“Gun Control Laws” Sowell doesn’t get it

[jody]

Gun Control Laws By Thomas Sowell

Those who have no confidence in ordinary Americans may expect a bloodbath, as the benighted masses start shooting each other, now that they can no longer be denied guns by their betters. People who think we shouldn't be allowed to make our own medical decisions, or decisions about which schools our children attend, certainly are not likely to be happy with the idea that we can make our own decisions about how to defend ourselves.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Many people who are opposed to gun laws which place severe restrictions on ordinary citizens owning firearms have based themselves on the Second Amendment to the Constitution. But, while the Supreme Court must make the Second Amendment the basis of its rulings on gun control laws, there is no reason why the Second Amendment should be the last word for the voting public.

If the end of gun control leads to a bloodbath of runaway shootings, then the Second Amendment can be repealed, just as other Constitutional Amendments have been repealed. Laws exist for people, not people for laws. There is no point arguing, as many people do, that it is difficult to amend the Constitution. The fact that it doesn't happen very often doesn't mean that it is difficult. The people may not want it to happen, even if the intelligentsia are itching to change it.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

If the public doesn't like the rules, or the consequences to which the rules lead, then the public can change the rules via the ballot box. But that is very different from judges changing the rules by verbal sleight of hand, or by talking about "weighing of the constitutional right to bear arms" against other considerations, as Justice Breyer puts it. That's not his job. Not if "we the people" are to govern ourselves, as the Constitution says.

Sowell doesn't understand that We the People have as PA & VT said "natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable rights" that no government or majority vote can take away.

SCOTUS recognized that simple fact in Heller when it said
QUOTE
c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “{t}his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed . . . .”
UNQUOTE

Would Sowell accept a repeal of freedom of speech or press?

Sowell needs to refresh his knowledge of history because our government does not have the authority to use a majority to impose their view on a minority unless there is an overwhelming benefit.

[X_Digger]

1. He's splitting a hair into at least three slices.

Yes, the second amendment can be repealed. That just means it goes from being an enumerated right to an unenumerated one (at the federal level). It also has no effect on the states' protection of the right via their constitutions. Even if all the 40-something states removed it from their constitutions, it'd still be an unenumerated right.

Tripe and codswallop.

[jody]

2. When PA (1776) & VT (1777) acknowledged the right to defend self is inalienable/unalienable their

citizens could not possibly have given up that right when they ratified our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Regardless of the history leading up to those two events, PA & VT's constitution is an unambiguous statement and says "off limits" to any federal law or subsequent state law.