those in government who are calling for it to be repealed. She took an oath to faithfully defend the Constitution of The United States and the America people. Peterson is in violation of that oath and should be removed from office.
Twitter followers likewise responded.
The Bill of Rights is to limit government, not the people. Those rights are given to us by God, not you. You took an oath to faithfully defend the Constitution of The United States. I did too. You are in violation of that oath and WILL be removed from office.
— Silence_Dogood (@WPSilenceDogood) March 30, 2018
a right according to natural law, a right that cannot be taken away, denied, or transferred.
Even if they repealed the 2nd, it wouldn’t change anything. The bill of rights is a set of rules for government that were not granted by the government but by the people.
— Jonathan L. Guy (@JonathanLGuy) March 30, 2018
Go ahead and run with that in the next election. You will guarantee another Democrat defeat.
— Luv2GoFly (@Luv2GoFly) April 1, 2018
— ♏️are333 🔱 (@BlueEyes088) March 29, 2018
Your not only ignorant to history, you’ve now proven it! Incredible someone so blind, can hold power! Good luck with your simpletons crusade!
— SEAMONSTER (@thieriotski) April 2, 2018
PS/ remember every terrible thing ever inflicted on a population by corrupt GOV’s/regimes, has been preceded by disarming population. Every single time!!
— SEAMONSTER (@thieriotski) April 2, 2018
First off, in 1791 (when the 2nd AM was written) we did have a standing army, the citizens used the exact same type of weapon as the military and you notice the 2nd AM does NOT say “…the right of the people to keep and bear MUSKETS…”
— Steve Brazas (@brazas32) March 29, 2018
WND reported Erich Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, explained that the Framers of the Constitution recognized the right to bear arms as a natural, God-given right – not a right granted by the government – which means repealing the Second Amendment would not eliminate that right.
“When you look at the way the Second Amendment was written, it does not grant or create a right. It does not say the people ‘have’ the right to keep and bear arms. It says that ‘a right’ of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” he said.
“That is assuming a pre-existing right, which now cannot be infringed in any way by the civil government,” he said.
Pratt noted the reference in the Declaration of Independence to the inalienable rights granted by the Creator.
“They recognized the right to self-defense as a God-given right,” he argued, noting the Declaration specifies life and liberty as two of the rights endowed by God.
“So, defense of life just flows naturally out of that. There’s no question, when you go through the statements of the Founders, they refer to the laws of nature and nature’s God,” he said.
Stevens believes the landmark 2008 U.S. Supreme Court case Heller vs. D.C., which affirmed the Second Amendment recognizes an individual right to bear arms, was wrongly decided. The former associate justice contends the Second Amendment was motivated by a concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states.
That concern now, he insisted in his Times op-ed, is a “relic of the 18th century.”
But Pratt argues that the Supreme Court has ruled that “the right of the people” means the same thing in the First and Fourth Amendments as it does in the Second.
“You just can’t do that to the language of the Constitution, otherwise we’ll end up forfeiting all our rights,” he said.