To Preserve Gun Rights, We Must Replace the Second Amendment is the headline topping an essay by townhall.com‘s Justin Haskins. Need I say any more? I don’t need to. But I sure want to . . .
Removing the “militia clause” is the only “improvement” you could make to The Second Amendment.
Not because the clause stipulates that the right to keep and bear arms is reserved for an organized militia. It doesn’t. Nor because the militia clause’s use of the words “well regulated” empowers the government to regulate the right to keep and bear arms. It doesn’t.
The only possible reason to remove the militia clause: to shut up willfully ignorant gun control advocates who use the clause to hoodwink gullible Americans into believing that the Second Amendment doesn’t prohibit ANY infringement on their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.
But as nettlesome as the militia clause may be, gun rights advocates should leave the Second Amendment the F alone. Opening it to modification — by popular vote no less — would make Pandora’s decision to open Zeus’ gift to her brother seem like a good idea. [Hint: it wasn’t.]
So WTF Justin?
The United States needs a new amendment governing gun rights, and the only amendment that would likely have any chance of being approved would be one that returns the Second Amendment to the position the Founders envisioned, when it only applied to federal law.
This, coupled with clarifying language that makes it more difficult for federal authorities to restrict gun rights, would permit states to issue stricter gun bans, assuming their state constitutions allow it. But it would also ensure citizens in states where guns are valued—which, by the way, is most states—are guaranteed from ever having their gun rights taken from them by a Supreme Court controlled by left-wing justices.
Such a scheme would likely result in some gun owners losing their ability to purchase or possess some or possibly all guns. But it would also protect gun owners in the clear majority of states and turn those states into safe havens for those who want greater firearms freedom. It’s not a perfect compromise, but it’s probably necessary to ensure the long-term survival of gun rights, and maybe even the country.
Absolutely! Let’s let the states make all the individual rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution null and void if the majority of their population decide that society is better off without them. That’s the America I want to live in! [/sarc]
Unfortunately, that’s the America I live in right now.
What ability does a Hawaiian resident have to bear arms? NONE. The state hasn’t issued a concealed carry permit (an unconstitutional provision on its face) since the year 2000. How easy is it to get a permit in New Jersey? Go sing.
What guns did the California legislature decide its citizens can’t keep and bear in California? How many states allow the cops to confiscate guns from citizens without prior notice and due process?
When it comes to civil rights, there are already two Americas. And yes, they are politically incompatible. But the idea that you can fence off state governments who piss on the U.S. Constitution, to protect the rights of residents of lawful states, is beyond naive. It’s ridiculous.
If you want a way to destroy our country Justin, congratulations. You’ve got it. Thankfully, you’re alone in that. But what happens next is anybody’s guess. One thing’s for sure: it won’t be pretty.