The Desert Sun: Second Amendment is Obsolete

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 ? “

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.

self-defense was always just a given…and never questioned….till now…

Plenty of the left would agree with that.

And it was really easy to recognize the guy who owned the newspaper, he was always covered with ink from head to toe, and his hands were heavily calloused.

I will have to use that come back.

I bet you think this song is about you.

When these stories or letters show up plenty of counter points are submitted and sometimes they print them. Most times they do not. Such is the power of the pen over the sword and he who holds it gets to decide how it’s used.

That’s why there’s a button on your mouse that lets you click through to the next article.

Give me a break… Babyboomers are responsible for destroying this country….

“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.

As are common sense and critical thinking.

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.

You will upset the gay and Liberal hypocrite gun owners with comments like that.

They are delusional and have no problem manipulating language to get what they want.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

“But let’s champion those ideals, ”

Ideals expressed how?
Ideals adopted by whom?
Ideals enforced how?

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.

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.

“Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” Words to remember. Excellent. Thank you, Michael.

Becareful with them McRibs man, heart disease is no joke.

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.

It may take extreme measures if we, and America, are to survive the onslaught against freedom.