What If the Second Amendment Were Repealed?
Denninger’s fisk thereof.
The FUSA is not at peace.
I have the God-given duty/right/obligation to preserve my life, as it is a gift from Him. I have the same d/r/o to protect and preserve the lives entrusted to me, i.e. my wife, kids, family, friends, countrymen. Any people or animals threatening these must know I will defend them to the utmost of my ability. Period, end. If all the bad guys had was fists, then I use fists to fight back. If ‘technology’ invented clubs, and the bad guy had a club, I would fight back with a club. “Technology” advances, and now bad guys have guns. I WILL have access to and OWN guns as my means to defend my self, my group, to the best of my abilities. If the bad guys had tanks to threaten me with, I would do my best to obtain a tank, as silly as that may sound. BUT, the brain-dead out there that will say “Well if the bad guys have a nuke, does that mean you get a nuke too?” That statement is so stupid as to not be deserving of an answer. Might as well debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or if the chicken came before the egg. It is absolutely immaterial if they have a nuke because everyone is dead then.
All the Second Amendment does is put into writing the incontrovertible TRUTH that the lives of me and mine will be defended and protected with whatever means are at hand. If the bad guys get LASERs, guess what …
Damn…there’s the manual on how to WIN!
“If all the bad guys had was fists, then I use fists to fight back.”
I admire your sense of fair play, but I’m of the same school that brought WW2 to an end: If they have conventional forces, I’ll use a nuke. Self defense isn’t about the “man dance”. It’s about stopping aggression or threat of same. Now. Besides, I’m too old and cranky to screw around with dangerous asshats who bring trouble. I’m just sayin’…
for the love of all that is holy, will one of these spineless commie lib transgendered godless fucks pleeeeeeeease make the first fucking move? while i’m fucking young enough to shoot? at this fucking rate i’m going to be working in the rebel emergency shoe repair batallion, or camp goddamn cook.
As a contingency, have you trained younger folk with your expertise, in case the downfall takes longer than your lifespan?
Roger that sir. Start your sons and daughters off with pellet rifles or with 22 bolt rifles. Enter them into 4H shooting sports or youth NRA programs and there are “summer camps” for young people where they work with their shooting skills. Make it fun and safe. Do not be the screaming or nagging parent. As they get older take them hunting and persuade them to compete in matches. My father was that kind of man and my sister and I are confirmed members of the gun culture and teaching our children the same. My wife being a NRA and 4H shooting sports instructor was raised the same way and why she now passes on her savvy to the younger folks.
History notwithstanding, the Appleseed program is good as well.
First move? They’re on about the 85,000th move. They’re just trying to set up the final move.
They just did. About a week ago in Oregon. Through their SS.
Hey! I can’t speak to shoe repair, but cook is a respectable, fulfilling and necessary, job. I worked my way up from janitor, to dishwasher to prep & line cook.
The rights written down in the Constitution and Bill of Rights is simply that, the writing down of rights that have existed since time began. As they are God given rights and as such no man, no organization, no cartel and no government has the right to take away those rights. They do so at times, they attempt to diminish in various degrees and they are attempting to reduce and eliminate that right now. But the story is clear, free men do not give up their arms without a fight. Nuff said.
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms” laid out in the Second Amendment is nowhere in the Constitution nor Bill of Rights amended to same, codified.
That’s because that right exists as a natural law right, immune to and beyond the purview of any earthly court or legislature, precisely as the authors and signatories of the Constitution and Bill of Rights understood and intended.
Hence that unequivocal “shall not be infringed” language afterwards.
Any lawmaking contrary to that would be moot, and any enforcement attempt(s) would be therefore tyrannical, treasonous, seditious, and culpable for the bloodbath in response to such an effort that Denninger correctly noted would follow like night follows day.
Repeal away, government jackholes.
Such an enterprise on their part will serve as the indictment of their actions, and those 3250fps ballots will be the jury returning verdict.
There will be no appeal.
Well, bless you for that. “Repeal away, government jackholes.” See? It’s not about the message any more than it’s about the 2nd Amendment. It’s about people and people can identify facts. It’s only a matter of time now…they will.
Paul Ryan and B, Hussein Obama had lunch together yesterday. Since there is only one issue the Republiscams haven’t yet rolled on, it’s likely the two scumbags were discussing various end-runs around the IInd. I’d bet they’ll attack ammo supply, guns not so much. So keep on stocking
The second amendment does not protect my life and liberty.The fukkin guns do.(saw this somewhere and it seemed appropriate,although I believe in the founding documents)
I am in favor of blunt language in the post-war agreements, a la
Article I: Subject to the exceptions set forth below, the relationship between the people of New Fuckoffistan and their public servants shall be guided by the proverb “F*ck me – f*ck you”.
That’s cool… (laughed a little)
Section 590.34.915.1(a)(1)(A)(i): The party of the first part, having invited, entreated, and suggested that the party of the second part should eat, ingest, or otherwise consume a flexible, portable container manufactured from paper, plastic, or hemp, and therein being filled with phalluses, being known colloquially as a “bag of dicks,” the party of the second part may, in declining to so participate, state, retort, and/or respond with an invitation, entreaty, or suggestion that the party of the first part may, at his or her own option, engage in an act of sexual congress with said party’s own mother and/or “Parent A,” subject to the limitations set forth in Section 590.34.916.2(c)(7).
GEN Mattis – distilled. 🙂
Repealing the 2nd amendment, legally speaking, doesn’t change a thing concerning the federal government. The Constitution does not authorize the Federal gov to make any laws concerning firearms. This was one of the major points the founders made AGAINST including a bill of rights. Many of the delegates rightfully argued that if the fed gov is not expressly authorized to do a certain thing — it can’t do it. To add a bill of rights only implies that it can do certain things as long as the bill of rights are not violated. They thought it would lead to confusion and trouble.
Elbridge Gerry pushed very hard for the bill of rights, he gave many speeches on the B.O.R.’s behalf. When the colonies ratified the constitution on the second attempt, after the BOR was in place, Elbridge refused to sign the Constitution. He thought that the Constitution was not written tight enough thus leaving room for manipulation of its meanings.
…we were screwed anyway you looked at it. Like the old saying goes…
Yea we are if we sit back and keep not reacting to the Fed Govt’s. Murders and usurpations. They win. At some point we have to make a bold move and end them because combat is too drawn out. Make it as fast as possible with as little loss of life as possible, tighten up the Constitution, form a new Govt and get back to work.
“Many of the delegates rightfully argued that if the fed gov is not expressly authorized to do a certain thing — it can’t do it.”
Naive they were.
There’s a world of difference between ‘can’t’ (can not) and ‘may not’ as we’ve seen since the Constitution was ratified. The people failed to stop this (or actually wanted it) the first time the Federal government overstepped it’s authority. It’s like a snowball rolling down hill. Pretty soon, you have an avalanche.
Power is as power does. I’m not saying I like it. I’m saying I understand the principle.
Mr. Gerry was right in his push for the BOR and his concern that the COnstitution wasn’t written ‘tight enough’, but if you’ll remember history, he is also known for the term “Gerrymander” when as Governor of Massachusetts he used his position to increase his political party’s power. By even the early 1800s politics in the U.S. had already been corrupted.
And on we go.
Why I’d turn in my guns and jump on whatever box car they tell me to. Thank you dear leaders for using the Constitooshun the way Mr. Matt said you would. You have read Mr. Matt’s works haven’t you? Good luck with your plans you treasonous commie snakes.
Denninger’s math is irrefutable and frighteningly concise. 2+2=4…EVERY TIME!! “new math” doesn’t change the fact.
Heroux and his idiot ilk have absolutely no clue of the misery and horror their stupid little hypothetical wanderings could potentially create. They climb up to the pedestal along side Hitler, Stalin, Mao, et al when they do so.
We can always hope they will decide to play in traffic on the interstate some day soon.
The myriad of compelling arguments alone make the idea of nullifying the 2nd Amendment preposterous. There is no putting the genie of right to self defense of ones self in all circumstances, especially from ones government, back in the bottle no matter how convoluted and insane the lies and fantasy’s of the statist cabal and its cultural marxists leadership.
Whether it is sanctioned by man made “Laws” or reduced to a “crime” by tyrants, it is here to stay. The only thing you have to be concerned with is if you as a Freeman exercise your primal right.
There should never be a question in your mind wether your right to bear arms is “legal” or legitimate, because bearing arms in itself for ones defense and sustenance is in itself the most legitimate act and state of being possible. Nothing supersedes this natural law. Nothing. Don’t even go there, because in itself the possession and use of arms in itself is the very acme of legitimacy. To conflate it with anything else is surrender of your natural freedom in the first degree.
See, we have been dragged kicking and screaming into this specious argument of the “Right” of arms for the very purpose of diminishing our legitimacy of arms and their use in our defense and sustenance, that is the first thing, the second is to misdirect our existence as Freeman in order to disarm us spiritually and intellectually. If we are to preserve our inherent freedom of arms, we must do away with all recognition there is even an argument to be considered to begin with. There simply is no argument about it. We are free in ourselves and our actions, or we are not. There is no middle ground on being a Freeman or a defenseless slave, therefore no argument is warranted. The debate itself over our property, because that what our arms are before anything else, is a con. There is no debate. Your property is just that. Your property. Just as your primal prerogative to feed and defend yourself is. Where is there any weakness in these absolutes of liberty for argument or compromise? Even giving these arguments against our property recognition is in itself compromise. If we are to retain our supremacy in this supreme primal inherent state we must become manifest completely in this state of total freedom. There simply is no argument here. We have weapons, use them accordingly, are Freemen, or we do not and are slaves.
This below is a link to a penultimate examination of why of the 2nd Amendment.
I’ve pasted the conclusion of the work called ‘The history of The 2nd Amendment because in it is contained the absolute reason not why it is a legitimate law, but that bearing arms is legitimate in itself before anything, therefore no argument is possible. Any argument it is just dissimulation, nothing more, and a moot point, useless and bereft of any and all legitimacy. Therefore a waste of time. It is pissing into the wind of tyranny.
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.
English history made two things clear to the American revolutionaries: force of arms was the only effective check on government, and standing armies threatened liberty. Recognition of these premises meant that the force of arms necessary to check government had to be placed in the hands of citizens. The English theorists Blackstone and Harrington advocated these tenants. Because the public purpose of the right to keep arms was to check government, the right necessarily belonged to the individual and, as a matter of theory, was thought to be absolute in that it could not be abrogated by the prevailing rulers.
These views were adopted by the framers, both Federalists and Antifederalists. Neither group trusted government. Both believed the greatest danger to the new republic was tyrannical government and that the ultimate check on tyranny was an armed population. It is beyond dispute that the second amendment right was to serve the same public purpose as advocated by the English theorists. The check on all government, not simply the federal government, was the armed population, the militia. Government would not be accorded the power to create a select militia since such a body would become the government’s instrument. The whole of the population would comprise the militia. As the constitutional debates prove, the framers recognized that the common public purpose of preserving freedom would be served by protecting each individual’s right to arms, thus empowering the people to resist tyranny and preserve the republic. The intent was not to create a right for other (p.1039)governments, the individual states; it was to preserve the people’s right to a free state, just as it says.
THE HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT
David E. Vandercoy
Copyright © 1994 Valparaiso Univ. Law Review. Originally published as 28 Val. L. Rev. 1007-1039 (1994)http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html
Show me where your right to breathe was granted to you in the Constitution. Nowhere? Well then, Congress can pass any law it wants restricting your right to breathe… you know, carbon dioxide, global warming and all. Correct?
What? You say you “need to” breathe freely? Prove It! Prove it! Prove it! If you prove it enough, and if you pay me, I might grant you a license to breathe freely. Maybe. Until then, lets go ahead and fit you with this nice shiny choke collar. There, isn’t the fuzzy lining nice?
Gentlemen, the above is smartassery. But the principle illustrated is exact. You are either a free man with natural rights or you are not. Period. End of discussion.
Law Imposement officers, read the above and remember, you will not always be the one fitting the other guy for the choke collar.
“What would you do if the Second Amendment was effectively repealed by a US Supreme Court ruling that the right to bear arms does apply to an individual, but only individuals in a militia?”
Hence the destruction of State Defense Forces who are sworn in under the authority of their governor. National Guard officers need an additional nod by the federal government.
Can’t have an uppity governor swearing in every adult in his state militia can we.
“As a law abiding gun owner, would you give up your guns?”
Tough talk aside most will. They’ll say ‘the law is the law’. After they hand in theirs they’ll help you hand in yours –just like good germans helped their jewish neighbors do after Hitler came to power.
I’m certain that the majority of fellow gun owners at my club would fold quicker than if they were holding 7-2 off suit.
“Tough talk aside most will.’
Ny “Safe” Act : no more than 10% compliance, Ct ditto.
Even Calif. many years ago AWB major fail (don’t have the stats but no more than 20%)
Add to those facts inconvenient to your pessimism, that more and more folks are realizing the truth and that the deteriorating economy etc will only force ever more to the conclusions most if us have come to already.
Oh, and er…gun and ammo sales to the Moon!
If the 2nd amendment were repealed, I would say ” long live the right to keep and bear arms, bfytw.”
Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Join 1,781 other followers
Sign me up!