Previous Post
Next Post
20120724-2nd-amendment-cartoon
courtesy yogilove.com

A TTAG reader writes:

Without summarizing years worth of blogs and comments, maybe we can all agree that the Second Amendment, as written, no longer serves its purpose. Almost all the disagreement over the meaning of 2A is bound up in interpretation. So long as anyone can form an opinion, and so long as courts will act as a super-legislature (or defender of the public, depending), and as long as government officials believe they have an obligaiton to “fill-in-the-blanks” regarding common sense gun ownership, the fights over the current Amendment will continue . . .

Is it time to accept the reality that in the era in which we now live, the archaic form of expression codified in the Second Amendment is at the root of the issue? And that the Amendment needs to be re-written? Cries of “absolute” are not establishing truth, nor are those claims doing much of anything to move the political needle one way or the other.

The problem with the current wording of the Second Amendment is that we live in a culture of binary conditions, while the Amendment lives in a time of great change in the thinking of how a government should be established and maintained. Today so many people subscribe to the theory that if an activity isn’t directly and completely prohibited, that activity is permitted. Then there are the lawyers who make a living arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Haven’t we had enough of this?

My proposal is to re-write the Second Amendment in such a way that it can’t be contorted by interpretation. For example:

The residents of these United States, territories and protectorates, as constituted in 2016 or as shall be expanded or contracted in the future, have the right to keep and bear personal arms, of any type, for any purpose. This natural, human and civil right shall not be constrained in any manner, for any reason, by any action of the federal, state or local government, including further and future amendment. The several courts under the jurisdiction of the United States, territories and protectorates are prohibited from considering any lawsuit regarding possession of firearms, except to determine whether or not this amendment has been violated.

I don’t claim to be a legal scholar or linguist, but this wording should be clear enough even after further erosion of the American language. Any ideas as to how to make a new Second Amendment are welcome. If the People of the Gun can generate the requisite political will to change the Constitution as recommended, we should be able to put this to bed, once and for all.

Previous Post
Next Post

248 COMMENTS

  1. Difference between our founding fathers and the present is back then there was no ambiguity to the wording shall not infringe.

    • This is a good post and I think quite appropriate on a day when we honor all those who have sacrificed to protect all of our rights, including the one under discussion. However, let me push back a little on the premise.

      I can’t agree that the 2A no longer serves its purpose. Within the last decade we have had more important pro-2A Supreme Court decisions than we’ve had in the entire period since the Constitution’s ratification. Those decisions are based squarely on the 2A. Moreover, gun ownership has continued to increase as have state laws recognizing the right of self-defense via concealed/open/constitutional carry. Those laws are also based squarely on the 2A and state constitution analogs.

      For those who say the 2A no longer serves its purpose because it now allows infringement but didn’t allow such infringement at the time of the founding (“Difference between our founding fathers and the present is back then there was no ambiguity to the wording shall not infringe”), I disagree.

      At the time the 2A was drafted, there were restrictions on RTKBA (e.g., based on age, location, mental capacity, amounts). As far as I’m aware, no one at that time suggested that the 2A was intended to do away with those restrictions or make them unconstitutional.

      However, as this post hints at, the RTKBA at the time of the founding may be conceptually different than it is today, but I suggest that is because of technological advances of guns. The fit might not be as good as it once was, but it still serves its purpose.

      The key to ensuring its continued validity is to recognize its original limits (don’t pretend they don’t exist) but make sure those limits aren’t improperly expanded by today’s anti-2A crowd.

      • If it is not broken, leave it alone. The old paths are the only right paths.

        • “If it is not broken, leave it alone.”

          Really? How well is all that RTKBA, “shall not be infringed” stuff working out for you?

          The original post identified that in this society, today, archaic language is too vague to put a stop to the unrelenting erosion of our gun rights. Everyday, mere legislation, law, or court ruling rolls back our rights further. We win here and there, but a stalemate at near-50/50 is not victory.

    • RF posted an article that I wrote a couple of years ago outlining the process Congress used to come to the final wording of the Second Amendment. They were very precise and diligent and the final result was as clear and concise as they could make it, in their opinion. Any confusion as to the prefatory clause “A well regulated militia…” was further clarified by the Heller decision.

      That said, I have two comments about this article:

      1. In the history of its existence, so far as I know, NONE of the ten amendments that make up The Bill of Rights has ever been further amended, re-written, clarified or repealed by Constitutional means or any means except by the mechinations of activist courts and judges. Nor has any other amendment to the Constitution been repealed except for Prohibition which was, coincidentally enough, the only amendment that ever attempted to act as a prohibition against what the people could do rather than as a limitation on what the government could do.

      2. “This natural, human and civil right shall not be constrained in any manner, for any reason, by any action of the federal, state or local government, including further and future amendment.”

      Thomas Jefferson himself wrote that, and I’m paraphrasing: No Congress of men, nor legislature, may enact any legislation or social contract which may be forever binding on their posterity.

      In other words, you cannot pass a law, or an amendment, and include the term “This is set in stone and may never be changed by anyone for any reason!”

      So, forget about re-writing the Second Amendment, this is dangerous territory, especially with the current make up of the Supreme Clowns of the United States. What we should be looking at, and working towards, is an Article V convention of the several states to discuss necessary amendments to the Constitution that the elected Congress is loathe to address. Among these amendments should be a CLARIFICATION of the wording of the Bill of Rights and an affirmation of their being the natural, civil and Constitutionally protected rights that no governmental agency has the authority to regulate or revise other than by full and Constitutionally appropriate repeal.

      • First you advocate “forgetting” about amending the constitution in order to drive a nail in “shall not be infringed”, but later declare that the very same thing should be done by a constitutional convention. Do you realize that a constitutional convention can only submit proposed amendments to the congress?

        The convention detailed in the constitution is completely different (on purpose) from the one that wiped away the Articles of Confederation, and ended up with an entirely new constitution. Any proposed amendment from the convention of the states must be moved through the same ratification process as those amendments originally proposed by/in congress. The same congress we all consider incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial. If the current congress can screw up an amendment nailing down clearly our right to arms, so can the congress through which amendments from the convention of the states must pass.

        And there are no rules for how congress must handle convention amendments. The constitution says only that congress shall publish the amendments to the several state governments. Not when, hot how, not in which form, not unadulterated.

        • ….except that the output of the (new) convention of the states does not have to be approved by Congress. The convention takes the place of congress proposing the amendment by two thirds vote of both houses. The process for ratification is the same (approval of three fourths of the states’ legislatures or conventions therein, as decided by Congress).

          Thus, once the convention reports its amendments, the ONLY effect Congress can have on ratification is (possibly) mandating that conventions within the states, rather than the state legislatures, will consider the amendments.

          Incidentally an “amendment” could conceivably be a wholesale rewrite of the Constitution, or a complete gutting of the Bill of Rights, or something equally drastic. But I’d be more worried about subtle sabotage and/or a poison pill being incorporated in an otherwise good amendment (e.g., term limits bundled with a repeal of 2A).

          • Yes?

            The amendments forwarded from the convention of the states must, one day, somehow (unspecified in the constitution) be published to the states. The states then must ratify IAW the constitution. If the voting population instructs (my majority of those voting) their states ratify the amendments, and the states do so, that is the end of it. If gun rights people do not have enough political power to prevent anti-gunners from hijacking the amendments, well, that is how the system is supposed to work. Under any circumstance imaginable, avoiding any attempt to strengthen the language of an amendment does nothing, nothing to prevent the other side from doing it on their own. We can’t hope that if we do not open the door, the grabbers will not do it themselves. We gotta stop being in perpetual reactive mode.

        • What I was arguing against was your contention that the congress had to approve what the convention came up with, before it went to the states.

          • Congress does not approve amendments from the convention, only published to the states.

            “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States,[8] shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States,[9] or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress …. ”

            All that is stated in Article V is that if 2/3 of the state legislatures call for a convention, Congress must call a convention. It is not stated whether the states will be represented in the convention equally as states or proportionately to each state’s population.

            Once a convention of the states is called, congress writes the rules about what happens next because there are no instructions in the constitution. Regardless, the convention of the states cannot ratify anything. The proposed amendments (including a completely new constitution) must be ratified by 3/4s of state conventions (no legislatures). The convention of the states (constitutional convention) cannot establish, install or ratify anything. So the feared sweeping away of the current constitution can only be done by ratification of state conventions (not legislatures); three-fourths required.

            And I submit that if 3/4s of the states wish to abolish the current constitution, that is permitted and proper. If we fear that constitutional conservatism cannot withstand assault, then we are dead already, waiting only for the undertaker.

      • In the end, it makes no difference what the second amendment says. People who want it gone will always gobble up whatever half-assed, poorly reasoned excuse they can find to support the idea that it’s invalid and it should be repealed in the name of safety.

        Support for the anti-gun movement is based entirely in emotion, so the hope that people will leave it alone once they’ve received a proper block of instruction on what the language actually means is futile. They argue with gun owners over the language, yes, but ultimately, they don’t care if the language makes sense or not because all they want is the illusion of safety (a desire perpetuated entirely by the media). Whatever facts and concrete arguments we present to them just fall on deaf ears.

        • Mike : You hit the nail on the head, and have disposed of any argument for a re-written 2A. The through the looking glass mindset of the anti-gun crowd is not amenable to any reasoning we may set forward, and should be viewed more as a strange set of religious beliefs, rather than anything accesssable to logic. For those who see an armed population as an obstacle to their political agenda, these anti-gun zealots provide a vocal force, ripe for exploitation. In sum, it is our own determination to preserve this “Necessity for the security of a FREE state”.rather than tampering with the text of 2A, that will sustain this God given right.

          • Amen, brother!
            No words have ever kept(or gained) men their freedom. It has always taken actions, not words. Trying to figure out a way to make lawbreakers obey laws is an exercise in futility. Always it has required locking them up away from the people they choose to prey upon. And sometimes just killing them outright, but that, too, is barbarism.

          • “In sum, it is our own determination to preserve this “Necessity for the security of a FREE state”.rather than tampering with the text of 2A, that will sustain this God given right.”

            I applaud your belief in universal right (correctness). However, not “tampering” with 2A got us here, where tampering is simply fun sport. “Our own determination to preserve….” worked really well throughout the 20th century; we are in an arguable 50-50 split as to the public, a single SC appointment from mandated confiscation.

            As always, constitutionalists are on the defensive, never on offense. Why haven’t the Koch brothers, or (if one or two exist) some other “conservative” billionaire bought a newspaper, a magazine a TV network, a radio network, or a law firm where the constitutionalist message is pounded, propounded, illustrated, sold, supported, heralded, rentlessly? Answer is simple. There is more revenue to be gained from the other side.

      • Regarding a Constitutional Convention, I have a question for you and anyone else considering such a dangerous proposal: If government refuses to obey the U.S. Constitution now — And government most certainly does refuse to obey it now unless it suits its purpose — what possible amendment could be derived under even a perfect Con-Con that would correct that lawlessness?

        I have a better suggestion: Start prosecuting legislators and executive officers for perjuring their oath or affirmation of office when they legislate or enforce color of federal law not authorized by the U.S. Constitution or color of State or local law prohibited by the U.S. Constitution (which, btw, includes the Bill of Rights “for all intents and purposes part of the supreme Law of the Land”).

        When the people rise up against a rogue occupation government not deriving every scintilla of its authority from the State-written Constitutional compact that created it and delegated to it the only authority it has, it is not a “revolution.” It is a counter-revolution against the ongoing insurrection against the Constitution of the United States and the sovereign nation-States that created the federal government and own it as a wholly-owned subsidiary of the States and the people” — and it is a violation of 18USC2383 and associated statutes.

    • If you’re a lawyer, believe you can argue anything.

      For example, the meaning of the word “is”.

    • An Article V Convention to rewrite the 2nd Amendment is insane. The people involved in such an insane venture do NOT follow the letter of the law. They make up rules as they go along. IF you think they follow the letter of the law, then you need a lesson in how the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. (Here’s one point – The 14th was NEVER properly ratified. A bunch of a-holes just proclaimed it ratified, and it became the law.) Do you want to take that extreme risk with your gun rights?

      • “Do you want to take that extreme risk with your gun rights?”.

        Refusing to take this problem head-on has done worlds of good for gun owners.

        BTW, amending an amendment is not the same as a constitutional convention.

        Failing to secure the second amendment against future encroachment (and future court jurisdiction) results in only a slow death of the second amendment via mere legislation, regulation, and ordinance. “Shall not be infringed” is not working.

      • The irony here is that one of the prime motivations, indeed the foremost, for the Fourteenth was to protect the Second.

        • … from the States. It has always astonished me that before they would agree to ratify the U.S. Constitution, the States demanded a Bill of Rights. Then, having obtained the Bill of Rights, they proceeded to ignore it for 81 years, claiming it only applied to the federal government and “States’ Rights” allowed the State governments to do whatever they dang well wanted to do, in great detriment to their own citizens.

          The fact is, the federal government was created by the States in compact and are its wholly-owned subsidiary (unratified 17th Amendment notwithstanding; [it is prohibited by Article V unless EVERY State Consented to the loss of its suffrage in the Senate]). Article V says Amendments are for all intents and purposes part of this Constitution, and Article VI says the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, the Laws or Constitutions of any State notwithstanding.

          In short, we didn’t need a 14th Amendment for the Bill of Rights to apply to the States. And there is no such thing as “intermediate scrutiny” versus “strict scrutiny” versus (what, “no scrutiny at all”?) when SCOTUS examines a law for its Constitutional legitimacy. If the Constitution doesn’t delegate the authority to the federal government, the federal government doesn’t have it, period-full-stop-end-of-story. If the Constitution prohibits infringement of a fundamental right, then no government entity at any level, and no non-government entity at any level, has the authority to infringe upon in it any place a citizen has a legal right to be (either by invitation, by purchase, or by being on premises open to the public) Period-full-stop-end-of-story.

          If we want to be free, we have to fight for the liberty of others to exercise their freedom.

    • The meanings of just about every Amendment – including the Second Amendment – can be found in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, neatly published and easily available. These were the pro and anti arguments from which our foundational laws were finalized.

      • “The meanings of just about every Amendment…. can be found in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers.”

        Yes, indeed. But those documents, that commentary are “extra legal”, non-binding footnotes. We are where we are because the current 2A wording is not definitive enough in today’s society (and distaste for rule of law). Where has “shall not be infringed” done any good to preserve our 2A right? The courts invented multiple levels of legal scrutiny as exceptions to the absolutist wording of 2A, as they have invented the concept of “compelling government interest”. The Federalist Papers, the “shall not be infringed” have done nothing to slow the erosion of our rights, everywhere.

        • Sam, try looking up enumerated rights. The simple version is that if it is not specifically allowed, it is prohibited from doing.

          • “Sam, try looking up enumerated rights. The simple version is that if it is not specifically allowed, it is prohibited from doing.”

            Yes, we have a constitution that enumerated certain personal and civil rights. Problem is that the 10th amendment, the one specifically telling the central government that it has no power not directly and specifically delegated from the states. However, the SC ruled that the 14th amendment forced all the federal restrictions onto the states, completely upending the purpose and basis for the constitution. That ruling created vassal states, ruled by an overpowering, overreaching central government. The enumerated rights now mean whatever the central government (including the judiciary) finds useful at a given moment.

            • Sam, the enumerated rights are those rights specifically spelled out in the Constitution as to what the 3 branches of government may do. Anything not spelled out in the Constitution means those rights are reserved to The People.

              • “Sam, the enumerated rights are those rights specifically spelled out in the Constitution as to what the 3 branches of government may do. Anything not spelled out in the Constitution means those rights are reserved to The People.”

                And where has that gotten us?

                The last group of people who insisted upon the principle you described wore the butternut gray. The result of all that effort was the definitization of the fact that the states were/are not sovereign, that the power of the federal government does not issue from the states, that the states were/are political subdivisions of the national government.

              • Which changed nothing, Sam, though it gives hope to those who seek to dominate the sovereign States and the people, whom you are aiding and abetting with your defeatist attitude. For your information, the Civil War was incited not by a grass-roots effort in the South, but by a phalanx of British agents seeking — as they are today — the destabilization of the United States of America. (Actually, truth be told, the agents didn’t and don’t today report to the government of Great Britain; they report to their bankster cartel owners in the autonomous City of London to whom Great Britain is a wholly-owned subsidiary.)
                In spite of the mutiny against the sovereign States committed by the federal government in the Civil War and again in 1913 with the falsely-declared ratification of the 17th Amendment, specifically prohibited by Article V of the U.S. Constitution, the United States government (aka “federal government”) is the wholly-owned subsidiary of the sovereign States in compact, any one of which has an absolute right to overrule any action of the federal government not pursuant to the document they wrote and ratified that created it.
                All any State has to do is declare the 17th Amendment null and void for lack of ratification, prove it by presenting the public record and citing Article V in pertinent part, choose U.S. Senators in the State legislature as required by Article I Section 3 and send them to the U.S. Senate. There is much more than needs to be done, but that one action will peacefully, legally, safely put the federal government back into its Constitutional box — and every other State will most likely follow suit for the economic and political benefits are enormous. The States may then undertake the process of rescinding all federal legislation illegally passed since 1913 and restoring sovereign State control over the federal government. “Federalism” does not exist unless the federal government does exactly what it is told to do in the Constitutional compact and DOES NOT DO anything it is not told to do in that document.

              • From a legal standpoint, for a state to declare any part of the constitution null and void, the state must be sovereign, must have rights superior to the national government. That condition ended in 1865, further reinforced by the the SC in 1925. Should a state actually be determined sovereign, the next hurdle is to find legal grounds to unilaterally declare any part of the constitution null and void. Again, that possibility ended in 1865. Regardless of who, whom, which cabal could be proven the source of the upending of the constitution, upended it is. States are mere vassals to the central government. Thus, making the intent and application of the second amendment stronger and less subject to interpretation would create a bright line visible even to today’s educationally deprived and challenged society.

                Either the puplic (i.e. the majority of those voting) repudiate their complete subjugation via the ballot box, or try once again to forcefully lift the bondage. There are only two means to accomplish constitutional change: through the legal and legislative (voting) process, or by extra-legal means. We should place no faith in the latter as the current populace lacks any of the determination and passion of those who last attempted.

              • Let’s make a recurrence to first principles, Sam: Is the U.S. Constitution the supreme Law of the Land, or not? If so, was the Civil War in 1965 conducted as the result of a properly ratified amendment, or not? Was the SCOTUS decision in 1925 a properly ratified amendment, or not? The answer, to both questions, is “of course not.”
                Therefore the U.S. Constitution remains binding, just not obeyed. The sovereign States in compact created the federal government and the federal government remains the wholly-owned subsidiary of the sovereign States in compact.
                Every State retains their sovereignty no different than the national governments of France or Germany. The federal government was created out of nothing, a legal fiction for the purpose of establishing a one-stop shop for foreign affairs and for providing the cohesiveness and cooperation among the sovereign States in matters of commerce and the navigable waterways, and especially establishing a stable monetary system of intrinsic value.
                All political power flows from the people, Sam. The people created the sovereign State governments and the sovereign State governments created the federal government. The federal government has no authority not delegated to it by the sovereign State governments.
                Each person, Sam, including you and I, have a choice: We can decide the State-created federal government successfully committed mutiny against its owners and now owns the States and the people as chattel, and there is nothing we can do about it and we might as well just roll over and lick the hands which feed us until we are permanently defanged and caged, or we can decide to conduct ourselves now and into the future as though we are free men and women aware of our rights and our sovereignty and we will not comply with the colors of law, the tyrannies of chattel, the Divine Right of Kings to Govern, and we will defend ourselves with force of arms if we are compelled to obey the Rule of Man.

              • As noted earlier, there are two ways to deal with the federal government: legal/legislative, or extra-legal.

                “The people” (the only meaningful definition of “the people” is “majority of those voting”), approve of the current state of the union. Nothing indicates there is any limit to the subjugation of states and individuals that will be tolerated; “the people” approve through action, or inaction.

                Constitutional conservatives are perennially on the defensive, letting the other side chose the time and means of attacking individual and state freedoms. Constitutional conservatives simply wait to be attacked, then respond. This tactic may work well in the NFL, but in any other type of war, the defender eventually loses. And here we are.

              • “As noted earlier, there are two ways to deal with the federal government: legal/legislative, or extra-legal.”

                True. I am proposing a legal way: The federal government was created out of nothing by the sovereign States in compact and delegated certain specific powers from the lawful powers of the sovereign States, without the States relinquishing those sovereign powers, The federal government is the wholly-owned subsidiary of the sovereign States. The federal government took the extra-legal step of committing mutiny against the sovereign States twice; Abraham Lincoln was the first; the ungratified 17th Amendment, depriving the sovereign States of their standing as the owners of the federal government, was the second. I am proposing the States take the LEGAL step of declaring those extra-legal steps null and void and restoring their sovereign authority over their creature, the federal government.

                “Constitutional conservatives simply wait to be attacked, then respond. … the defender eventually loses.”

                True. Have you noticed yet that I am proposing the Constitutional conservatives go on the offense by requiring their State governments to exercise their sovereign authority over the federal government?

              • “Have you noticed yet that I am proposing the Constitutional conservatives go on the offense by requiring their State governments to exercise their sovereign authority over the federal government?”

                Yes. How would you expect the states to go about that? Given the Red/Blue map, how do you see reassertion of states rights?.

                In short, the future of the nation/union is ordained. The choice we are left with is between the swift death (domination by the liberals/leftists/statists/whateverists), and the slow death (domination by the the other party. The destination is immutable, only the means and timing remain.

              • “In short, the future of the nation/union is ordained.”
                This seems a bit of a defeatist attitude to me. I’d rather say; The elite’s PLAN for the union is ordained and ends in the death of the republic, but the best laid plans of mice and men…etc.
                That is only IF the people can be kept in the dark about the fact that republic/democracy, statute/law, legal/lawful, etc. are DIFFERENT things, and not synonyms. That is IF the people can be dumbed down enough to accept it. OTOH, IF we can wake enough up to these facts, instead of just accepting their plan for us, then their plan will fail. Naturally, they will go to almost any lengths to avoid this awakening, but that doesn’t mean it won’t happen anyway.

              • “The people” have determined they can raid the treasury (federal and the economy) by voting privileges for themselves, paid for by others. The actual decisions on every political matter (or ballot initiative, or primary, or general election) is, “Which of these guys will give me more of what I want without me being required to do anything?” Defeatist? There is no battle to promote, the courts are part of the government, at all levels. Waving the constitution provided no legally sufficient basis upon which to return control of the government to “the people” (who largely don’t want it anyway). Waco, Ruby Ridge. If things like that didn’t ignite the populace, what will? There was no political/legislative uprising demanding the government be held accountable.

                Enjoy what you have, while you can. Hope the final stage goes at least one more generation.

              • All of that is truth. It is the people that allowed the language to be corrupted, for the FED and IRS to take over(unlawfully) in 1913, for statutes to be substituted for Laws with even noticing, and etc…
                So it is the blindness of the people that allowed the evil ones to take over, and leave us in the mess we now face. So it seems logical to me that that is where the battle is being fought. It is the battle for hearts and minds of the people. It is why I am on here saying the things I’m saying. Because I still have hope that it is not to late to reverse that. Civilizations always go through 9 stages; http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/19/the-nine-stages-of-civilization-were-in-the-seventh-apathy/ .
                This source will say we are in stage 7. I disagree with that, but no matter where we are at now, it closes the circle with stage 1 and 2, faith and courage. From that liberty must follow, for it is not possible to dominate a courageous man. He will just ignore any unlawful and evil commands, no matter how dire the threats made, even unto his death. Just as the natives did in Cuba when Columbus and his men tried to enslave them. That failed, for they would pout and die rather than serve a master.
                Or maybe I’m just an eternal optimist.

              • That is where I believe that we are. At the end of stage 9, in full bondage to the elite controllers. We passed stage 7, apathy, back in the 1930s. FDRs ‘great society’ programs, looking back with 20/20 hind-site, cannot be anything but utter dependence.
                So, since stage 1 is coming back around, we should indeed be doing all we can to hasten the moment. The masses need to wake up(or be awakened) and take a good, hard, look around at what actually exists, as opposed to just taking the word of some talking heads at CNN. And sometimes that takes a bit of ‘shock therapy’.

              • You don’t know what “full bondage” is, but I expect you will find out within a year, probably much sooner, if you don’t arm up, ammo up, armor up, stock up, and prepare to stand up while you still can.

              • Fear leads to anger.
                Anger leads to hate.
                Hate leads to suffering.
                I sense much fear in you…
                But perhaps you are just an intelligence agent attempting to find people to commit violence for the system so that it can then be blamed on others, like in these examples:
                http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/terrorist-plots-helped-along-by-the-fbi.html
                https://theintercept.com/2015/02/26/fbi-manufacture-plots-terrorism-isis-grave-threats/
                http://www.salon.com/2010/07/06/fbi_foiled_terrorism_plots/
                I don’t really see you as that now though, although I had my suspicions. Now I just think you are an innocent dupe who has been fed so much fear by the major media that you can see no way out, other than violence.
                Always remember: the battle is for the hearts and minds of the people, NOT for some hill or other piece of land somewhere, whether you want to admit it or not.
                Good luck, however it may work out for you.

              • Its a logical conclusion, but in reality fear of any one or thing leads to missteps and mistakes.
                Much better to have respect for their destructive capabilities, and enough knowledge of their systems to avoid that, should they choose to aim those powers at you. The difference between respect and fear is subtle, but important.

              • “…but in reality fear of any one or thing leads to missteps and mistakes.”

                Perhaps, but not always. Fear makes you observant, fear makes your senses heightened to threats, fear triggers “respect” for the damage the enemy can do, fear forces you to default to muscle memory.

                A person not afraid of what their government will do to them invites disaster.

              • Spoken as a veteran of over 30 years in the Martial Arts, I can’t say fearing my opponents ever made me faster, smarter or more aggressive, or ever won me any matches.
                I have, however, done very well by controlling fear and making my decisions coldly and with reason. I carefully evaluate an opponent, decide in which way I think I can best match my strengths against his weaknesses, and proceed to act according to that plan without hesitation, mercy, or second thoughts.
                Its a strategy that has always worked well for me.
                “It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles” -Sun Tzu

              • I don’t actually agree 100 percent with even Sun Tzu. But its all part of my philosophy of learning as much as possible. I’m kind of a contrarian.

              • “There was no political/legislative uprising demanding the government be held accountable.”

                Yeah, there was, but the complicit press carefully kept most indications of it out of the public consciousness. I was right in the middle of the uprising, and I can tell you that I was and I am proud that it was the very first time in history that the people who knew what happened refused to take government’s word for it.

                That was the beginning of the awakening; since then it has been a case of counting up events and adding them to the roster. Were it not for that fact, Sam, we would not today have a presidential candidate named Donald Trump. (Not that I think for a New York Second he will solve our problems, but he is the current attempt in the efforts of the people. If the attempt fails, the next attempt is likely to be more exciting.)

              • Refusing to believe the government is not an uprising. There were no loud, continuous rallies demanding punishment for the federal agents, or the AG. There were not floods of mail and calls to congressional offices demanding action. There were no riots. There were no politicians turned out of office because they ignored the attacks. There were no armed state militias deputized to capture and detain the federal agents involved.

                The people (and in this instance I mean individuals, not active voters) are not convinced the central government means them actual death or bodily harm. “The people” are more concerned that DWTS is cancelled.

              • Hear! Hear! I think the awakening is happening as we type, but the enemies of our liberty have conducted their insurgency since 1925, accelerating enormously in the last few election cycles, and it may be too late. The only reason they haven’t executed the final phase of their plan so far is that they have a strong tendency to overplay their hand, and keep getting set back by our reactions. For that reason they are getting VERY impatient, and if they don’t win to their prize in this election cycle they fear losing it for another 100 years or so. The emergence of Donald Trump is the latest reaction to their insurgency; evidence that the people have had it up to here with their destabilization efforts and cultural Marxism. They will do ANYTHING to prevent him from blowing their boat out of the water. Expect some very nasty, really serious false flag events in the next few months if it looks like Trump might win, and expect serious attempts to tighten their control as a result of those bogus events. Yes, their plan will ultimately fail, but we are going to go through hell before it does. I recommend preparation for the long haul of disruptions in supply lines, declarations of martial law, really draconian announcements of punishment for exercising anything we take for granted as a liberty today. And there will be no recourse to the courts that has any real meaning; recourse will be “if you don’t like it, line up in front of that hummer over there with the twin-50’s mounted on top). I’ve been watching these events since the late 1970’s and we are right on the precipice of a programmed, intentional, orchestrated, political disaster intended to destroy everything our nation stands for. And it won’t hurt anyone to start making preparations for survival and resistance even if I am just what some will call a wild-eyed conspiracy theorist.

              • By spending four to 16 hours a day (depending on traffic) on Facebook, newspaper opinion forums, and every other forum I can find pointing out the following:
                A RESOLUTION FAVORING THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND STATES’ RIGHTS

                • Whereas, the States were established as sovereign and independent States for eleven years prior to the United States Constitution being written and ratified by the several sovereign and independent States, and

                • Whereas, the united States Constitution is a compact between sovereign States to create a federal government for the purpose of dealing with foreign affairs, and

                • Whereas, the delegation of certain powers to a creation of the sovereign States united does not in and of itself deprive the sovereign States, and each of them, of the power delegated, and

                • Whereas, the failure of the creation of the sovereign States united to perform according to the terms of the compact between the sovereign States abdicates the power delegated by the sovereign States to their creation, and

                • Whereas, the branches of the federal government, and each of them, are creations of the sovereign States united and are not delegated the authority to govern the sovereign States, and

                • Whereas, the branches of the federal government created by the sovereign States united are not delegated the authority to issue, deny, monitor, or interfere with any sovereign State power not delegated to the federal government, and

                • Whereas, put simply, the created does not tell the creators what to do or what the creators may not do, and

                • Whereas, Article I Section 3 of the Constitution compact created and ratified into law by the sovereign States united established the manner in which the sovereign States maintain control of their created federal government, and

                • Whereas, Article I Section 3 of the Constitution compact provides and requires that two Senators from each State shall be chosen by the legislature thereof to serve in the united States Senate for the purpose of advancing and protecting States interests in the Congress of the United States, and

                • Whereas, the united sovereign States, as co-equal creators of the united States Constitution compact, established the sole and exclusive manner in which the Constitution compact may be amended by the sovereign States united, and

                • Whereas, the sole and exclusive manner in which the Constitution compact may be amended is set forth in Article V of the Constitution compact, and

                • Whereas, the importance of the shared control of the federal government by the sovereign States via their representation in the united States Senate was so great that Article V of the Constitution compact was written to absolutely prohibit depriving any sovereign State of its suffrage in the Senate without its Consent, and

                • Whereas, an attempt was made in 1913 to strip the sovereign States, and each of them, of their representation in the united States Senate by proposing what is now erroneously referred to as the 17th Amendment, and

                • Whereas, the legislatures of the sovereign States of Utah and Delaware voted to withhold their Consent to being deprived of their suffrage in the united States Senate, and

                • Whereas, the legislatures of eight other States withheld their Consent to being deprived of their suffrage in the united State Senate by taking no action in their legislatures or otherwise to Consent to being deprived of their suffrage in the Senate, and

                • Whereas, the legislative records of the sovereign States ratifying and failing to ratify the proposed amendment to strip the sovereign States, and each of them, of their suffrage in the Senate are public records and may be easily obtained and verified, and

                • Whereas, the aforementioned legislative records prove the accuracy and factual nature of the lack of ratification of the proposed amendment now erroneously referred to as the 17th Amendment,

                • THEREFORE, be it resolved, that the amendment proposing to strip the sovereign States, and each of them, of their representation in the united States Senate, failed ratification by the required number of sovereign States, and

                • THEREFORE, be it further resolved, that the sovereign States, and each of them, retain their full and sovereign authority to choose their united States Senators and to require them to be seated in the united State Senate as required by Article I Section 3 of the united States Constitution compact between sovereign States, and

                • THEREFORE, be it further resolved, that the imposters currently serving under the erroneous title of “United States Senator” shall be immediately recalled and two Senators from each State shall be appointed by the legislature thereof pursuant to the united States Constitution compact Article I Section 3, and

                • THEREFORE, be it further resolved, that work shall begin immediately identifying federal color of law of every kind without lawful substance for want of passage by a Constitutionally-chosen united States Senate and the introduction of legislation rescinding* such legislation as null and void from the moment of its inception.


                *’Rescinded,” not repealed, for it was never passed into law in the first place.

                It is in this manner that the sovereign States united may regain authority over their creation, the federal government of the United States, which has abdicated its lawful authority to govern and devolved into a rogue occupation government without lawful or substantive Constitutional authority to govern the foreign affairs of our nation (it never had authority to govern anything else).

                Donald L. Cline
                [email protected]
                http://www.frdmftr.net

              • You have an interesting list of grievances, and we already have a declaration and constitution addressing them. So, if the central government declares that the constitution means whatever the central government allows it to mean, to whom do you present YOUR (I don’t know how to italicize in the reply boxes) declaration.

                Suppose every state in the union endorses and officially notifies the central government (whichever office would appropriately receive the notices) of the intent to restore the proper balance of power. Then what? The central government simply moves on. What would be the next step(s)? Words on paper already do not have meaning that cannot be warped or ignored, right? The courts are the preserve of the central government, right? The Congress (House and Senate) are the preserve of the central government, right?

                There is no basis for presuming “the states”, bypassing the federal House and Senate, could achieve a restoration of the balance of power in this country. Let’s suppose that all the 57 state attorneys general file suit (against whom?), to restore strict enforcement (by whom?) of the current or replacement constitution. Where do the attorneys general file such a legal claim? The courts of the states and the central government will preserve themselves. What ruling would you expect? Then what?

        • The writings of the founding fathers in regards to their intent in their construction of the U.S. Constitution most definitely are not “extra-legal” afterthoughts. To mount that position is to adopt the Marxist insurgency — er, ‘liberal’ — position that the Constitution is a living document that means whatever they want it to mean, and means differently whenever they get hoisted on their own petard.

          The Constitution is internally self-consistent. You cannot violate any part of it without violate other parts. Example: If we have a right to keep and bear arms, why do wannabe gun owners cheerfully give up their rights under the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th and 10th Amendments in order to receive revocable government permission to buy a firearm from a dealer or even to hand a friend a firearm to marvel over in those States where subversive Michael Bloomberg has suckered the doofuses into passing “Universal Background Checks”? If it is a RIGHT, then you don’t need government permission to exercise it. If the purchase of a firearm is not probable cause of criminal conduct, then you cannot lawfully be compelled to conduct a self-examination under penalty of perjury (Form 4473) or suffer a search of your private information (personal effects) on government databases in order to exercise a right. You cannot lawfully have a right taken from you or converted into a privilege without due process by a Court of Law; i.e., conviction of wrongdoing. You cannot lawfully be compelled to give up the above rights in order to “be allowed” to exercise a right. And you cannot lawfully be required to endure the federal exercise of authority not delegated to the federal government, or State authority prohibited to the States by the Constitution.

          All that being said, can you say “rogue occupation Marxist government”?

          We don’t need a re-write of the 2nd Amendment or any other Constitutional provision. We need to take responsibility for our rights and be prepared to fight for them in the legislatures, in the Courts, and when all else fails — if the Marxist insurgency achieves their goal they’ve been ramping up to since COMINTERN in 1925 — in the streets.

          Learn the Constitution, and keep your powder dry. And get more of it.

    • Are you saying that an idea for making one of our rights stronger is inappropriate on a day celebrating those who defend our rights?

      • I’ll butt in here to say that the only way to improve ths Second Amendment is get rid of that introductory clause, since it adds nothing to believers and provides too much quibbling room for haters.

        That applies even more so to the proposed changes. All they do is add all sorts of extra room for quibbling. The original meaning is as clear as it gets, and I say is also the strongest of the amendments. Where the others say “Congress shall make no law” and leave them open to the argument that they only apply to the federal government, “shall not be infringed” is unique and crystal clear that it applies to all governments, if anyone who would continue quibbling ought to be brought down by the original meaning of the 14th amendment, as argued and understood by all sides in the debates, and corrupted just 6 (8?) years later by the Supreme Court in Slaughterhouse.

        • I noted a statement that stops courts from making rulings about the RTKBA (no intepretation), other than to determine if a law at dispute results in any restriction. The idea to get the matter out of the courts seems to stop any attempt at “compelling government interest”, or “intermediate scrutiny”, or any of that crap. The second amendment, as written, provides too much room for infringement. The RTKBA is infringed. All the chanting about “shall not” is a failing concept.

          So long as there is any room for interpretation by anybody (meaning court-sanctioned limits), the second amendment will be legislatively curtailed into non-existence. Words easily understood by classically educated people of substance two hundred years ago are unintelligible to a culture bent to accommodate the lowest common denominator of reading ability. Seems the words, “ever, for any reason whatsoever, by any agency of the national, state or local government, or private person” (or some such) might bring clarity to the mob that thinks emojis are language and literature. We can’t fight the fight we want, we must fight the fight that is before us.

        • “. . . to improve ths Second Amendment is get rid of that introductory clause, since it adds nothing . . . ” I disagree that it adds nothing. Suppose, hypothetically, that that clause wasn’t there. To what end would we find the 2A protected “the right”? Personal self-defense? Fowling and hunting? Amusement? Certainly not to permit the People to take-up arms against the hired agents of their elected government! Just how much fire-power do the peasants really need to protect themselves? To fowl or hunt? to amuse themselves?
          As I read the introductory clause, the founding generation made it perfectly clear that “the right” had a purpose that runs all the way to ensuring that the People are the source of sovereignty. That “governments are instituted among men” rather than self-appointed to rule over men.

        • Not necessary, Felix, nor is undertaking the amendment process to accomplish it advisable.

          The quibbling about the preamble is easily put down by citing the simple historical fact that every citizen of every State is militia, and from this population of armed militiamen (and women) is drawn the active militiamen defined as able-bodied males between the ages of 18 and 45 (plus anyone else who wants to be, including women).

          Having explained this, I then ask the liberal doofus apparatchik and useful idiot when was the last time they mustered for training or duty with their own weapons, ammunition, and kit. (I.e., when was the last time they met their responsibility to their community.)

    • Sorry, if disrespect is your go to impulse then there is no explanation good enough to give you.
      It’s a sacred day, leave it at that.
      Laugh…take jabs….do whatever you like.
      I have my opinion and so do you.
      I choose respect.
      I’m sure your good people…solid Americans….just too willing to tarnish a solem day in history with bitterness and a lack of courtesy to the fallen.
      “Microaggression”? That sounds very Californian.

        • I have no Issues with the debate on 2A….my only issue is with timing.
          Imo…..just not today.
          We are all in a hurry, slow down….respect the day.
          Respect each other. Imo…focus on the day instead of lesser important debate that leads nowhere but here.
          I have an opinion that drew out a predictable response from the usual intellectual operators….thats ok with me.
          Seems there was more concern with mba players and 2A ridiculousness then for just a day of reflection due the fallen of our great country.
          That’s all….i woke up….tapped on ttag with expectations of a blog about memorial day and respecting the fallen…..saw the 2A story….gave my opinion……and witnessed people being people.
          I’ll search for a respectful story in another place…thanks.

        • POTCM – you are … *LITERALLY* … making no sense. I assembled a workstation today. Therefore you should be aghast that I did a thing that wasn’t respectful of our fallen. And I don’t see how assembling a workstation respects our fallen. Which of course “proves” I don’t care about our fallen. Methinks you’re feigning outrage. Just getting that inkling. Swing and a miss.

    • I am a veteran. I lost friends during my overseas campaign. I don’t think this thread has anything to do with that. I don’t see the connection. They weren’t killed by people exercising their 2A rights, they were killed defending 2A rights. It’s just as good a day as any to talk about it. Implying there is some negative connotation would seem to be part of the problem.

  2. The root cause is mendacity and ignorance on the part of the public, who then elect the most idiotic and venal people to legislatures, who then appoint conniving and traitorous Ivy League graduates to the courts.

    However, as long as the ownership of large numbers of arms by private individuals makes elected politicians and appointed judges nervous, it is serving its purpose.

    • Hear, hear!

      I recognized this years ago when I got back into guns. Winning is getting as many firearms with much more than the ammo to match pumped into into the system and in the Mahdi of the law abiding. As long as the US is awash with the material of the firearms world and the healthy gun economy that supports it, we have the best hand in the game.

      • Ugh! Autocorrect screwed me. Mahdi must mean hands in some strange language.

        Should have read “in the hands of the law abiding.”

        • Believe it or not, the Muslims use the term “reverted” not converted, and I have no idea why.

          • As explained to me, all people(s) are born into Islam, the one true faith. Many (most?) people fall away and become apostate (hence the word “Infidel”, from which we get “infidelity”). Being unfaithful (Infidel) means there had to be a faith from which to fall. Thus, when a non-muslim (or any muslim with whom I disagree) comes back into the one true religion, they “revert”, or “return”.

            One must have been faithful to Islam at some time in order to qualify as unfaithful (Infidel).

        • @Sam,

          I’m still learning about Islam, but what little I know doesn’t jibe with this. If you weren’t born of a Muslim father, you become a Muslim by reciting the Shahadah in Arabic (that is, “I testify that there is no god but Allah” etc) preferably in front of witnesses. If, after one of these happens, you forswear Islam then you become an apostate (and the penalty under Shariah is death). There doesn’t seem to be any assumption that you are born Islamic (unless your father was Muslim), otherwise you’d be an apostate, not just a kafir. There is a difference between the two. Kafirs can be converted (though they can also be killed with impunity if they’re not paying the jizyah), apostates are good for nothing but killing, by Islamic lights.

          (By the way, that’s why Muslim men can marry non-Muslim women–their children will be Muslim. But a Muslim woman cannot marry a non-Muslim, because her children would not automatically be Muslim. EVERY rule in the religion is set up to make it a one-way-in, no-way-out trap.)

          • I don’t have the scholarly knowledge to find the details. However, in order to be unfaithful (Infidel) one must have been faithful, or considered faithful, to something/someone. In order to “revert”, rather than “convert”, one must have been in one condition, left that condition, then returned (“reverted”…which was the question) to the original condition. If those who believe they were never born under Islam can be called “Infidel”, what conclusion is left?

    • Spot on as usual DG. They don’t fear the Constitution because they’re the enforcers of the Constitution. They fear an armed citizenry.

      • “They fear an armed citizenry.”

        We wish.

        Actually they don’t fear what they consider mouth-breathing neanderthals. They only want to control, reprogram, or incarcerate anyone who has principles, who may instigate a voter rebellion. They have utter faith that the police and military would make short work of any armed revolt.

        • If this is in fact true, how come the gun grabbers dont have us all in jail and our weapons confiscated?

          • “If this is in fact true, how come the gun grabbers dont have us all in jail and our weapons confiscated?”

            First, my statement was what the anti-gun crowd thinks and wants; different from how it gets done.

            Second, the anti-gun crowd only has about half the voters convinced that removing guns completely is a good idea; don’t want to launch a voter rebellion that might succeed.

            Third, confiscation has already begun. Making instant felons of people because they possess “high-capacity” magazines that were legal a week ago. Issuing laws requiring turn-in of “assault weapons” (Connecticut, if I remember correctly). While true the door-to-door “no knock” raids have not begun, when in the past did any