What If the Second Amendment Were Repealed?

There are a lot more boating accidents.

A Well Regulated Militia?

Lost in the gun rights debate, much to the detriment of American freedom, is the fact that the Second Amendment is in fact an "AMENDMENT". No "Articles in Amendment" to the Constitution, more commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights, stand alone and each can only be properly understood with reference to what it is that each Article in Amendment amended in the body of the original Constitution. It should not be new knowledge to any American the Constitution was first submitted to Congress on September 17, 1787 WITHOUT ANY AMENDMENTS. After much debate, it was determined that the States would not adopt the Constitution as originally submitted until "further declamatory and restrictive clauses should be added" "in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its (the Constitutions) powers". (This quote is from the Preamble to the Amendments, which was adopted along with the Amendments but is mysteriously missing from nearly all modern copies.) The first ten Amendments were not ratified and added to the Constitution until December 15, 1791.

In this Light: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." What provisions of the original Constitution is it that the Second Amendment is designed to "amended"? THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS AMENDING THE PROVISIONS IN THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION APPLYING TO THE "MILITIA". The States were not satisfied with the powers granted to the "militia" as defined in the original Constitution and required an amendment to "prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers. "(Again quoting from the Preamble to the Amendments.)

What was it about the original Constitutional provisions concerning the "Militia" that was so offensive to the States?

First understand that the word "militia" was used with more than one meaning at the time of the penning of the Constitution. One popular definition used then was one often quoted today, that the "Militia" was every able bodied man owning a gun. As true as this definition is, it only confuses the meaning of the word "militia" as used in the original Constitution that required the Second Amendment to correct. The only definition of "Militia" that had any meaning to the States demanding Amendments is the definition used in the original Constitution. What offended the States then should offend "People" today: "Militia" in the original Constitution as amended by the Second Amendment is first found in Article 1, Section 8, clause 15, where Congress is granted the power: "To provide for the calling forth the MILITIA to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrection and repel Invasions." Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 further empowers Congress: "To provide for the organizing, arming, and disciplining, the MILITIA, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;" Any "patriot" out there still want to be called a member of the "MILITIA" as defined by the original Constitution? Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1 empowers: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the MILITIA of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;" The only way the States would accept the "MILITIA" as defined in the original Constitution was that the Federal "MILITIA" be "WELL REGULATED".

The States realized that "THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE" required that the "MILITIA" as originally created in the Constitution be "WELL REGULATED" by a "restrictive clause." How did the States decide to insure that the Constitutional "MILITIA" be "WELL REGULATED"? By demanding that "restrictive clause two" better know as the "Second Amendment" be added to the original Constitution providing: "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." The States knew that "PEOPLE" with "ARMS" would "WELL REGULATE" the Federal "MILITIA"! Now read for the first time with the full brightness of the Light of truth: "A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." For those still overcome by propaganda: The Second Amendment declares by implication that if the "MILITIA" is not "WELL REGULATED" by "PEOPLE" keeping and bearing arms, the "MILITIA" becomes a threat to the "SECURITY OF A FREE STATE." The "MILITIA" has no "RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS" in the Second Amendment, rather it is only "THE RIGHT OF THE ""PEOPLE"" TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS (that) SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

Civil War 2. And the really unfortunate thing about the coming one, is there will be no way to turn it off. There will be no recognizable armies like the first one.

Scary. The part about trying to differentiate between sides. I bet a lot of the other side will become instant believers in the 2nd Amendment (especially the unarmed ones).

It does not take a brilliant statistician to realize that destroying every stockpile or transport of food to New York, Chicago and Los Angeles would be very effective to resolve any conflict. That does not take an army to do the job, just dedicated squads of guerilla fighters such as employed by the Viet Cong.

In Russia, the scorched earth policy worked against the Nazi army and was used by our own Federal Government against Georgia in the War Between the States. When the Socialist populations of those cities die, the Constitutional crisis will be over. Liberal Socialists feel unreasonably comfortable in their own artificial reality.

Some of the liberals on HufPO have not been paying attention lately. Citizens have been purchasing arms at an exponential rate for many years. We already have the guns. A huge number are not even documented because they were inherited or were given as gifts.

In colonial times there were two kinds of militias: 1) selected militia — organized, trained, paid and equipped by the colony (like today's NG) and 2)ordinary militia — men 18 to 45 that were to form the home front security force while the selected militia boys were fighting with the regular army.

Perhaps when two generations pass away, but try it within the next couple of decades and there will be war on our soil. Americans wonâ€™t take this lying down.

Decent Americans need to work with kids and with young adults, giving them a chance to learn to shoot well and to like it. It is not enough to protect America for our lifetimes, we have to pass on freedom to all future generations. The thugs on the left plan long-term, and we need to do likewise.

I respectfully disagree. I might be and very well am a pessimist by nature, but I don’t think enough people would rise up. There would be a few, maybe thousands, but not enough. Most people would reluctantly hand over their weapons. Many people talk big now, but when it came down to it, most law abiding gun owners would choose the safety of their families over fighting to keep their arms. There would be some battles perhaps, but they would be quickly put down. The government would make examples of people who fought to keep their weapons. It won’t happen overnight, but over the course of a few years, we will be disarmed. Some people will hide some guns in the ground, but they will be shotguns and non registered rifles. Anything with a paper trail, which is most arms purchased in the past 20 years will be found and collected. All handguns will be confiscated in time. Their will not be a CW2, just not enough people that want to risk their lives and the lives of their families.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

BECAUSE without a right to keep and bear arms, a well regulated militia would not be possible.

It is not selective at all.

I mean it is selectively applied on this forum sometimes.

The next Supreme Court justice a Demoncratic president will choose will be another Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, or Elena Kagan. If that person replaces any one of the five who voted for the 2nd Amendment, we can kiss our guns goodbye.

That is what this election is about.

The irony here that you don’t seem to get is the very reason the 2nd A exists is to prevent the government from doing what you’re saying they can do.

Carry on.....

Past performance does not guarantee future results.

By Ted Cruz

John Roberts should be a quick confirm.

In 1995, while clerking for Chief Justice William Rehnquist, I and my two fellow law clerks asked the chief whom he thought was the best Supreme Court lawyer currently practicing. The chief replied, with a twinkle in his eye, that he thought he could probably get a majority of his colleagues to agree that John Roberts was the best Supreme Court advocate in the nation. This week, the president announced his intention to nominate John Roberts to be a Supreme Court justice.

snip-

In November of 2000, I had spent the past year and half as domestic-policy adviser on the Bush campaign, and was part of the team assembling the lawyers to help litigate Bush v. Gore. We needed the very best lawyers in the country, and I called John and asked him to help. Within hours, he was on a plane to Florida.

snip-

As an individual, John Roberts is undoubtedly a principled conservative, as is the president who appointed him. He clerked for Chief Justice Rehnquist, worked in the Reagan White House, and served as the principal deputy solicitor general in President George H.W. Bush’s Justice Department. But, as a jurist, Judge Roberts’ approach will be that of his entire career: carefully, faithfully applying the Constitution and legal precedent.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/214989/right-stuff-ted-cruz

Oh, you expect anything less here? I think I like you again.

Liberal wet dreams...

yup

Its not that I do not understand the 2nd amendment or its importance to our freedom. But I know the Legislature and the States have the legal authority, should they and their citizens care to alter or delete the 2nd amendment from the Constitution if the choose to do so. The Supreme Court by itself can completely eviscerate the 2nd Amendment if the political tone of the court changes. Lose Thomas, Alito or Scalia, replace them with a couple of R.B.Ginsburg types and see exactly how long the Heller Decision lasts.
The 2nd Amendment is not chiseled in stone by the finger of God. It is written on parchment by men, and men with ink pens can change it or delete it. I am an old man now, I will probably not live long enough to see that happen, but I believe, that someday in the future, we would not recognize the 2nd Amendment as we have come to understand it.

Yes...regulated as a clock is regulated. Timing was critical to training with the weaponry of the day. Shots were often fired in volleys, and you couldn’t have sparks flying when people were trying to load.

Howdy, I know this is an old thread, but I stumbled upon it this morning and your post stood out to me in regards to some thoughts I had yesterday...

“Perhaps when two generations pass away, but try it within the next couple of decades and there will be war on our soil. Americans won’t take this lying down.”

Your reply:

“Decent Americans need to work with kids and with young adults, giving them a chance to learn to shoot well and to like it. It is not enough to protect America for our lifetimes, we have to pass on freedom to all future generations. The thugs on the left plan long-term, and we need to do likewise.”

Yesterday, after having done some work on a rifle of mine, I decided to drive to one of the spots I frequently go to for some target practice. It’s one of those places at the end of the road that’s the edge of our National Forest. When I arrived there, another vehicle was already there, and a man I’ve seen around before was doing some target practice as well. I’d guess this guy is in his 70’s, or maybe even 80’s. We both talked for a while, he was telling me about a rifle he had built for him by a local gunsmith that I know as well. He mentioned how he thought the gunsmith was perhaps not doing much work anymore because both he and his wife were up there in years and having health problems. As the sun set and we finished jabbering and shooting, we both left.

As I was driving back towards my place, I started thinking about exactly what you suggested in your post: how we need to try and get more youth excited about shooting sports so that such can be ensured to be passed on for future generations. As I was driving, I realized how many of my range acquaintances have either passed away, or are getting near that time. I also realized that my closest friend and I are not getting any younger either, and when we do see the younger generations at the range, they may be shooting there, but they don’t have the same enthusiasm that my friends and I have shared through the years. Building rifles in wildcat calibers, playing with different loads, and basically trying out all kinds of formulations just to see how accurate, or fast, or just what would happen when trying out new things. It made me think how perhaps all the shortages of components these past years has been a deliberate effort to try and stifle our youth from *really* learning all the fundamentals and engineering that really goes into the sport. The kinds of things that require enthusiasm for learning. Not just buying a rifle, a box of ammo, and going out once a year for a hunt.

I’m not exactly sure what the solution is, but I definitely agree with you that we MUST pass this on to future generations, because like you said, the “left” thinks long term and will do all they can to get rid of this most fundamental right of ours. Anyway, just thought I’d share my agreement with you on this. Keep your powder dry!

Thank you!