Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

workinclasszero

(28,270 posts)
Thu Oct 5, 2017, 03:48 PM Oct 2017

Conservative columnist calls for repeal of 2nd Amendment and destroys gun nuts favorite arguments

Conservative columnist calls for repeal of 2nd Amendment — and destroys gun nuts’ favorite arguments
David Ferguson 05 OCT 2017 AT 10:12 ET

Conservative New York Times columnist Bret Stephens said in an explosive op-ed piece on Thursday that the Second Amendment should be repealed.

“I have never understood the conservative fetish for the Second Amendment,” Stephens wrote.

“From a law-and-order standpoint, more guns means more murder,” he said, rejecting wholesale the Republican Party and the NRA’s line that guns prevent crime. He pointed out that states with looser gun laws have higher rates of death by gun homicides and pointed to a 2013 study by the American Journal of Public Health.

Stephens — who came to the Times after leaving the Wall Street Journal over the Journal‘s pro-Trump editorial policies — went on to knock down the right wing’s favorite pro-gun arguments one by one.

https://www.rawstory.com/2017/10/conservative-columnist-calls-for-repeal-of-2nd-amendment-and-destroys-gun-nuts-favorite-arguments/
22 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Conservative columnist calls for repeal of 2nd Amendment and destroys gun nuts favorite arguments (Original Post) workinclasszero Oct 2017 OP
ok Spartikis Oct 2017 #1
lulz obamanut2012 Oct 2017 #4
DH, who says he used to read that columnist when he was at the WSJ, Seeking Serenity Oct 2017 #7
So what's your opinion on gun control? Kingofalldems Oct 2017 #8
huh, no response yet? Eliot Rosewater Oct 2017 #9
I'm waiting. Kingofalldems Oct 2017 #10
GCRA MyNameGoesHere Oct 2017 #11
Why does it burn when I pee? LuckyCharms Oct 2017 #16
I think that is a pretty significant defection from the party line genxlib Oct 2017 #2
It sounds like he has always been soft on the 2nd Hassin Bin Sober Oct 2017 #3
I recommend a civics lesson for you nt Dreamer Tatum Oct 2017 #5
From you? No thanks. Hassin Bin Sober Oct 2017 #12
I'll lob it on for free anyway Dreamer Tatum Oct 2017 #19
Lob is right. Hassin Bin Sober Oct 2017 #20
"From a law-and-order standpoint, more guns means more murder" EX500rider Oct 2017 #6
Sure, right in the middle of the 3rd world Major Nikon Oct 2017 #14
3rd world has nothing to do with it... EX500rider Oct 2017 #17
... Major Nikon Oct 2017 #18
It's a fallacy to compare rates of first world, second and third world nations. LanternWaste Oct 2017 #21
Kinda like it's a fallacy to cherry pick a few W European countries... EX500rider Oct 2017 #22
Oops, NRA forgot to ban American Journal of Public Health from doing gun violence studies groundloop Oct 2017 #13
Context colsohlibgal Oct 2017 #15
 

Spartikis

(8 posts)
1. ok
Thu Oct 5, 2017, 03:54 PM
Oct 2017

But does it really matter? Both sides have statistics (or so they claim) that support their view. And we are literally fighting against a right that is written in our constitution.

Also is he really a "conservative" if hes saying to repeal the second amendment? sounds like a wolf in sheeps skin, im all for it but lets get real no gun owner is going to read that article and go "oh this guy is a conservative and he thinks guns are ban so ill turn all mine in" they may have voted for trump but they aren't brain dead.

Seeking Serenity

(2,840 posts)
7. DH, who says he used to read that columnist when he was at the WSJ,
Thu Oct 5, 2017, 04:18 PM
Oct 2017

says he's not so much a conservative as he is just a contrarian. DH says that had Stephens been an actual thinking conservative, he'd never have been hired by the NYT.

I'm not familiar with him, so I can't really say one way or the other.

genxlib

(5,534 posts)
2. I think that is a pretty significant defection from the party line
Thu Oct 5, 2017, 04:02 PM
Oct 2017

Still, even if he saves us from guns, his global warming stance is going to get us all killed

I will take anything that splits their coalition.

Hassin Bin Sober

(26,337 posts)
3. It sounds like he has always been soft on the 2nd
Thu Oct 5, 2017, 04:06 PM
Oct 2017

I was listening to a discussion on this in the car earlier. The first thing that came to mind was beware of a trojan horse.

Yeah let's have a constitutional convention. Oh nevermind we'll keep the second but will Outlaw abortion and gay marriage and unions and anything else those fucking fascists can come up with.

Dreamer Tatum

(10,926 posts)
19. I'll lob it on for free anyway
Fri Oct 6, 2017, 11:47 AM
Oct 2017

You can't plan to repeal one amendment in a CC and then pivot to another.

Look it up - you might learn something.

Hassin Bin Sober

(26,337 posts)
20. Lob is right.
Fri Oct 6, 2017, 12:36 PM
Oct 2017

“I certainly would not want a constitutional convention. Whoa! Who knows what would come out of it?”a

Former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

“[T]here is no way to effectively limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like its agenda.”b

Former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger

“There is no enforceable mechanism to prevent a convention from reporting out wholesale changes to our Constitution and Bill of Rights.”c

Former Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg

“First of all, we have developed orderly procedures over the past couple of centuries for resolving [some of the many] ambiguities [in the Constitution], but no comparable procedures for resolving [questions surrounding a convention]. Second, difficult interpretive questions about the Bill of Rights or the scope of the taxing power or the commerce power tend to arise one at a time, while questions surrounding the convention process would more or less need to be resolved all at once. And third, the stakes in this case in this instance are vastly greater, because what you’re doing is putting the whole Constitution up for grabs.”d

Professor Laurence Tribe, Harvard Law School

“[S]tate legislators do not have the right to dictate the terms of constitutional debate. On the contrary, they may be eliminated entirely if Congress decides that state conventions would be more appropriate vehicles for ratification. The states have the last say on amendments, but the Constitution permits them to consider only those proposals that emerge from a national institution free to consider all possible responses to an alleged constitutional deficiency. . . Nobody thinks we are now in the midst of constitutional crisis. Why, then, should we put the work of the first convention in jeopardy?”e

Professor Bruce Ackerman, Yale Law School

EX500rider

(10,856 posts)
6. "From a law-and-order standpoint, more guns means more murder"
Thu Oct 5, 2017, 04:11 PM
Oct 2017

That is not clear at all, the US is #1 in the world gun ownership yet 94th in number of homicides worldwide per country.
Wouldn't we be #1 in that too if that was true?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Major Nikon

(36,827 posts)
14. Sure, right in the middle of the 3rd world
Thu Oct 5, 2017, 09:05 PM
Oct 2017

Only slightly behind Somolia, yet well in front of Syria, and well over 6 times the average for Western Europe.

EX500rider

(10,856 posts)
17. 3rd world has nothing to do with it...
Thu Oct 5, 2017, 10:09 PM
Oct 2017

Palestine and Indonesia have rates lower then western Europe. The EU rate as a whole compared to to the whole US is 3 per 100,00 vs 4.8 per 100,000. not 6 times anything.. I can cherry pick US states for a lower rate also.

 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
21. It's a fallacy to compare rates of first world, second and third world nations.
Fri Oct 6, 2017, 01:54 PM
Oct 2017

It's a fallacy to compare rates of first world, second and third world nations as though they were all one.

For Pete's sake, does no one take logic classes anymore, or is bias and narrative simply so strong that it denies critical thought among those pretending to be clever?

EX500rider

(10,856 posts)
22. Kinda like it's a fallacy to cherry pick a few W European countries...
Fri Oct 6, 2017, 02:05 PM
Oct 2017

....and ignore the overall European homicide rate? I can cherry pick individual US states rates too, Maine has a rate 1/2 of the EU rate and is bigger then Ireland.

Indonesia and Palestine both have lower rates then "1st World" (a no longer relevant Cold War term btw) countries....aren't they "3rd World"?

groundloop

(11,522 posts)
13. Oops, NRA forgot to ban American Journal of Public Health from doing gun violence studies
Thu Oct 5, 2017, 08:27 PM
Oct 2017

They managed to muzzle the CDC, but the truth finally sneaked out.

colsohlibgal

(5,275 posts)
15. Context
Thu Oct 5, 2017, 09:12 PM
Oct 2017

That Amendment was written a long,long time ago in a much different America.

There is no rational reason not to have mandatory background checks and rational limits on the amount and type of guns one can buy. None.

Again, Australia had an horrible incident some years ago, they took quick action, have not had one since.

The NRA and their fans have blood on their hands.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Conservative columnist ca...