Second Amendment Outdated repeal invalid
Previous Post
Next Post

Why do we share these quotes and letter-to-the-editor excerpts? Because you need to be aware of the thought processes and rationale of those who oppose gun rights and civilian gun ownership. That’s why

The recent rash of senseless gun-related mass killings requires a review of the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights. It reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

There is no specific mention of unrestricted right to have arms for personal protection, hunting, or other current common uses. In 1789, when it was written, there was no standing national military, state and county law enforcement and virtually no local law enforcement. The nation depended on local militias to defend it, using such lethal weapons as single-shot black powder muskets. This is clearly not the case today, so basically the original intent of the Second Amendment is obsolete.

– Reader letter to The Desert Sun, Escalating Gun Violence Shows It’s Time We Rethink the Second Amendment

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. so is the 14th…only Canada offers unrestricted birthright citizenship among other developed nations…
    even developed nations that once offered it added restrictions

    • Most of the time these ‘ Reader Letters ‘ are made in-house by the wholly globalist owned MSM in order to ‘ Drive ‘ public opinion in the desired direction.

      Similar to advertising tricks == ” Everyone else is driving XYZ car … shouldn’t you ? ”
      Think like WE say ……
      Buy like WE say …. or WE will call you …. ” yuk ,one of ‘ those people ‘ , you don’t really want to be one of THEM do you ? “

      • Very true. Part of the fake grass roots, aka AstroTurf, staretegy used to shape public opinion. People reading what they think is others people opinions does shape opinion. Much of the activity on these online forums is the same AstroTurf with the same goal, give the real people reading a false impression of public opinion and it shapes the readers opinions.

      • Are you saying we are being misled? I’m shocked. Ok not really. I amnot a conspiracy theorist but it is very clear to me that there is an attempt to lead us in a certain direction

        • I think we all know this, what I am wondering about is “who is doing it?”, and “who is paying for it?”

        • This is no conspiracy theory!

          The left is out in the open, on public media, on social media demanding gun seizures, telling people to kill republicans, ignoring the Constitution and any other law they don’t like.

          The democrat party is controlled by the far left who adopted the Communist Party USA platform years ago.

          Their goal is overthrow the Constitution and destroy America.

          It is not a conspiracy, it is a plan they are well on the way to completing.

          Be Prepared !!!

    • The 14th amendment does not grant birthright citizenship to aliens born in the U.S.

      Senator Trumbull one of the drafters of the 14th amendment made it clear in debates during the drafting of the amendment that “subject to the jurisdiction” meant subject to its “complete” jurisdiction, “not owing allegiance to anybody else.” The author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, expressly said: “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”

      Which makes it clear that children of immigrants legal or otherwise are not automatically granted citizenship just for being born on U.S. soil by the 14th amendment. Nor were resident aliens such as Indians who were not taxed. That is why it took an act of Congress to naturalize native Indians. specifically, the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. Since they were could not be considered subject to the “complete jurisdiction” of the U.S. And this is how this amendment was applied for over 113 years until 1982.

      In 1982 Justice Brennan of the supreme court slipped a footnote into his 5-4 opinion in Plyler v. Doe, asserting that “no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.” His statement was based on an opinion that appeared in a 1912 book written by Clement L. Bouve. No law or amendment supported his statement at all.

  2. Statists only understand when things are specifically “allowed.” They never seem to understand when things are specifically prohibited like “shall not be infringed.” 50 years old they still call their 75 year old mommy to ask if they can have a cookie before dinner.

  3. To eds; Try checking out Breitbart news. I have found them to be the most spot on re. guns and immigration. Usually before Fox.

  4. And when the First Amendment acknowledged the rights to free speech and a free press, there was no specific mention of citizens or mainstream media being able to talk about anything they wished. There were no large news bureaus or radio, television, internet, and social media platforms. The new nation had crudely-printed flyers and bulletins that could not be distributed on a mass scale. This is clearly not the case today, so basically the original intent of the First Amendment is obsolete.

  5. I assume Ms.Ainsworth is referring to a comment I made a while ago in her opening remarks.

    Telling our little echo chamber something we already know has little value. I suggest that you write a counter letter every time you come across one of these gems. It will be more productive and won’t waste our time

  6. TTAG, we’ve all read, seen and heard thousands of times the propaganda used attempting to disarm the USA. Not sure the value in seeing it, reading, listening to it another time has?

        • The people here aren’t mind readers pg2. They put up what they put up for everyone and you are free to not read it. There are plenty of articles I don’t read here either, but I enjoy reading these articles for the reason stated by Kat; it’s important to know how these people think and reading YOUR (all of YOU TTAG POTG) helps me articulate my responses when I run in to these people…. In California that is very often.

  7. And may I propose we ALL stop spending out time/energy/money bickering about “Drop safe” pistols. Favorite company’s. Different irrelevant accessories and start fighting like these people did 40 years ago. If you haven’t noticed, americans under the age of 50 are all but clueless about our bill of rights. Could your country benefit from you forming a group to teach our youth about America, or you buying some stupid accessory for your already pimped out rifle that you won’t own much longer if we don’t change some young minds ?

      • Not true. Blaming a generation is ignorant. The wheels have been in motion since before WW2 to dismantle the American experiment.

        • One could make the arguement that ‘forces’ have been attempting to undo it, pretty much since the ink was dry.

          One could also point to the confluence of wealth, middle class, and people with frankly too little of actual import to be concerned about.

          Gross abuse of fiat currency, unsustainable promises, the dreams of idealists being allowed to run unchecked. Common with most civilizations not destroyed by war.

          We are the modern Romans. The Founders understood the nature of humans, and tried like hell to design around our weaknesses.

        • Agree. Central bank issues are absent in the conversations of this country, and it was a huge factor since day 1. We had little chance after the Fed Reserve Act finally took money creation away from the government and put it into a privately owned central bank.

        • The last one to attempt to seriously reining them in was Kennedy, and we saw how that ended.

          None have dared since, and frankly, we’re too far down that rabbit hole to change course without complete collapse.

  8. His mistake is his misunderstanding that the militia’s primary function was law enforcement or protection from foreign invasion. It’s primary function was to keep military power with the people and not the centralized government. History has proved the wisdom of the 2nd Amendment over and over. Armed citizens are notoriously difficult to load onto cattle cars.

    • “His mistake is his misunderstanding that the militia’s primary function was law enforcement or protection from foreign invasion. It’s primary function was to keep military power with the people and not the centralized government.”

      Fact check: The author is partially correct; Gov is partially correct.

      BEFORE there was a nation, the militia were created for defense of the colonies (and sometimes law enforcement – which is a recognized function enshrined in the national constitution). Because there was no central government before there was, the military power of the colonies rested in the colonial governments, power which depended upon individuals.

      Colonies were, for all practical purposes, sovereign nations (as were the States when a central government was established (Articles of Confederation/Constitution). Truth is, the Second Amendment was written so as to prevent the national government (which the constitution appoints as being responsible for equipping the militia) from deciding that militia would be equipped (issued weapons) only when the central government saw fit. Thereby leaving only the standing army with weapons. The States retained the right/power to regulate firearms anyway they saw fit.

      In 1868, the States were relegated to provinces of the central government, as status fully developed only in the 20th century.

      • Prior to the Revolution the colonies were completely subject to the crown. The primary function of the militias was to provide fodder for the French cannons. I highly doubt this was the vision our founding fathers had for our militias. The states were very suspicious of centralized power, and when the confederacy didn’t work out and it seemed necessary to create a federal republic they wanted to make sure the federal government didn’t have the power to enforce their will by force.

    • That pesky 4th amendment is obsolete too. So is the 5th. The government should be free to arrest you whenever and wherever they want and hold you for as long as they want. After all, no one would ever use that against their political enemies, and anyone who thinks otherwise is paranoid.

      • It is pretty hard to go a week without doing something that can get you stopped and/or arrested. If they want to bring you in, they can do so legally with shadow team. They will even shortcut that, so no one is safe from arrest.

  9. Perhaps this writer forgets things that come randomly in life like the Rodney King incident in Los Angeles a few years back and the need to protect one self. Or the breakdown of civil society that happens in countries in South America on a all to regular basis. Don’t think it can’t happen in your own back yard and when it does there will never be enough of the good guys in blue to save you.

    As long as she is at it since we are not technically at war perhaps we should abolish our standing Army and Air Force as well.

    Has she ever read a history book to see how fast things can break down and turn to shit with even minor disruption in a normal society. Had she read a history book she might have learned about and incident back in like the 30/40s in the south east where someone at election time tried to steal an election box. A handful of men who went to a local armory and got some weapons and were able to recover that election box and save the will of the people and keep an election honest. People like this who forget history scare me.

    I am not a hunter but if we didn’t hunt in many areas of the country the car dear crashes would be off the charts. Sometimes people even die in these crashes.

    When I was in the service many years ago it was very evident that kids that were raised in rural settings and on farms had real advantages in marksmanship at boot camp, there learning process started earlier in life. Gun safety training and marksmanship classes make safer citizens who in time of need are better able to fill the ranks of the military when called upon.

    Good for her maybe she sits in her yoga classes every evening but some of the rest of us like to relax at the range and maybe even try our hand at gun a competitions. It is fun and relaxing as well. I’ve never won a competition but I continue to get better and have made a few good friends at the range as well.

    To write and article denouncing the 2nd is either bate and click for the purpose of inciting a riot or just willfully ignorant. If you want to write about our Constitution or on gun issues perhaps you should learn more before trying to write something like this.

    Come down to the range and learn a few things lady and you might even relax and enjoy yourself and if you are lucky you might even make a few good friends. Some of the people who are members of clubs are also some of the most law abiding respectful people I know they are in many cases former military of law enforcement as well as ordinary citizen who have a very deep respect of country, duty and honor and citizenship. At worst some just like to have fun and they do it without harming others.

  10. I would tend to agree with the L.A. riots and a few Asian business owners protected their property from looting with just a few warning shots. Is the 5th amendment dead with no knock raids and unreasonable search and seizure. The 1st amendment dead because a baker won’t he won’t put Johnny loves Billy on a cake.

  11. Wow, holy contradiction Batman.

    ” … the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    “There is no specific mention of unrestricted right to have arms … ”

    In consecutive sentences no less.

    • the shit for brains democrat communists can not get it through the sewage that is between their ears that this is a WELL-ARMED POPULACE AND WILL NOT BE DIS-ARMED WITHOUT ONE HELL OF A FIGHT ..PELOUSY AND SHUMER CAN YOU UNDERSTAND PLAIN ENGLISH??AIN’T GOING TO HAPPEN WITHOUT A VERY BLOODY FIGHT IN WHICH YOU WILL LOOSE.

  12. People who keep arguing that the 2nd Amendment is some sort or 18th Century anachronism, had to have missed the entire 20th Century. Oh, and BTW, the 21st Century isn’t starting out too bad for most of the brutal tyrants and genocidal dictators of the World.

  13. This is clearly not the case today, so basically the original intent of the Second Amendment is obsolete.

    The original intent was clear. The people were to be armed. The founders did not want a standing army. The 2nd amendment is for the militia, and the militia is all the people, except for a few politicians.

    If you think it’s obsolete, then try and repeal it, and see how many stand beside it. Good luck.

    • “If you think it’s obsolete, then try and repeal it,”

      Too much trouble. Legislation is easier, and just as effective.

  14. This really looks as if they’re suggesting a constitutional amendment, and that is a shock. It would be interesting to watch, especially to see who was going to pony up the tens of millions of dollars just to get the ball rolling. Bloomberg, Soros et al have shown no interest, since regardless of unlimited amounts of money the chances are less than zero, they’re not that stupid. In fact, anyone actually suggesting such a thing is probably angling for a full time job, for life, trying to push it forward while spending someone else’s money, with no real hope of success.

  15. First off let’s define what the founders meant by “free state”. A free state may be one in which crime is not rampant, your secure in your environment, and one unhindered in government intrusion.

  16. I always laugh a bit when I read uneducated articles like this. Based on what the author wrote, I guess it has become impossible for governments to become tyrannical. Clearly the author needs some education and purpose of the 2nd Amendment. I could use a similar argument regarding free speech on the internet.

  17. The Founders chose their words carefully.
    Modern Statists ignore them willfully.

    Modern Statists are trying to lecture subjects about the security of a slave State.
    Conservative Free Citizens read the words describing the security of a free State.

  18. To put the writer’s opinion in context
    “There is no specific mention of unrestricted right to have free speech protection for personal opinions, Electronic communication, or other current common uses.”
    “Therefore the first Amendment is obsolete.”

  19. It’s too bad the 2nd Amendment didn’t simply say, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    I need to study more extensively the Constitution and the history surrounding it. I appreciate the comments many share here that reveal the extent of my ignorance. It is very helpful.

    I’d appreciate anyone’s take on why you think the words “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state”, were inserted before “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Why not simply affirm that the right to keep and bear arms, was absolute?

    The First Amendment had no preface to the listing of the rights. There was no ‘An intelligent, informed populace being necessary to a free people, Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.’

    As the right to keep and bear arms is so critical to the preservation of the rights listed in the First Amendment, it seems that the right to keep and bear arms might logically have been included in the First Amendment, because without arms, there is no freedom. The founders knew that as well as anyone could.

    In the end, it wouldn’t matter to communists. The only laws that matter to them are the ones that give them complete control. As this writer does, she blatantly ignores the affirmation of an unrestricted right to keep and bear arms, stating that no such thing exists, immediately after quoting that very right. To communists and their useful idiots, the only truth is their absolute power.

    • As a general primer on the constitution, the free online course offered by Hillsdale College is a great start. The next important work is called “The Federalist Papers”; writings on the constitution. Third, the constitution itself; all of it. Fourth, recognize that you cannot view the founding through the lens of today (or even the last 150yrs), you must attempt to immerse in the contemporary politics and geography of the years of revolution, confederation, and promulgation of the constitution.

      But, shorthand is that the States were independent of each other, approaching separate nations. The States, and their leaders, were extremely selfish about what powers they would tolerate a central government having. The States created the central government, and did not give up individual sovereignty, wholesale.

      The constitution, Article 1, grants congress the power…”To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;” The founders feared the congress would disarm the State Militias as part of “arming”, as in withholding weapons unless and until congress decided it was prudent to let the States have military power to assist in defending the nation, or individual States that were under attack. The Second Amendment declares the States are to be armed at all times, not subject to the whim of the central government. All of this was to ensure a national army would never be able to militarily coerce States into doing the bidding of the central government.

    • I’d appreciate anyone’s take on why you think the words “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state”, were inserted before “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Why not simply affirm that the right to keep and bear arms, was absolute?

      Because the founders didn’t want a standing army, they wanted the peaceful people to be the defensive force.

      Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace. ~ James Madison

      In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people. ~ James Madison, Speech before Constitutional Convention (6/29/1787).

      Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state. – Thomas Jefferson

      When we assumed the Soldier, we did not lay aside the Citizen. – George Washington

      And so who was the army? Everyone.

      “The great object is, that every man be armed … Every one who is able may have a gun.”
      — Patrick Henry, Elliot, p.3:386

      And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress … to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms…. ”
      –Samuel Adams

      I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor; but may be confined to the lower and middle classes of the people, granting exclusion to the higher classes of the people. If we should ever see that day, the most ignominious punishments and heavy fines may be expected. Under the present government all ranks of people are subject to militia duty. – George Mason

      • Thank you, Anonymous, sincerely. I love reading the words of the men themselves who wrote the Constitution. My own research is badly limited, I need to and will correct that. Reading what you have written here makes me want to know much more. The words you shared are powerful, and are not in the arsenals of too many of us, myself first and foremost.

    • basically colonists got tired of getting the stick from king george, that included the general sentiment of the proud, but, the smartest of all the colonists, the founders, (and they were very, very smart; franklin himself made an organic discovery of early DC electricity far ahead of tesla or edison and studied fire behavior which then developed into the fire clubs which then grew into fire departments, and those were just one guy’s hobbies) Anyways, the founders were some of the smartest people on the planet of that epoch, they understood the world in its true dynamic and what was truly, really causing king george III to be despotic towards subjects. They understood why, who, when and how, what was happening on the true macro level (as opposed to the public-level). Many people view American history in a guided-interpretation. The mainstream narrative is: a bunch of europeans came to america, killed all the indians, set up shop, started the transatlantic slave trade. Nothing could be further from the truth. The founders themselves were embedded into a system over which they had no control, they completely disagreed with the status quo, including economic models, and so they were first colonists, to escape despotism by proximity (by choice or by family line), and second revolutionaries, to escape despotism by politic and decree. Although the founders were very intelligent, the general public, not unlike today, were very, very unintelligent. The founders were unique in that they judged the public was very dumb, but also deserving to be free, as a recognition of god’s will. As opposed to setting up a state merely to exploit and farm their energy, which is every other gov in history. The declaration of independence is very insightful as it proscribed the offenses to which they objected in historical specificity. Then later, the constitution carefully laid out a genius matrix, not too specific, not too broad, not wastefully overlapping but succinct and thought through in its finality. The constitution is a list of restrictions against the federal and state governments as a result of war-gaming between its authors, drawing from both their personal experiences with england, france and the dukedoms in the holy roman empire, but most importantly their own intuition to forecast probable avenues of approach of the despotism they accurately profiled. They didnt waste words and considered the document should guide a society in the most-whole sense and be robust enough to withstand the centuries. The only reason they were able to succeed in this is because they understood the actual hidden source of power, working though the english monarch. They understood that the true force of despotism works through men in their pursuit of feeding themselves and family, and through simulating the consent of the powerful or the masses, and tricks societies into doing horrible things to eachother. All of this can be learned more about by reading the founders books. The federal/anti fed papers also give deep insight. The well-regulated militia clause is necessary in the 2nd amendment because it anchors the purpose of arming the population so that it cannot be easily interpreted as an impotent amendment. In other words, the militia is included to plainly tell the reader that the people cannot be disarmed as a matter of policy, and the reason why is that the people are a militia, and a militia is a group of men, de-coupled from payment, (unlike an army, at least in theory) who combine forces for the purpose of battling and killing people who are threats against their proprietorship as free people. Unfortunately, the evil they were trying to stop has such big balls it not only somehow brainwashed the public into believing that “militia” doesn’t actually mean “militia”, but rather: modern, paycheck-collecting-army-with-direct-deposit-from-federal-reserve-bank,-fighting in-so-many-foreign-wars-the-citizens-lose-track, but also somehow miraculously convinced the public that “…to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” actually means: create an extension of the executive branch which isnt accountable to anyone in the executive branch, and has no elected representatives, then have that executive agency tax, arbitrate and interpret the semantics of code to constantly evolve until no one has any arms left to keep or bear. The only other error of the constitution is that it underestimated how dumb people truly are. The constitution requires real active-guarding and energy poured into its maintenance by the citizenry, which then composes the government. I dont think they actually thought it would get this far merely due to sloth, impiety and decadence. From the writings of the founders, I believe if they were alive today they would wish our nation as it is currently found, to be destroyed as quickly as possible and rendered to no memory in history. They actually say just-that in many, many of their quotes.
      And that children, is the bed time story of how there’s a great force of evil lurking through money which really owns and runs the entire world and that has gone on through all the ages, in all corners of the world for a very long time, since before there was even a printing press, and it’s never changed, the only thing that’s changed is the way the money looks. — crypto-currency. it’s going to be so hot.

      • Buddy, thank you very much for your note. The great thing about these articles, for me, is the comments where knowledge is shared. I learn a great deal here. I really appreciate your taking time to write what you did. I paid close attention.

  20. I completely agree that the 2A is obsolete. It certainly meets the definition of no longer serving a useful purpose. In fact, the entire constitution is obsolete. Pretty, words on pretty paper, but they do nothing to restrain tyranny.

    The American experiment was a good one. It showed that even the most limited form of government will instantly devolve into “utter despotism.” The failure of the constitution should have taught us all that freedom and statism are incompatible, and we should have gotten rid of this awful idea that we need people to rule over us.

    But no. We make the exact same excuse as the communists: the idea is good, but it just wasn’t implemented properly.

    Nowadays the constitution is nothing more than a religious icon used by tyrants to convince us that their authority is real. Much of the bill of rights still contains good principles – and those principles are still good. But let’s champion those ideals, not the instrument of our subjugation upon which they happen to be [quite offensively] written.

    • The problem is, a constitutional federal republic, like ours, is about as least “hands off” of government that you can possibly have. There are other systems farther down the limited government spectrum, like a confederacy, and farther yet, forms of anarchy, but they’ve proven to not be able to stand the test of time. A confederacy would seemingly solve many issues we hate, such as unchecked government spending and growth, however confederate style governments are far too weak to hold the nation together for long periods of time. I don’t pretend to know the answers, but so far, a constitutional republic as good as it gets, and I don’t think we’re at the point we should give up yet. It’s easy to get disenchanted by the statist victories as of late, but they can and have been defeated too.

    • Salty, your argument either misses or ignores a large part of the context of the BoR and the concepts surrounding the development and ratification of the constitution.

      The idea always was that if the grievances of the states, and by extension, the people, were unable to be redressed within the system, then the right already existed to withdraw from the covenant produced by ratification. The 2nd Amendment was about ensuring the people retained the power to make use of the pre-existing right. Put another way: The constitution has an escape clause for the state(s), secession. The 2a was about making sure the had the military power to pull it off.

      Obviously that failed in the 1860s, however and still, if enough of the people come to arms the government outlined and produced by the constitution must fail, to be replaced by whatever we can come up with.

      What the confederacy lacked in the 1860s was a national belief that the current government had failed the people, theirs being a regional issue.
      On a national issue, such as gun control or taxation, such an uprising may well make the current government untenable.

      There is nothing in the constitution or the process of its ratification that says it should not, may not or cannot be overthrown. It’s ours to live by, until such time as enough of us think it’s a bad idea. Following that is war, followed by several possible outcomes.

      None of this is a failure of the constitution, and in fact the constitution, as such, cannot ever fail. We, the people, can fail to enforce it. We can fail to live up to its design, but it cannot fail us, because it contains in its very foundations the key to its own end; The Second Amendment. If we decide to stop living by the constitution, we fail it, not the other way around.
      Should the elected government prove antithetical to our rights the constitution gives us the tools to vote them out. Should the userpers of our rights probe to be non governmental actors within society, it is up to us to dispose of them. If the elected government will not leave when voted out….the same.

      It is we who are failing. The people are increasingly proving unworthy of the document: On the one side because they revile its bulkward against their lemming like rush to statism, and on the other side because we prove unworthy of its grace by failing our duty to support it.

      There have been successive small revolutions since 1776, and all but one were very small. That doesn’t mean there shouldn’t or won’t be more than may be much, much bigger. Freedom was only ever available to those who will fight for it. The next fight might be ours, our children’s or our grandchildren, but without another fight, freedom will be lost. Sane as it ever was.

      • That was nice. You should write a TTAG article, and write one on the NRA page as well. We can print them out en masse, and air drop them all over the US, along with 30rd magazines in the new-englander states.

  21. Inalienable rights never become obsolete and the author of the letter to the editor has no understanding of the purpose of the 2nd Amendment or history.

  22. We’ve got a few current examples of why individuals need their arms. South Africa. Venezuela. Mexico. Chicago. Baltimore. Brazil. Even the civilized places like Sweden are slowly becoming uncivilized day by day.
    Far from being obsolete there has never been a need greater for it.

  23. Time to rethink tyrants,both foreign and domestic who would pose a threat to Liberty of the Republic,rather than the Constitution.

  24. I must be misunderstanding the point trying to be made——-the way I take it, being the Supreme Court ruled that no police force has the duty to defend a person’s life, it is necessary to bear arms…..

    • I think where they are heading, or want to head, is what it is in the UK: you don’t have a right to defend your life. I believe people have been imprisoned for defending themselves and injuring or killing intruders, even when the intruders were armed.

  25. I am not too concerned about ignorant revisionists. The sun shines, water is wet and political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. Mr. stalin, the pope does not approve…stalin,”the pope, how many divisions does he have?”-30-

  26. Funny thing, I still use a lot of “obsolete” hardware. In the past, I used some computer hardware that was manufactured before I was even born. Don’t fix what isn’t broken.

    As for the COTUS and BoR, if the 2A is obsolete, so is the 1st, 4th, 5th, 10th and 14th.

  27. ” primary function was to keep military power with the people and not the centralized government. ”

    Absolutely correct. The front half of the second amendment is not just a prefatory remark. It fixes the reason for the individual right to bear arms.

    The wording is very significant. “necessary to the security of a free State” could just as easily been written “necessary to the security of the State”. The founders were very much aware of the difference. By inserting that little word “free”, they made a distinction between any old State as just a political jurisdiction, and a free State as something different, a State that recognizes that its sovereignty comes from the people and there are limits to how far the State can go to restrict the people’s rights.

    Inserting the word “free” changes the militia (which is the armed citizenry) from being just another agent of the State (like a standing army) and elevates it to being part of the system of checks and balances that is the foundation of our system of government.

  28. OK suspend the Second Amendment and then the government will show you how real mass killings are carried out. If the writer had any intellectual capacity of the minutes perception of history they would realize that the “rethinking” of the individuals right to bear arms has preceded every genocide of the last 1000 years.

  29. There was an attempted spree shooting, well, attempted armed robbery, anyway, at 8:30 p.m. last night at the nearby McDonald’s where I’ve been known to pick up the occasional McRib. One guy threw a chair at the robber. Another guy shot him in the chest and shoulder. He escaped and drove himself to the emergency room, where he survived and was arrested.

    No police were on site. No militia, either. Where was the 82nd Airborne in this age of standing armies? Nowhere. The people had to fend for themselves by exercising their natural right to do so.

    Violence is the default condition. Most of us do what we can to live peacefully among each other and put that tribal, primitive crap behind us. Others choose not to. For encounters with those people, we need to be prepared. This veneer of civilization we live under, and trust me, it is no thicker than a veneer, does not make the Second Amendment obsolete or outdated.

    • OK, you seem to be in need of a bit of re-education. You are displaying complete ignorance of the history of government in the US.

      1. Since the founding, “the government” has never considered (much less attempted) to enslave its citizens, suppress rights, randomly kicking down doors to confiscate guns, being “totalitarian” (as you might put it), harming the innocent public just to demonstrate power, really posed a threat to individual freedom.

      2. Resisting an armed robber/burglar is putting your life needlessly at risk; don’t be a problem, and you will likely never be in danger.

      3. No human has a right to act as judge, jury and executioner in the heat of a crime in progress. Let the system work: call police; testify at trial. A person committing a crime in your presence just might have a life experience that leaves crime as the only means of survival (where do you think all the so-called “violence” on the part of Antifa, BLM, etc comes from? Frustration at having no options to otherwise be heard in the right-wing shrieking about “Muh rahts”)

      Try to put yourself in the shoes of those less fortunate who are driven to extreme life choices because they are powerless to change their circumstance. “Try a little tenderness”; you’ll feel much better about yourself.

      Now, was that so hard? Pick up your books and hurry home to your family.

        • “Nice sermon padre.”

          Anything to help Pistolero, Commancheros, Desparados, and Autodefensa understand that they have never had, nor do then now have, any reason to fear tyrannical government; it just can’t happen here. The law says so.

          Everybody needs to calm down and let the government form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. That is what government does best, unless a rowdy crowd of disgruntled* shootists interferes. Please take note that “the common defence” includes individual safety, which embodies promoting the general welfare (safety).

          *There actually is a condition of being “gruntled”.

  30. It is media false hoods like this that show the First Amendment should be “Revisited”.
    226 years ago people knew ” the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Did mean a unrestricted right to have arms for personal protection, hunting, or other current common uses!
    If you hate firearms don’t keep and bear them. You will not be forced to.
    But don’t try to try to trash the unpinnings of the Country I gave 4 years of my protecting!

  31. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

    Maybe we should re examine the first too. Lots of those confusing commas there, that don’t separate individual rights….oh wait.

  32. Washington D C is obsolete. We should build the wall around D C and start a new government in a state that is more centrally located. Use the original Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights. No EPA, DEA. FBI, NSA, Fed Reserve, EPA etc. Have term limits and recall powers.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here