http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-lauria/t...i_b_109530.html

The Second Amendment: An Irrelevant Relic

The Second Amendment was written after a war in which a new nation without a standing army defeated the biggest standing army on the planet. To defend itself, the new country relied on citizens arming themselves in civilian militias.

Ever since Britain had permanently garrisoned troops in Massachusetts to put down the brewing rebellion in 1768, opposition to standing armies ran deep among Americans. The Revolution was nearly lost because the Continental Congress for years refused Washington's pleading for a standing army. Sam Adams, before he and his class of merchants had won, believed a permanent force was "forever dangerous to civil liberties."

"Soldiers are apt to consider themselves as a body distinct from the rest of the citizens," Adams said. "They have arms always in hand..." But, "the Militia is composed of free citizens. There is, therefore, no danger of their making use of their Power to the destruction of their own rights..." Adams amended his position as the war dragged on, realizing the necessity of a trained, disciplined force in extreme circumstances. But once the war was over, he returned to his earlier position, saying a standing army was no longer needed.

Because of this distrust of standing armies the new republic wrote into its Constitution the Second Amendment, ensuring that citizens, and not a permanent state military, would bear arms to protect the land.

The United States today has the largest standing armed forces ever assembled. The militias are now called the standing National Guard.

The rationale for the Second Amendment is completely lost in history. It has as much relevance and moral force today as Section 2 of Article 1 that permitted slavery.

The Second Amendment means nothing unless we disband the National Guard and America's armed forces.

It is a dangerous absurdity to think it can justify the sale and possession of handguns. The Framers would surely be amazed by Thursday's Supreme Court decision and would wonder what had become of their republic.

The Second Amendment must be repealed.

I know someone who buys that shit. What a bunch of idiots.

Clearly they have little understanding of the 2nd Amendment and the thoughts of the founding fathers on the matter. Protecting the country from foreign threats was arguably one rationale for the 2nd Amendment, but it was by no means the only one. As everyone here knows, the 2nd Amendment also protects the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of oneself, one's family, and freedom (basically life, liberty, and property).

Anyway, at this time there is the threat of terrorism in this country that the military and police cannot adequately protect us from. Individual law-abiding citizens need to be able to defend themselves.

Also, the U.S. does NOT have the largest standing army in history at this time. These fools should get their facts straight. Oh, but then it would be harder for them to justify their erroneous, irrational views to themselves.

If you can decide that certain amendments are anachronistic, how long before others can be considered the same? I agree the Founding Fathers would not and could not have conceived the advances that technology would bring about. Sure, we have weapons that can fire thousands of rounds per minute. So what?
With the computer and the internet, we have devices that can spread words and ideas at the speed of light to most industrialized nations around the world in practically real time. That's potentially millions per hour.

It constantly amazes me that the people who cherish their right to free speech have no problems declaring other rights as "obsolete". If the government EVER decided that the 1st Amendment is also obsolete...how do we (the citizens) protect that right?

By voting?

You'd have better luck showing up to a gunfight with a plastic spork.

News flash: MILITA=YOU AND ME, NOT PROFESSIONAL SODIERS!!! (OR part-timers!)

Last time i checked militias weren't something sponsored by the government (national guard).

militia is regular citizens. not the army, navy, marines, national guard, coast guard or any other orginized armed force. the militia is protected under 2a to protect us from tyranny and foreign threats thats it. its not a terrorist organization as media would like to label us or some radical anti-gov group that wishes for anarchy. i am in the militia and so are you.

I'll take it a step further: It is your DUTY as an American citizen (and therefore a member of the milita) to KEEP, MAINTAIN and PRACTICE with a sufficient military-style weapon. If you do not own or know how to use a high-power rifle then you are being negligent to your duty as a US citizen. Just my opinion.

Good points about militias. You guys are right on target in my opinion.

If you want to start removing irrellevant things from the Bill of Rights, I say lets start with the 3rd Amendment.



What barrel-chested, freedom loving American wouldn't love to host a few G.I.'s in their home...?

I would imagine that a few leftie's would go into a psychotic fit to have a platoon of Marines quartered in their happy-hippy kabutz of love, but if we're gonna start "trimming the fat" out of the Constitution, I say the 3rd Amendment is an EXCELLENT place to start...
Anyone game for organizing a "Repeal the 3rd" movement?

Everyone coluld invite a GI to stay at the house and go out to the range with the weapons that the "obsolete" 2nd gives us a right to. that would get their goat. Even better, lets start a new holiday.

"Take a grunt gunning day" sounds as american as apple pie.

The militia has allways been free citizens, And yes they might well be needed in the future.At the rate china is building a navy from our scrap steel using our walmart dollars, it might very well be sooner than later. Sadly I think the best thing for this country would be a ground war on our soil.America needs shocked back to reality.Instead of being fixated on the latest Britney Speers beaver pic..

"The rationale for the Second Amendment is completely lost in history"


The rationale of self defense and the means to prevent an oppressive government or protect your country from invaders (admittedly remote possibility) is no longer needed? Whew, am I relieved to find that out. This guys a genius.

+1

I think that you will find more people in this country that are in favor of baning and restricting the "free press" a more preferable idea when pruning down the Constitution then the right to keep and bear arms.

hey lets trade them thier right to free religeon or free press for our right to bear arms. I bet they will sign a new tune REAL FAST if it were a serious offer. (OH NO).

I will refrain from the rest of my comment, am getting worked up over our blessed holiday this weekend.

I keep saying it, but will say it again, if you live in a state with a national guard unit, the laws are THERE that you MUST have a firearm, ammo, and know how to use it, and have it at the ready. This was, and still is the law of the land. Take a look. Its in there......

Yeah, where did Russia and China go?

Ok count me in for the repeal of the 3rd Amendment. Just so long she brings the M134....


On a more serious note, The Bill of Rights was intended to enumerate rights given by God, and serves as restrictions of the goverment's power. "The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution." Apparently most of the leftwing fucktards fail to read this portion of the Bill of Rights.....