The Second Amendment and the Right to Revolution

[lasbrg]

The main problem I had with the essay was the focus on militias as the primary justification for the right to bear arms. I think Scalia, as I said above, got it exactly right. The first clause of 2A is really irrelevant. It could have began "In order to control the population of these pesky carrier pigeons .." and the legal effect would have been the same. The second amendment states that carrying weapons is a right of the people. This is unrelated to militias or anything else.

[SilverTauron]

The Gun Control Act of 1968 gives the President the discretion to ban guns he deems not suitable for sporting purposes.

If that were true, then so-called "Saturday Night Specials" would have been banned back in the 1970's, and so-called "assault Weapons would have been banned in the 1990's. The "sporting purposes" BS was invented by the big gun makers like Remington and Winchester, as a way to combat the sporterizing of old military rifles that was popular in the 1960's.

In point of fact, that's why pistols under a certain size-like the Glock .380 model-cannot be imported into the US.

Remember the semi-auto HK rifles based on the MP5? Banned by the White House in the early 1990s under this clause in response to the Stockton Incident. Its why HK only sells handguns and one rifle in the US now-why would you invest resources selling rifles in a nation which banned your entire product lineup?


As to revolution, I'd like to state that revolts for freedom nearly always fail horribly. The only major revolution to succeed in creating a free state was ours, and even we're sliding into tyranny. If we pull the pin on armed resistance,history suggests we'll only be trading one form of tyranny for a more efficient version.

[nicki]

Civil conflict.

The last thing we want is another "Revolution or Civil War" because many people died in the last ones.

The reality is if it happened again in this country, the casualties would be sky high, I would estimate somewhere in the 10 to 20 million dead range.

The American Revolution was not a planned revolution, rather once the shots were fired at Lexington and Concord, things just got out of hand.

At the beginning of the American Civil War, the federal government only had around 16,000 troops. The South didn't count on President Lincoln instituting a draft and raising a huge army to put down their secession.

For a president who talks like he wants a united country, he certainly is doing a lot of things to piss off many people.

The hate against Obama by many is "visceral", that isn't a good thing.

Standing armies and select militias in peacetime are dangerous to liberty and we have both.

The crap will start hitting the fan once foreigners stop buying US treasury notes and when the US dollar is replaced as the world's reserve currency.

That could happen really soon thanks to our growing massive national debt.

Nicki

[EM2]

The last thing we want is another "Revolution or Civil War" because many people died in the last ones.

I am not concerned about the casualty rate if there be another revolution or civil war but rather what comes afterward.
As SilverTauron has said we will most assuredly have a tyranny many times more effcient than what we have now which will be detrimental to our society for many generations.

We no longer have the great men of the past to lead us into a future of Liberty & prosperity and I fear the best we can hope for now is to hold on to what we have for as long as possible.

[dave_cg]

The last thing we want is another "Revolution or Civil War" because many people died in the last ones.

Here is the thing: When presented with the question: "Which is better? a) My children live like this. b) I die.", if 'b' starts looking like the better answer to enough people, war starts.

[Mitch]

Really? I had never heard that before.

The 1968 GCA gives the BATFE the discretion to ban the import of firearms that are deemed to be "non sporting." As the BATFE is an Executive agency, this basically puts the decision in the hands of the President.

This was most famously done in 1989 by the Bush Administration, and a few years later by President Clinton. The latter occurrence is the foundation of the erroneous idea that the President can ban guns by Executive Order. What happened was Clinton simply asked the BATFE to ban the import of a handful of military style semi-auto rifles, as was his prerogative under the GCA. He didn't even issue an Executive Order.

[lasbrg]

The 1968 GCA gives the BATFE the discretion to ban the import of firearms that are deemed to be "non sporting." ...

Thanks for this clarification. From what you and others have said, the authority of the 1968 act only applies to gun imports and not to guns in general, as claimed by the Imprimis author.

[totus44]

Wasn't one of the key drivers behind the 2A for the federal gov't to know that the citizens could pushback if all else failed? Therefore, if you support the 2A fully, you should be prepared for DEFCON 1, and willing to step up to your responsibility. All the brashness of the left, they are going to keep pushing because they are counting on a passive opponent.

In terms of aftermath, if freedom loses - we'll all be comrades. But I think freedom would prevail because the focus would be to take out C&C and leadership. With no leadership, the leftists fold like a cheap suit. What then emerges are the modern day founders, and these good people do exist. And I bet the Constitution gets tighted up to prevent further reinterpretation. Just my glass half full perspective.

[fortdick]

Well, I liked the part about, "REVOLUTION" anyway. Rolls off my tongue kinda. Especially when preceeded by an expletive.

Thanks for reading and commenting, guys. Cheers!

Don't get down Jim cause the self aggrandized and righteous criticize the article. I received it in the mail and read it. It was a basic primer for those that are uniformed. I thought it was appropriate for what it was professed to be.

Some folks just feel better about themselves if the criticize everyone else.

[mif_slim]

Tagged to read later. For those who don't know Hillsdale is kinda unique in that they take no subsidies from the government, which is obviously a good thing.



Uh, dude, you realize the guys a PHD writing a paper for a college opinion digest, right?



What's that supposed to mean?

As with the NRA, etc., Hillsdale is one of my annual contributions for that reason and their emphasis on the Constitution.





Most general media realize the general public has an attention span of 15 seconds. But, it's true Imprimis is more thorough. Fortunately.





Means we is smarrtt.

Exaclty what I was going to say!

[lasbrg]

Some folks just feel better about themselves if the criticize everyone else.

Only two people here criticized the article and no one criticized the author.

Your complaint would carry more weight if you weren't doing the very thing you criticize yourself.

[glbtrottr]

The right to revolution? That has such a romantic, nostalgic, patriotic ring to it. American Patriots fighting against a nameless, faceless enemy to defend their constitutional guarantees and the core of this nation. But wait...who is that faceless enemy?

Politicians and law enforcement. Your friends, family, acquaintances...

The very politicians who legislate your rights away are continually emboldened by your dollars and empowered by the weapons and control they purchase with it by way of law enforcement. Cops protect the politicians by occupation - judges who make case law and representatives who write it.

While conceptually an armed revolution sounds like a great way to air your grievances, the vast majority of men (and women) have little in the way of sack or conviction to see this through by way of an overthrow. The America of George Washington, Samuel Adams, Roosevelt, Lincoln and more is *gone*. The hyperfeminization of this culture has resulted in far too much politeness where there is no possible "line in the sand" to be observed.

Our president gives millions to Arab Muslim Brotherhood regimes to destroy others on the basis of their religion, spends our moneys on entitlement intentionally, hamstrings our military, and boosts the militarization of our law enforcement under the premise of "safety".

Americans will not draw a line in the sand for any reason. Nothing will make them do it.

Not wholesale giving away of citizenship by our president and legislators.
Not continual erosion of our constitutional guarantees.
Not robbing of elections.
Not a burgeoning group of the entitled and the under-deserving.

The right to revolution? The threshold for revolt was surpassed a looooong time ago.

Who are the enforcers of the government?

Those with a badge, who far too often sell their core values and beliefs in exchange for an "us versus them" mentality perpetuated far too often by their work on the streets. With loyalties now moved to the paycheck, pension, and elite class demonstrated by the badge, why would LE want to give that up? Heck, legally, LE isn't even obligated to defend you in any way as a citizen (Castle Rock v. Gonzales, Warren v. DC).

The right to revolution was abrogated long ago.

[wazdat]

The OP's link took me to the most recent article and I had to search for the one being discussed here.

The Second Amendment as an Expression of First Principles