Repeal the Second Amendment

Let's keep guns for hunting. Let's keep the revolver in the nightstand drawer, but let's also get more public control. It's time for the moderate majority to override the hardcore zealots.

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution: "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."

Today, one of the most popular claims for the Second Amendment is that it will protect us from government tyranny.  I say that's not true.

Zoning laws are kind of tyranny.  You can't do whatever you want with your own private property, and the Supreme Court says that it's not unconstitutional to restrict you.  Your neighbors can vote in new zoning laws and you'll have to comply or else face sanctions.  Isn't that tyranny?  What good are your guns for that?

You own the house.  Why can't you turn it into an operating sawmill?  It's your property, but your neighbors want to protect their investments so they restrict yours.  Or this: Let's say you want to take a natural plant and possess it briefly enough to put it into a pipe and smoke it, but, because people voted in a law against it, you can't do with your body what you want or else you could get arrested and thrown in jail.  That's tyranny, but potheads don't have a Second Amendment right to defend their liberty and shoot cops.  We already accept degrees of casual tyranny in order to safeguard our security.

There must be a way for Americans to be able to legally own firearms for conventional purposes like hunting and personal defense but repudiate the dangerous notion that firearms are necessary for freedom and useful as a safeguard against tyranny.  That's neither automatically nor universally true.

Many places with strict gun laws have personal and civil freedoms comparable to those in the United States, even surpassing them in a number of instances, and modern communications are a better safeguard against tyranny today than firearms were in former times.  Mubarak's dictatorship in Egypt was overthrown with the internet and protests.

So I postulate that guns are not necessary for the defense of our liberties.  Not only that, but, in a real "tyrannical state" scenario for the U.S., they'd be completely useless.  If a group of amateurish gun enthusiasts grew confident enough to rebel, the Pentagon would obliterate them to smithereens.  Modern techniques of warfare are way beyond the capacity of homegrown "patriots" to effectively confront.  There would have to be a rebellion within and among the armed services first, and the Second Amendment does not apply to the armed forces because they have no need for such a guarantee.

And there no longer is any such thing as a free state.  Abraham Lincoln proved that in 1865.

Repeal the Second Amendment.  Replace it with something that guarantees a right for hunting and personal defense, but also eliminates any kind of paramilitary application.  After the election of 2008 and all the threats of rebellion then, it's time the gun zealots got a dose of reality.

But we won't get that from them.

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Stephen D. Clark December 18, 2012 at 10:01 PM
I've never heard of the First Amendment being connected to a public health crisis like deaths from gunshots (31,000+ in 2011, according to the CDC). I've never heard of someone going into a school and killing loads of kids with free speech. The Second Amendment says: "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." Militias aren't necessary to national security anymore. We have the Pentagon now. The Second Amendment is defunct. Freedom of speech and religion still have valid applications to their original purposes.
Pepprdog December 20, 2012 at 03:16 AM
Only a nitwit would read the words and not study the writings to explain the meaning, the wording and impact for the country. We are talking about the Constitution, not some frivolous paper by some obscure author. Obviously you have never read, and probably have no clue what " The Federalist Papers" are or what they represent.
Stephen D. Clark December 20, 2012 at 11:36 AM
The Constitution provides for itself a process by which it can be amended. It's not meant to be placed on an altar and worshiped. It's a working document.
One Man Wolf Pack January 07, 2013 at 06:27 PM
Stephen, your last blog on this was quite comical and flew in the face of the Declaration of Independence....given my posts about it it seems your have taken the whole previous blog down. Please re-read the Declaration of Independence and know that that document and the premise put forth within it are the foundation to the Constitution and can not be erased by the Constitution. The very thing you are asking to be done would drive enough people currently living in America to that end; but go ahead give it a shot, you had better believe gun owners sure as hell will.
One Man Wolf Pack January 07, 2013 at 06:30 PM
Oops here is a link to your other ridiculous assertions. http://portsmouth-nh.patch.com/blog_posts/interpreting-the-second-amendment


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »