“If by some chance the Second Amendment were to expire, what would happen? First of all, guns are not illegal. So virtually nothing would change in the short term. Just like with cars or television sets, people would go on owning their guns. However, people would then have the opportunity to enact more precise laws that say what kinds of guns can be made and sold, and what restrictions might be applied in certain places, where the people elect to more completely limit gun possession. We would then be on a truer course to sustain civil liberties, a more peaceful society and common sense.” – Mike Harman in Mike Harman: The Second Amendment is obsolete [via wvgazettemail.com]
Home Quote of the Day Blue Force Gear Quote of the Day: We’d Be Just Fine...
‘Civil liberties’ must be the left’s new code word for ‘government control’.
Newspeak in full effect.
The bizarre authoritarian love fest these geriatric hippies are creating hurts my brain.
They’re creating a little box in which you cannot say whatever you want to, you cannot own whatever you want to, you cannot do whatever you want to, you cannot wear whatever you want to…. and everyone inside that box thinks their living in freedom akin to anarchy.
See the reality you are told to see.
I totally agree with you, but don’t forget…you can’t eat or drink whatever you want to, or even go so far as wearing seatbelts also.
Sure you CAN. It’s important that we keep “can” separate from “legal.” They are very different fundamental concepts.
For some people ‘freedom’ is being able to dictate to others how they are allowed to live their lives. Right down to the most trivial details.
You beat me to it Governor … somehow less liberty is actually more liberty.
Baby boomers… That generation has a lot to answer for. It’s up to the middle-aged Gen-X slackers and our millennial kids to right the ship, and I’m not sure we can turn the Titanic’s rudder in time (not with half our cohort plus the boomer zombies going full-steam for the iceberg).
What would happen if we did away with the Second Amendment? The same thing that’s happened in other countries that banned private ownership of firearms. No, it wouldn’t happen overnight, but the left’s incremental war on personal liberty would accelerate; first in leftist-controlled states such as CA, HI, RI, NY and MA, and, then, spreading to marginally free states such as CT, IL, and NJ. Eventually, the iron fist of the central government would wrap itself around the necks of the remaining states until it had achieved complete and absolute power of the individual.
You consider New Jersey to be “marginally free”? Gun free is a more apt description……
I’m in agreement. If I was to list the states by their amount of gun laws and how restrictive they are, NJ would be the first in my list.
NJ is about as free as Moscow, oh wait, that’s an insult to Moscow.
‘Civil liberties’ must be the left’s new code word for ‘government control’.
Nah, he just means they’re going to liberate us from a civil society.
Put up or shut up just try to repeal it.
There is literally nothing that could come out of that doofuses mouth that could possibly be of interest to me.
AMEN. THIS IS A TROLL FOR HILLARY.
OH, yes because people and governments are so much more civilized than they were 240 years ago, oops I meant 70 years ago. Perhaps last year???
Yep, ask the photographer the rioters tried to throw on the fire in Charlotte last night how “civilized” things are in the US right now.
OR THE SON OF STUPID WOMEN WHO KICKED THE HOMELESS MAN…THOSE SOB’S SHOULD BE TRAMPLED NY ELEPHANTS
We’d be just fine without the first amendment. It’s not like dissidents would wind up in death camps overnight. Instead, political agitators would just continue to hold their little riots, but it would give the people the ability to pass specific laws as to what speech is and is not permitted…
Then the dissidents would wind up in death camps.
“…but it would give the people the ability to pass specific laws as to what speech is and is not permitted.”
That is another one of the goals of the leftists.
Pwrserge: Good prognosis! Hitler’s rise from “Enabling Act 1933;” Bush’s Patriot Act of 2001, Obama’s Patriot Act reprise 2011, USA Freedom Act 2015. Reminds me of every petty dictator of whom I’ve heard, and seen. The names have been changed, but the mold never broken, so it would be done in accordance with their laws. If I may quote from one such assembly:
“We asked for freedom of the press, thought, and civil liberties in the past because we were in the opposition and needed these liberties to conquer. Now that we have “conquered”, there is no longer any need for such civil liberties.” -Prominent Communist Party theoretician Nikolai Bukharin, executed by Stalin in 1937.
No, there would be a huge change. Without constitutional protection, citizens would not have due process or recourse to challenge laws they felt restricted their liberties. That is a HUGE difference. Oh why even bother arguing with someone that clearly lacks any familiarity with logic.
“virtually nothing would change in the short term.”
For some definitions of short … and of course depending on where you live. Even if nothing happened at the federal level, in short order places like DC would start the fill-in ban process for anything that looked like a gun.
This imbecile contradicts himself within two sentences. ‘Nothing would change. People would still own guns. We’d just make them felons overnight like they do in Canada.’ Isn’t that great? Your gun won’t be illegal immediately. We’d just do it with some sneaky ballot initiative or budget rider and send the cops out to snatch you out of bed in the middle of the night.
Because what we really need is more arbitrariness in our government.
I have to laugh when I hear anti-gunners make this “2A is obsolete” argument. What they never get into is Article 5 of the Constitution, which is the process if what would have to happen to change even the comma in 2A. Because if they did include that in their rant, it would be apparent to everyone, even liberals, “Well, that’s never gonna happen!” All you have to do is read Article 5 and then do that math. It’s an inescapable conclusion.
Do guys like this think suggesting repealing 2A is a new idea or that they have come up with some new rationale for it? No way. That horse has been beat to death. Why do they not ask themselves why there has never been a serious effort to change or repeal 2A? Even the staunchest anti-gunners with any political saavy know it would not only fail, but it would be such an epic fail that it would ruin the credibility of the whole anti-gun movement.
Even Hillary is now saying she does not want to repeal or change 2A or overturn Heller, because she does not see them as impediments to doing what she wants to do with gun control. And for once I believe her, because she’s right. 2A only rarely stops gun control legislation. If the balance of SCOTUS becomes more liberal, 2A will never again stop gun control legislation. So this is another “Tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
Yes, Article V is the most overrated protection in our constellation of laws. Do you really need 3/4 of the states to erase a fundamental constitutional right? No. You need a plurality of the popular vote in a minority of states, which is enough to elect a President, who can appoint a majority of justices to the SC, who can decide that whole “fundamental law” never really actually meant anything, anyway.
Yes, that has been the leftist strategy. And what they teach in universities. Talk to college students, see how readily they parrot the communist “living document” nonsense.
King George III had a similiar opinion when he ordered that famous gun confiscation at Lexington and Concord.
What’s the big deal. He wasn’t after their guns. Just their ammunition.
I’m starting to favor something like a history + political philosophy test for US Citizenship (and the enjoyment of the BoR), to include everyone, not just newcomers.
This is just batsh1t insane. This guy has NO CLUE, none, regarding the founding of this nation or the history of Anglo common law upon with the founding philosophers based their study.
Someone that dumb should be laughed into obscurity for saying such things. That he can say them and others buy into it is a testament of just how far our nation’s “education” system has fallen.
The educational system hasn’t fallen by incompetence, or by accident, it has been a controlled demolition with the goal to dumb down the average person, so pigs like this actually can fly.
This is absolutely correct, with one addition.
The US “education system” was never designed to ‘educate.’ It was designed from the very beginning to program worker-bees to be good little worker-bees.
Anyone that finds that a little too conspiratorial should check out the research of John Taylor Gatto.
As it is now in its current incarnation, the institution of ‘education’ feeds itself as its highest priority. Educating children is barely on the list at all.
It’s one of dirtiest little secrets of our time. Too many people think “school” is the answer, or ‘needed’ when “school” is a big part of the cause of many of our problems.
Agree, you can argue that schools are little more than government/establishment indoctrination centers.
1930s Germany is calling. They want their argument back.
First of all, guns are not illegal due to the 2A, if it were gone guns would be illegal tomorrow and we would be at war the next day, the war would be over the day after that. Almost immediately, all jackasses like this moron would have left the country or been executed (no trial necessary for those who do not believe the BoR means what it says).
Find a tall tree and a short rope.
And waste a perfectly good rope?
Like rifle and pistol brass, the ropes can be reused over and over once they’ve performed their function the first time.
Just wait a decent period, lower body, remove rope, find next statist jerk, lather, rinse, repeat.
Unless what you want are idiot-shaped pinatas, so children gaily skipping to school can whack them with sticks.
Well if the Third Ammendment were to disappear tomorrow its not like the government would start housing troops in our homes right? Wrong. These rights were established, documented and set above all other things for a reason.
“common sense”…the tagline commonly used for much of the propaganda aimed at curtailing individual liberties.
It appears… that common sens is not so common.
“Common sense” is an oxymoron.
Don’t forget “reasonable,” it goes so well when you are hoodwinking the people!
Yep, that’s a good one too. The propaganda methods are sophisticated, the language is carefully selected, and some of these words and phrases should be an instant red flag to anyone paying attention.
Uh, the second amendment is about civil rights. This guy musta drank a gallon of the kool-aid.
Harman would be just fine without the 1st Amendment. Nothing would change, Then people could go about enacting common sense measures that slowly beat and starve him and his to death in a concentration camp before throwing him in an oven. Couldn’t happen, except that it already has historically.
That LIBTARD must have taken to much mind altering drugs back his hippy days and fried his brain. That’s the only logical explanation for such a stupid statement.
Aging whitebearded hippies like Hartman are one reason this O.F. shaves every single day. Oh, and that’s not a grin, that’s bared fangs. Sheesh, what a weirdo & who cares what he thinks?
He’s assuming the 2nd has actually stopped the gov’t from telling people who can and cannot own gun or which guns are allowed to bought and sold…
Cali folks, how’s that carry situation working for you? Maryland and DC, you guys all have AR’s right? NY people, you want to buy one of my 30 round Pmags? NJ, what hollow points you rocking, brah?
Yeah, so, Mr Neckbeard here can take his manpurse and try to sell his BS to the folks at his poetry club who might think his clever…
I don’t think any of us here are buying it.
Wait a minute! You forgot Massachusetts! Remember, the place with that AG. Maru Healey “the queen of assault rifle ban decrees.” Or the fact that Massachusetts local and state police are in full control over a Massachusetts residents 2nd amendment rights *(No Police permissions, No permit….No guns. No ammo, No 2nd amendment –privileges. )*
And on your way to a tyrannical majoritarianism.
He doesn’t really believe this crap. He thinks all gun owners are gapped toothed illiterates and he can fool us.
Chickenshit traitor who is scared to fight for his rights and therefor deserves to lose them but not at the cost of the remainder of the United States of America.
Do not forget that the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution to expressly protect the “inalienable rights” the Founders believed were “endowed by their creator” to all men. These rights were believed to exist before the Constitution was written, did not actually require any enumeration to exist and would continue to exist even if the Constitution was nullified and abandoned. The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to place specific restrictions on Federal and State Governments to guarantee they would not be denied, abrogated or infringed….Oh wait!…that has already happened!
This grinning ghoul that calls itself “Mike Hartman” wants to convince the weak-minded morons that abandoning the protection provided by the Constitution (already compromised as it may be) would be “no big deal”. Look at the corrupted and oppressive situation the Demoncrats have already created in this Country and consider how giving them unrestricted power to rule however they please would work. That’s exactly what they want and exactly what would happen if we follow this thing’s advice.
“endowed by their creator”
Since Progressives don’t believe there is or just might be a power higher than themselves, is why they try to bastardize both 1st. and 2nd Amendment
Amen! There are a lot of people who post here that will vigorously debate the source of Humankind’s “inalienable rights”, but no matter the source, those rights exist for all time past, present and future and despite being enumerated in any document created by Humans at any time in the past, present or future. “Progressives” are a throwback to the past and the so-called “Divine Right of Kings”…they want to declare themselves superior to other Humans and thereby more “fit to rule” than anyone else. They want to claim all “rights” exclusively to themselves and selectively/arbitrarily deny them to anyone else they judge to be “beneath” them.
If 2A were repealed, gun bans would be enacted the next day in every major city in the U.S. It would be sort of like Australia, except without compensation.
Contrary to Harman’s idiotic drivel espousing a Unicorn and Rainbow future, the day after 2A repeal made gun bans possible and ‘legal,’ our nation would shift from “culture based cold war” to “shooting based hot war.” As soon as the .gov tried to usurp those powers currently held in check by 2A (whatever they may be), SOMEONE would fight back.
That he is a moron may well be obvious; to espouse “nothing would happen” serves as stark proof.
Pretty obvious that the writer never read the Federalist papers. Had he done so he would have never written this. The dead giveaway in his disarmament agenda is this; “the people could enact laws….defining which kinds of arms could be made and sold”. In other words there would eventually be a ban on all firearms, except of course for police and military. And that is precisely why the 2nd exists.
The nation will be better off when the baby boomer generation (my generation, barely) has passed away.
Its kind of interesting that the “greatest generation” raised the “stupidest generation”.
Of coarse the millennial SJW’s are on a downwar trajectory to easily surpass the stupidity of the boomers.
If the Second Amendment were repealed, within a week every Democrat stronghold would ban guns for peasants and send out the thugs in blue for door to door confiscations. As soon as the Democrats had control of the White House and majorities in both houses of Congress, they’d do the same thing on a national level. We have decades of evidence showing that this is what Democrats would do if the pesky Constitution didn’t get in their way (though they ignore it as much as possible and hope people can’t get enough money to sue).
In the event that this gentleman’s plan is implemented, I would like to remind all antigunners fleeing to Canada that I will give you safe passage in the wasteland.
Are you kidding? Surely he has read the federalist papers or even the comments that the founders made at the time. There was a need for the colonists to defend themselves from “the government.” And they did. This was on everyone’s mind.
Defending themselves from the government is exactly what they did at Lexington, Concord, etc.
Yup ! And the Chief of Police went down to check everyones FID/LTC….
….surely he has read….
HaHa surely you jest! You can get a degree today in english without having to read any of that white privileged Shakespeare. It’s even easier in todays lestist indoctrination seminaries (universities) to avoid reading those white racist slave holding founding fathers.
What would change if the 2nd Amendment were repealed?
The Federal Government doesn’t obey the 2nd as it is.
All federal gun control laws are already unconstitutional.
Now with the States, that might be a different matter.
The States do not have to recognize my personal right to keep and bear arms
unless it is in the State Constitutions.
I love it when people exercise their First Amendment rights to express their opinions on removing our Second Amendment rights. It is even better when you flip it on them and ask if they still need their rights in this modern age of enlightenment.
“… From a review of language commonly used by the states at that time, there was never any thought that somehow, citizens would have a need to defend themselves from “the government.” …” – Mike Harman
I think he needs to review just a little bit more!
Yep, because Chicago has achieved such a peaceful society by limiting gun possession. Mexico has done fantastic things by banning guns in the hands of the plebiscite. Yep, utopia achieved. Good job gun regulators!
You forget England, where its people’s rights to bear arms became a duty to have bare arms. The carrying of any object that could be used offensively is illegal. How is that working out for them? Not too well–they have the highest crime rate in Europe.
If we got rid of the 2nd some guy named Mike Hartman would be obsolete. Like in virtually every country in the whole world. FIFU. And this old fart dresses kinda’ like a “gun guy”. Trying to blend in?
Who is this guy, how do these types of people seem to pop up everywhere and get their insane hippy beliefs published and why are we listening??
Our fearless leaders scour the internet for material such as this. This is a guest column for the Charleston Gazette-Mail by some doofus retired from government “service”. A tiny little corner of the Internet. Gun guys then get their feathers ruffled and click on the headline and make around a hundred comments arguing the virtues of the Second Amendment and invoking the First in various forms in rebuttal. Rinse and repeat. This is apparently a proven format once every couple of days. Hey, you asked.
So he wants something like the “The Obsolete Man” from The Twilight Zone.
Yes. That’s true. That is why the second amendment should protect these things as well.
Disagree. Swords and knives were the weapons of yesteryear. Firearms were the weapon of the future. They were reliable and accurate enough for the purpose of defense, hunting, and warfare. They were not difficult to maintain, certainly no more than firearms today.
I have a reason. To protect myself from Mr. Harman’s opinions. There are a vast number of reasons that I won’t go into – again.
And the absence of the 2nd amendment is going to stop this? Ludicrous. Also, the above is a lie. Homicides have been dropping year after year:
Please. Among accidental deaths, death by firearm is one of the smallest. About 500 a year and that includes adults and all scenarios – not just children finding mommy and daddy’s gun. No mention from Harman of how many lives are saved by guns each year? Thought so.
500 a year. Page 84:
Sudden and immediately vanishing of all firearms will do nothing to stop suicides. Japan and S Korea, for example, have firearms outlawed, but both have higher suicide rates. The presence of a firearm is not the root cause of suicide.
Removing guns completely will have NO EFFECT on the suicide rate.
People will just find other means. Like they did in Australia. Gun ban results in gun suicides being near zero now.
But are fewer people killing themselves? Nope.
Even the NIH has studied the phenomena.
Look at the annual rate of suicide in Australia yourself (APPENDIX A)
The idiocy is strong in this one! And I thought the Ebola was bad! This disease is spreading and we need some prevention techniques FAST!
Harman needs to read some more history books. Many of the first ten amendments were the results of governmental overreaches of the times. People were made to quarter soldiers in their own homes. People didn’t like being forced to do this and felt that they were being spied upon. Hence the Third Amendment. People shall not be forced to quarter soldiers.
Same goes for the Second. The standing government was talking away peoples’ arms. Perhaps Harman has heard of Lexington and Concord. The people didn’t want this to happen again. Hence the Second Amendment.
“It isn’t so much that liberals are ignorant. It’s just that they know so many things that aren’t so.”
Oh, for god’s sake. What’s with these anti-gun folks and their fetish? Or more likely fetishes. (Not that there’s anything wrong with most of that. There’s plenty wrong with their “No guns for you!” obsession.)
Commander “Remain Calm. All is Well.”‘s argument amounts to “It’s OK. You can trust us.” So
– the “assault weapons ban” did no good, but time to reinstate it, some more because … because?
– Having an AWB is limited, and nuanced … except in Mass where it’s pretty much every semi auto, now.
– Let’s “pass” a ban on all the things using procedural shenanigans, because of the “emergency” of a whack-job shooting up a school in another state. A ban which, it turns out, seems to cover this, or that, or the other thing, depending on who the Proconsul wants to appease this week.
– And BATF (and really big fires, criminal gun running, disinformation campaigns, whistle-blower retaliation, and …) regulations are just about, you know, safety, so banning lead in projectiles (which is most of them), or maybe copper (which is most of the rest), or declaring surplus ammo to be munitions (so no guns for you people on a budget), or you can buy all the guns you want, but we can’t process the background checks (banning by another name), all over opposition from the people who made the law(s) claimed to authorize the latest grab, is …
Yeah. Trust you.
That would hold a bit better if for the last decade the anti’s hadn’t been using every tactic, incentive, and influence, just and un-just, legal and questionable, honest and made up, to get rid of citizens’ guns. And lying to do it, lying about what they want, and lying in every damn argument they make.
Once more, with feeling…
Until people no longer have the prerogative to defend themselves, or nannying busy-bodies can be counted on to leave people alone, or both, we need something to remind folks who like to impose their preferences on others with borrowed force to lay off that. Thus, the 2a.
You wanna roll back the 2a? Demonstrate that you won’t do something stupid, as soon as the adult supervision goes away. Or, put another way, stop going Full Cartman, and you stand a chance of getting more latitude. Until then, you won’t get the authoritah to be hall monitor. The ongoing misunderstanding of the 2A — legit misunderstanding, or a convenient pose to get them what they want — only reinforces why no, you are not permitted to do a single, thing.
So, here we go explaining the 2A again…
– It ain’t about guns, it’s about “arms”. Says so.
– It ain’t about authoritah, it’s about “the people.” Says so.
– It ain’t about vague rights or entitlements, it’s about “keep and bear.” Says so.
– It ain’t about organizing how, when, where & who. It’s about “shall not be infringed.” Says so.
The 2A is entirely about grand principles. But, since government is full of relentless crap weasel alleged do-gooders looking to squeeze their agenda through whatever words and circumstances they can martial, the 2A keeps it concrete: arms, the people, keep and bear, shall not be infringed.
The entire point is to constrain incremental chipping away by the best (or worst) intentions, by people who are not to be trusted. No, you don’t get to make “common sense gun regulation” because somehow that becomes disarming the black folks for their own safety, which somehow leaves them exposed to getting killed by white guys in white hoods. The answer is “no, not at all” because the former lie, used to dress up the latter goal, actually happened, demonstrating in fact, that the “regulate a little”-ers are not to be trusted, confirming the theory that the “regulate a little”-ers are not to be trusted.
WTF is this guy smoking ! Or maybe this guy though he was drinking “Bong-water”, and then realized it was his toilet!
I imagine he also wants to repeal the 13th Amendment so that governments can craft more “precise” laws on what sort of slavery will be permitted…
It is amazing how one can advocate abolishing one of the BoR (which no earthly power can do) yet maintain that it sustains civil liberties.
It amazes me that these stupid mother f______s believe that their more peaceful society and common sense won’t look just like North Korea or Venezuela.
The average person does not realize the Second Amendment today has been already totally destroyed by a corrupt and disingenuous Supreme Court. They have only ruled once under Judge Scalia to support it and his decision has been ignored since his death as a matter of fact the corrupt Court has reversed itself.
The Supreme Court this summer ruled the gun bans that came about because of the Sandy Hook shootings are completely legal giving the States the green light to ban any and all modern weapons.
The Massachusetts Attorney General just banned all semi-auto weapons in the state ;by re-interpreting the assault rifle bill that was over 10 years old and she did it without any new law being passed to ban all semi-autos. If you think you live in a Democracy or have Constitutional rights this proves you are living in a fantasy world.
The lower Courts in the Stalinist Paradise of “The Peoples Republic of California” recently ruled that you do not have a right to concealed carry as you are a threat to them “the ruling elite” and it is they alone and their henchmen that only have the right to carry firearms both concealed and open carry. The Court upheld both the bans on concealed carry and open carry this summer effectively and completely trashing the Second Amendment.
The Supreme Court needs to go back to the original intent of Article VI, Clause 2
Article VI, Clause 2 reads as follows:
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
Pursuance: The carrying out of a plan or action.
Supreme: Superior to all others, highest ranking.
Notwithstanding: In spite of, without being prevented by
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in the carrying out of this Constitution; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be superior to all others, the highest ranking law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, without being prevented by anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary
What does this mean? It means that no legislator, from your city council to the Federal Congress can make any law that is contrary to the Constitution. It means no Judge, from your municipal court to the Supreme Court of the United States can rule that any law contrary to the plain meaning of the Constitution is constitutional
Any law that contradicts the Constitution is null and void. Laws against hate speech? Unconstitutional. Laws restricting firearms? Nope, not in my America. Search and Seizure without a warrant? No! Try a person criminally and civilly for the same act? Double Jeopardy! Execute someone without a trial? Due Process Rights violation. No or ineffective assistance of counsel at trial? Violation!
This includes Sharia law, executive orders, Federal regulations promulgated by agencies like the EPA, all unconstitutional.
America was founded on the Rule of Law, and Article VI Clause 2 is the supreme law of the land, and the Bill of Rights preempts all other law
I don’t know why everyone is getting so up in arms about nothing.
Unless he was being metaphorical in the first paragraph, he clearly was wondering what would happen should the amendment “expire.” I’m totally all for allowing an inalienable right to expire, he can just point out the expiration date and we can all make some popcorn and have a waiting party…
Did this guy just describe New Jersey?
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”
– Samuel Adams
I think that about sums up.
Sounds like a fan of “Zipcode Tyranny”.
When the United States was first formed in 1788, a promise to pass a Bill of Rights was necessary to get the 13 colonies to ratify the new constitution. The first ten amendments [of the twelve submitted to the states] are a set, indivisible so if the Second Amendment is modified or repealed the entire Constitution, the whole Nation, is at risk.
If the government or the people just ignore any of the rights or if something is repealed, the warnings of Gerry and Patrick Henry would be important.
The rights support each other, the right to assemble is supported by the right of the people to form a militia, the restriction of the Third Amendment does not prevent the government from putting a squad of soldiers in every private residence. All that is needed is a “war” and an act by Congress. Gee, the War on Drugs and urban violence, lets put four fully armed regular soldiers in every urban ghetto such as South Chicago because they are needed to establish order considering the invasion of Mexican drug cartels and the crime.
Without the entire Bill of Rights, Congress and the President, including this guy, can do great damage to the country.
Speech, churches/religion, housing soldiers, private papers, fair trial, the list is longer than just Ten Amendments.
Setting a new standard for stupid……