Gohmert: Without a change to how children are taught, 'We're going to have to get rid of the Second Amendment'

[not new guy]

Of course it does, if Parents/Teachers don't teach their kids morals and values then The Constitution means nothing. If parents/teachers don't teach children that we live in a free society protected by the Constitution and the BOR's then they are worthless. If kids are taught the Constitution was written by a bunch of Wealthy White Slave owners and NOT relevant to today, it's worthless.
Get It?

No, that’s idiotic. The BOR protects rights from the government.

 

[not new guy]

And you keep talking about teachers teaching kids morals. Is that really what you want?

 

[SFC13557]

So abandon all law because some people act lawlessly and get away with it sometimes? What do concepts of right and wrong have to do with the constitution?

If the majority of citizens don't believe in the Constitution then it's worthless.
What LAW? If citizens don't believe in the LAW it's worthless.
Jesus, he's warning Leftists to be careful what you wish for because you might get it.

 

[not new guy]

If the majority of citizens don't believe in the Constitution then it's worthless.
What LAW? If citizens don't believe in the LAW it's worthless.
Jesus, he's warning Leftists to be careful what you wish for because you might get it.

Do citizens enforce laws? I forget.

 

[enbloc]

 

[SFC13557]

No, that’s idiotic. The BOR protects rights from the government.

It's piece of paper, if citizens don't believe in it and judges don't enforce it it's not worth the paper it's written on.
We have many example of Judges, DA's, etc ignoring the laws and the BOR's because it doesn't fit their narrative or political position/beliefs.
Have you been paying attention recently? Gun rulings, Covid lockdowns, etc?

 

[not new guy]

If the majority of citizens don't believe in the Constitution then it's worthless.

And your interpretation of what he said makes no sense in the context of the hearing. From the article:

Passions ran high given the sensitivity of the issues involved, as liberal lawmakers focused on weapons and conservatives on the people who use them. Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, a former judge who handled felony cases, was in the latter group and focused on the need to instill morality in people, citing Judeo-Christian principles. He went so far as to say it is the bedrock of the nation's founding principles, and that the effectiveness of the Constitution depends on it.

"We gotta get back to teaching there is a right or wrong or, I agree with everybody here, we’re going to have to get rid of the Second Amendment, we’re going to have to get rid of Freedom of Speech, we’re going to have to get rid of freedom of assembly," Gohmert said. "This Constitution won’t work the way we are teaching children."

Gohmert then gave the floor to one of the hearing's witnesses, Jack Brewer. Brewer, a minister and the chair of the America First Policy Institute's Center for Opportunity Now, claimed in his opening remarks that a significant factor in mass shootings is the home environment of the shooters. He cited a 2016 study that showed that out of 56 shooters, 18% grew up in homes with both parents. He recalled his own youth, stating that he had an illegal gun but never used it out of fear of his own father.

The whole context points to him meaning that society won't be able to be trusted with guns, or free speech, without morality. It has nothing to do with dismissing or disrespecting the constitution, he's talking about people being too broken to be trusted with such things.

 

[not new guy]

It's piece of paper, if citizens don't believe in it and judges don't enforce it it's not worth the paper it's written on.
We have many example of Judges, DA's, etc ignoring the laws and the BOR's because it doesn't fit their narrative or political position/beliefs.
Have you been paying attention recently? Gun rulings, Covid lockdowns, etc?

Those are some huge leaps you have in there, ending somehow with judges not enforcing the constitution. As I say above, look at the context of his comments. He's talking about society's morality, not whether it respects the constitution. I didn't watch the actual hearings, but from the article in the OP it's abundantly clear.

 

[not new guy]

Instead of the "it takes a village" bullshit he's selling (and you guys are defending?) he should have been saying that society's moral decay makes the constitution more critical than ever.

 

[AllaSnackbah]

Isn't CT trying to get 'Ethan's Law' passed? Where you would have to store your guns at home fully disassembled, in a locked case or safe, and keep your 10-round or lower capacity mags unloaded, and also stored in a locked case or safe, separate from the disassembled gun safe?

Ethan sounds like a giant faggot

 

[meh]

“Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

As we have demonstrated in nation building exercises the world over. I thought I knew what he was trying to say. I also knew when I first read about it that a ton of people would interpret it literally, as if the man had been laying out a blueprint for one potential future. No, you don't keep children safe or prevent the nation from failing by getting rid of the 2A. When it gets to that point here, there is no "we".

 

[not new guy]

Do you guys actually believe that our constitution only works "for a... religious people"?

 

[G4Y4HK]

Ethan sounds like a giant faggot

"Ethan’s Law passed the CT House with an overwhelming bipartisan support of 127-16 and in the Senate 34- 2."

That's a ridiculous margin, even in a state like CT. If they get Republicans to start 'thinking of [their] children' and grandchildren, watch it get railroaded thru before the new session.

 

[Dadstoys]

So abandon all law because some people act lawlessly and get away with it sometimes? What do concepts of right and wrong have to do with the constitution?

I don't think the liberals would like it if there was no law.
The people pushing it would be the least likely to survive it.

 

[meh]

Instead of the "it takes a village" bullshit he's selling (and you guys are defending?) he should have been saying that society's moral decay makes the constitution more critical than ever.

 

[not new guy]

Isn’t there a rule against posting JP videos after 5pm on a Friday? There should be one.

All I’m saying is that Gohmert’s mouth might get ahead of his brain sometimes.

 

[LakeTrout]

We won’t have to get rid of it. But we will have to start using it.

 

[akma]

Do you guys actually believe that our constitution only works "for a... religious people"?

Yup. It is the basis for our constitution. The "laws of nature and of nature's God" entitle the United States to independence. Men are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." Congress appeals "to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions."
Without that knowledge and reverence you see where we have ended up. Literally anything goes, there is nothing to restrain the human appetite for debauchery. Prove me wrong.

 

[not new guy]

Moraity is what matters. Morality can exist without religion, but a given religion - or set of religions - comes with a sort of moral consensus that helps avoid some of the issues we see now.

And we do have religion now, as much as we ever did, people just worship at different altars. What % of the country is politically devout? It’s got to be a big number. Those sects each carry a set of morals, they just don’t agree on some important points.

 

[namedpipes]

Dude needs a refresher on how laws work. That or a tarring and feathering.

 

[Dennis in MA]

I heard a bunch of liberals were jumping in to criticize him. They just kept coming, like tacklers on a punt return.

It was a Gohmert Pile. . . Surprise surprise surprise!

 

[chindogg]

Not what he said nor meant. He was trolling the Leftists who hate the Judeo/Christian values which formed the Constitution.

This. I think his statements were based on this belief:

One of the foremost constitutional theorists of the founding generation, John Adams, observed, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”1 He wasn’t the only Founding Father to hold this view. Indeed, James Madison wrote that our Constitution requires “sufficient virtue among men for self-government,” otherwise, “nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another.”

Preserving a Constitution Designed for a Moral and Religious People - Robertson Center for Constitutional Law

Regent University endeavors to preserve a constitution designed for moral and religious people. Read more here.

constitutionallaw.regent.edu

 

[Quite_Exasperated]

This might be part of the problem…

View: http://twitter.com/BornAKang/status/1605012596587114496/video/1

 

[Bfatz]

Voluntary", as in "voluntarily take this clot shot or lose your livelihood?

In the final days the new laws will become more and more outlandish, nothing will be based in law, forget commonsense. Nut bags every last ine of them.

 

[556USER]

We won’t have to get rid of it. But we will have to start using it.

Yes, we will have to start using it but if the Supreme Court won't start using it, it won't make any difference.

 

[Neologian]

Gohmert claimed that 'the Constitution won't work' unless children learn right from wrong​

The House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security held a hearing Thursday on finding a solution to gun violence, and the difference of opinion between Democrats and Republicans was put on full display.

Passions ran high given the sensitivity of the issues involved, as liberal lawmakers focused on weapons and conservatives on the people who use them. Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, a former judge who handled felony cases, was in the latter group and focused on the need to instill morality in people, citing Judeo-Christian principles. He went so far as to say it is the bedrock of the nation's founding principles, and that the effectiveness of the Constitution depends on it.

"We gotta get back to teaching there is a right or wrong or, I agree with everybody here, we’re going to have to get rid of the Second Amendment, we’re going to have to get rid of Freedom of Speech, we’re going to have to get rid of freedom of assembly," Gohmert said. "This Constitution won’t work the way we are teaching children."

Continues...

Gohmert: Without a change to how children are taught, 'We're going to have to get rid of the Second Amendment'

Passions ran high on Thursday during a House Judiciary subcommittee hearing on Uvalde and finding a bipartisan solution to gun violence in the U.S.

www.foxnews.com

I think truer words were never spoken. On it's face this seems like an endorsement for doing away with our Constitutional rights but in reality it's a simple statement of fact and the natural tension that exists between securing a people's freedoms (theirs by natural right) and cultivating the kind of society that can possess such freedoms in a responsible way. An immoral society simply cannot be trusted with their own god given rights. The Constitution, the freedoms it affirms, and the limitations it places on Govt. worked pretty darn well for perhaps 80% of this nation's history. But any society that has fallen so far into relativism that it refuses to distinguish between right and wrong and refuses to raise it's children with any moral standards simply cannot continue to issue such freedoms. He's merely parroting John Adams I think: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams

 

[Lank]

Exactly. The 2nd Amendment if repealed will not persuademe to turn in shit.

We don’t relinquish God-given rights because schools and shitty parents are failing their children. Gohmert says a lot of stupid shit, but this one is surprising even for him. If everyone abided by right and wrong, we wouldn’t need the Constitution or guns. Both are insurance against those that don’t abide by right and wrong.

 

[SpaceCritter]

"The second amendment is at risk today because of the way our children are raised and the countries overall mental health" is a better way of putting it.

The US has had a plethora of guns for the past 246+ years, that has never changed. What has changed is people and how we treat eachother.

The entire Constitution - as well as the American Experiment generally - is at risk because we have a WHOLE LOTTA people who need killing - and per my .sig - and nobody seems willing to do it.