Reload and repeal
Even if you can’t read, that title caught your attention, eh? The Texas reaction: “No Way!! This is AMERICA!!”
Yes, it is America, whose wig-headed Founders declared, “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.”
Since those quaint days, the Supreme Court has decreed the “well-regulated militia” part to be irrelevant. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), it said private citizens have a 2nd Amendment right to possess and use weapons for lawful, historically established situations, no relationship to a local militia required.
In a way, that’s probably good; any militia today hoping to “secure” its free state against the Feds – who have missiles, tanks and a $800 billion defense budget – probably shouldn’t shoot first.
Later, in its 2021 Bruen decision, the Court sharply restricted every state’s ability to stop people from carrying guns in public (for self-defense, of course).
And militia or no, our arms-bearing rights “shall not be infringed.” And yet, the Supremes are apparently OK with infringements like pre-purchase background checks; banning sales of bazookas, etc.; and denying deranged or felonious citizens the right to have guns at all. (Note: ice-picks, axes, kitchen knives, and other “arms” with a purpose other than shooting people to death have not been infringed upon too much).
Bottom line: The 2nd Amendment is a deadly joke. For implicit in every individual’s “right” to bear a gun is the “right” to use it if, in said bearer’s sole assessment of the moment, somebody needs a good shooting. (Gun-safety Tip: Readers can sharply reduce odds of being shot to death by simply avoiding schools, theaters, shopping areas, churches, synagogues, taverns, parks, concerts, post offices, going to work, and fellow Americans.)
Sadly, also implicit in the Supremes’ reading of #2 is that after 236 years of being the United States, America is so divided that 334 million Americans need 400+ million guns to protect themselves from each other. As per capita stats demonstrate, despite – because of? – all that self-protection, America is among the deadliest places on the planet to live (Google it).
That said, as pro-life Republicans frequently note, it is only crazy, careless, and/or lawless people – not sane, careful, law-abiding gun-owners! – who are responsible for the nation’s gun deaths. But crazy, careless, and/or lawless people can’t shoot anyone to death without guns, which are demonstrably easier to control than crazy/careless/lawless people.
Bottom Line #2: There is zero proof that the 2nd Amendment has enhanced the security of any “free state” or – more importantly – those living in one. It has only sanctified thousands of Americans being shot to death every year. In a country serious about ending its deadly plague of gun violence, #2 would be Repealed.
Could that happen soon? Of course not. Amending constitutions takes time and vigorous debate; it took 13 years to repeal Prohibition but Americans finally decided they liked booze (tough decision, to be sure). It took decades to amend the Constitution to let women vote, and a Civil War (on-going, minus the uniforms) to let Black Americans do likewise.
But as lifeless bodies pile up in our classrooms, malls, and neighborhoods everywhere, it might finally be time to start printing those T-shirts and bumper stickers: “Repeal the 2nd!”
With luck, the ensuing national debate could end in consensus, and not a hail of bullets.
6 thoughts on “Reload and repeal ”
Comments are closed.
I think of the 1.7 million lifeless, decapitated, tortured, beaten, burned alive bodies of my Armenian forefathers, who were slaughtered under the watchful, uncaring eyes of the rest of the world. The same Armenians who were disarmed by their Turkish invaders before the genocide.
The second amendment does not exist to arm a militia, or to put venison in the freezer. It provides one tool to keep an innocent population from the next genocide committed by evil people.
That’s why politicians and civic leaders who are willing to sacrifice these martyrs to gain power and votes are just as evil as the monsters like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Hitler who killed upwards of 70 million.
The Jews have a saying. “Never again.”
Those words mean nothing without the tools to back them up.
But as the 1 millon dead babies pile up, The nation turns their head.
No, the Supreme Court did not declare the “well regulated militia” part to be irrelevant. It is the prefatory clause of the sentence.
“The prefatory (militia) clause, according to this theory, merely explains why such a right is needed.”
But does not restrict the right.
You would think a “journalist” would understand sentence structure.
Thanks for “pointing that out”
The Second Amendment is a deadly joke huh? I dare to differs with this elitist socialist “LBJ/KGB” political deceit!
What is a deadly joke, and likewise treasonous and morally and intellectually dishonest, is deceitful anti-gun journalists and newspaper editors who hide behind the First Amendment while viciously attacking, slandering, maligning, and targeting innocent honest American gun owners, our Second Amendment heritage, guns in general, and even the NRA! It’s this “rule for thee, but not for me” elitist mentality we continue to see in our corrupt Congress, state legislatures, judiciary (corrupted by the Earl Warren Supreme Court) who remain the propaganda arm and mouthpiece for the depraved Democrats! Fortunately, truth decay can be resisted, exposed, and called out.
The author makes the mendacious claim that ‘well regulated’ appareantly means ‘a whole lot of laws’.
This could not be farther from the truth!
The facts are:
https://constitution.org/1-Constitution/cons/wellregu.htm
The meaning of the phrase “well-regulated” in the 2nd amendment
From: Brian T. Halonen
The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: “If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.”
1714: “The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world.”
1812: “The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.”
1848: “A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor.”
1862: “It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.”
1894: “The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city.”
The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.
Establishing government oversight of the people’s arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
This statement is confirmed by the Bill of Rights own preamble:
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights
The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
The ‘articles’ – what was ratified as the first 10 amendments to the Constitution – are restrictions ON GOVERNMENT POWERS, NOT THE RIGHTS of the People.
This is also affirmed by the Supreme Court in the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER decision;
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
It is astonishing in the day of the internet, with multiple search engines to research, that people will still apparently be purposefully ignorant of what the Bill of Rights, specifically the 2nd amendment is about.