A New Amendment to Repeal the Second Amendment


Why won’t this thread just die? So many other good threads never take off, but this one just keeps coming back.

Here’s the deal…

I’ll use my 1st Amendment right to explain to all of you that the 2nd Amendment was written at a time when people had black powder muskets that fired a single shot and had to be reloaded in a slow and clumsy way. So, if so many of you do not want to deviate from what the original intent of the 2nd Amendment was then maybe you should return your weapons of mass murder and stick to what the founders had envisioned.

Now, go buy up all of the single shot black powder muskets that you can get your hands on.


Google Puckle Gun.

You point is invalid


Anyone tells you that they have 1A rights to say that 2A doesn’t count because they were talking about muskets?

Tell them to get off their computer, write a letter by quill pen, and have it delivered by a guy on a horse.

Then, and only then, will we have this discussion.


[quote=“IronLung, post:102, topic:531”]
Funny how the connection between that assertion and the fact that the Constitution is the document that bestows the right to begin with is never made. Good read.[/quote]

Never made? My argument would be where isn’t it made? From the foundational principles to the ratification debates to the Bill of Rights itself to the boringly consistent determinations of SCOTUS, the principle of inherent / retained rights is affirmed again and again. What have you read (or learned) that stands in opposition?

[quote=“Chandler, post:103, topic:531”]
Why won’t this thread just die? So many other good threads never take off, but this one just keeps coming back.

Here’s the deal…

I’ll use my 1st Amendment right to explain to all of you that the 2nd Amendment was written at a time when people had black powder muskets that fired a single shot and had to be reloaded in a slow and clumsy way.[/quote]

You considering your banging on plastic keys making words appear on a screen and then sending those sentiments across time and space instantaneously to appear on someone else’s screen to be an exercise of the 1st Amendment . . . would tend to place your argument that the 2nd is limited to the technology of the late 18th Century into the ‘utterly ridiculous absurdity’ category.


I don’t recall a Constitutional right for computer access. Cute attempt though.



Please read what I wrote in the context of the message I was replying to (quoted text from Chandler).


You’re insane. The law abiding citizens of Amerca should never be disarmed.

The first part I want to address is where you said “They serve no purpose and destroy lives and even entire communities” This is completely untrue. Guns can do nothing to people. It takes a person to pull the trigger of the gun. If we say guns kill people: Do cars drive drunk? Do credit cards spend themselves? Does the Internet write fake stories about people? The answer to all of those questions is no. The answer to those questions is simple: People. People do all of those things. There is nothing that a gun does. A gun cannot fire itself. It requires a person to do it. We don’t need to work on the gun in this country, we need to work on the person behind that gun.


“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.”

2A is abundantly clear.

There is ZERO room for interpretation at all.

They even put a period at the end of “…shall not be infringed.”


The context of “keep and bear arms” is the most important part. The directive wasn’t put there for hunting. It was put there to overthrow the government if they government gets out of hand.

They were overthrowing England who was actively trying to disarm the colonists.

The government needs to be starved to death. We need to go back to small government with the power of the states being paramount. The federal government exists only as a means of coordination between the states.


The people who try to claim that the Second Amendment applies only to the National Guard are wrong. They are wrong either out of ignorance of federal law and the history of the Founders’ true intend regarding our right to arms, or they are wrong out of a political motivation to advance the anti-gun/anti-liberty worldview of the authoritarian fascist left.

The National Guard and the United States Militia are two different entities. Standing federal law codifies them as such. There are two classes of the United States Militia - organized and unorganized. The Organized Militla is the National Guard. The Unorganized Militia is the people: “…ALL able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age…”

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14, § 311; Pub. L. 85–861, § 1(7), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title V, § 524(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656; renumbered § 246, Pub. L. 114–328, div. A, title XII, § 1241(a)(2), Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2497.)

Link: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246

When we consider the words of the Founders regarding their intention with regard to our unalienable right to arms, the fact that their goal was for every lawful U.S, citizen to be armed is undeniable. We also see that their intention and 10 U.S. Code § 246 are in harmony with each other. What was the true intent of the Founders? Let’s look at what they had to say:

Thomas Jefferson:
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
And - "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
And - “On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

George Mason:
“I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”

James Madison:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
And - “…the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone…”

Richard Henry Lee:
“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves… and include, according to the past and general usage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”

Patrick Henry:
“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined… The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.”

Samuel Adams:
“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”

Tench Coxe:
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
And my favorite - "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? …Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and EVERY other terrible implement of the soldier, are the BIRTHRIGHT of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, IN THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE."

As we can see from the above, the Founders’ position on our right to arms is undeniably clear. Those who mount their pulpits and rail against the right of lawful citizens to own and use supposed “assault” weapons - rifles such as the AR-15, M1-A, AK-47, HK-91, HK-93, CETME, etc. and the normal capacity magazines that these self-loading rifles utilize try to conveniently ignore the words of Tench Coxe, who was in attendance at the Constitutional Convention of 1788-89: "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? …Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and EVERY other terrible implement of the soldier, are the BIRTHRIGHT of an American…"

Mao Tse Tung said long ago what every authoritarian politician knows: “Political power springs from the barrel of a gun.” For the politicians of the fascist left - and their disciples - to attempt to deny the lawful citizens of the United States any firearm that would be useful in removing a dictatorial regime from power is nothing other than a blatant attempt to enslave the American people. That is the ultimate goal of the anti-gun bigots in the private and in the government sector: To render the people defenseless against authoritarian control.

As Obama used to love to say, “If you are not doing anything wrong, you don’t have any reason to be afraid.” That is a two way street and applies to members of the political class, too. A government that operates within the lawful constraints placed on it by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights has no reason to fear an armed citizenry. A corrupt, immoral and dictatorial regime has plenty to worry about as long as the people are armed.

Judge Andrew Nepalitano explained the Second Amendment in very plain terms: "The Second Amendment is not about our right to shoot deer. It’s about our right to shoot tyrants when they take over the government."

Amen to that.


In theory, the Second Amendment could be changed–or even repealed, altogether. (The Eighteenth Amendment, for instance–the one that gave us Prohibition–was repealed by the Twenty-First Amendment.)

In practice, however, it simply will not happen.

And that is not merely because the Republicans control all the levers of power in Washington nowadays. (Remember, it did not happen–or even come close to happening–when t he situation was otherwise.)


If all guns became illegal tomorrow and all people were required to surrender their guns, what would happen?

Initially, there would be some level of compliance especially by that group the gun culture refers to as the Elmer Fudds , they would probably turn in their shotguns and deer rifles. Once some resistance was encountered and the police/DOJ agents felt they needed to use deadly force to execute the seizure order and deaths resulted there would be a groundswell of resistance. The need for body bags for both sides of the equation to continue to grow. Officials known to be involved in the seizures would find themselves and their families in danger, they live amongst us and an elevated body count of those who think they can take private property and infringe upon the right of self-preservation would escalate .It’s hard to go to work when what you do has your neighbors gunning for you. There would be a corresponding increase in retirements and resignations amongst agents of the state. States believe they have a monopoly on violence ,this scenario would gainsay that belief . Remember, “Rebellion to Tyrants id Obedience to God”.


If that happened and government decided to go door to door and search houses, would you be ok with that?

Those who are compliant will turn their firearms in to the state. The process of going door to door with the ATF form 4473 and demanding to contents of ones gun safe will be a fools errand. Jumpy cops will kill someone who didn’t need to be killed and the folks at the next house will be waiting with guns in hand. The government will have to decide what are acceptable casualties amongst their agents as they bury slain agents and deal with the growing public outrage. This is another scenario that could lead to something more than mere riots and something short of a civil war. I suspect the manufacturers of body bags would have steady business .


This is an old thread, but here are some new thoughts on it.

There are around one million police officers in America - basically one police officer for every 320 people. Exactly how would those one million police officers ever go door to door to literally EVERY house, mobile home, condominium, apartment, townhouse, college dorm room, military base housing and barracks and go through EVERY nook and cranny of those dwellings in order to confiscate guns?? It would take several man hours to search EVERY dwelling.

Such a search would take literally decades - if not hundreds of years - to complete, during which time the police would get NOTHING else accomplished - no patrols, no going to court to testify, no stacks of forms filled out, no firearms qualifying, no training, no protection for judges and politicians (oh, God no - we CAN’T have that!!).

Just from the time required standpoint, it would be impossible to carry out a nation wide door-to-door search and seizure of all firearms in America.

And that’s before we even get around to addressing the UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES that a search and seizure of firearms from lawful gun owners in America would inevitably result in.

The fascist/socialist Political Class thugs in Connecticut tried to do this. People refused to be disarmed. The state police in CT were ordered to confiscate the people’s so-called “assault weapons.” The police officers who were going to have to do the confiscating realized that it was THEY who would be shot dead on people’s front porches, not the arrogant political thugs at the statehouse who made the law, not the shitforbrains governor who signed the law and not their brass wearing administrators who would lead the charge FROM THE REAR where their fat asses would be well out of harm’s way.

The low ranking officers who would be shot trying to UNLAWFULLY confiscate firearms in Connecticut said in effect, “Hey, wait a minute! I have a wife and kids at home. I am NOT going to get myself killed for a $50,000 a year job so that a handful of arrogant assholes at the statehouse can UNLAWFULLY wield absolute power with no accountability! F*** that!!”

When the reality of the situation set in, the fascist politicians at the CT statehouse didn’t know whether to sh*t or go blind.

NOW: If we have to go through this exercise again - this time on the national level - there are certainly tens of millions of citizen patriots who are ready, willing and able to hold up their end of the bargain - and several million of them are veterans - military trained snipers, Rangers, MARSOC guys, Special Forces operators, SEALs and other government trained and battle hardened SPECWAR players.

The smart money is on the players.


Great post.

Taking guns completely will never be possible, but that won’t stop them from trying. They are after what the USSR pulled off.

Stalin ruled the USSR for 31 years in that time frame his government murdered or starved 70,000,000 people. If you divide 70,000,000 by 31 you get 2,258,064 people dead a year. Divide that by 365 and you get 6,186 people dead per day.

That is the scale of a government vs an unarmed population.

That’s why we have the Second Amendment.


If we make guns illegal, then nobody will get shot anymore. That’s how we stopped everybody from doing drugs. :rofl:


There are two types of people that want to take your guns…

Those who want to control you…


Those who want to kill you…


Congress is to blame for all the killings we have in America. If only they would have had the foresight to ban murder, none of this would have ever happened.


Their use to be a few of those ‘Thou Shall Not Kill’ signs posted here and there… but they banned them… Something about those rules being overtly religious…


We have a military the likes of which the world has never seen. Do you think you’re going to defend yourself with your 30-06. :wink: