The news of the Hutaree militia group the FBI infiltrated and stopped is alarming and shows it’s time to revisit the 2nd Amendment to repeal and replace it with intelligent gun controls in this country. The Hutaree group’s videos and intentions leave no doubt that their assault weapons are not for hunting or collections.
America doesn’t need militias to protect the country or the borders, and groups like the Tea Party doesn’t need to bring guns to their gatherings just because the law allows them to carry weapons, and the fact they were protesting their right to bear arms makes no sense whatsoever. What were they protesting? The majority of participants did not carry arms; but those that promote carrying guns in public are cowards who think carrying a weapon makes them powerful and a force of “Onward Christian Soldiers.”
The gun lobby has no good intentions except to sell more guns, and they aren’t selling assault rifles for duck hunters. Groups like the teabaggers use gun and God slogans to incite their followers to violence, and there is no reason for bringing guns to rallies other than instilling fear and intimidating observers.
The U.S. Military is the most powerful in the world, but the gun movement cannot accept that and feels if they’re well armed the country is safer, but that’s a fallacy. The Republican Party, Fox News, and Tea Party make a habit of fear mongering to the point that militias in the country have tripled their numbers in the past year, and the increase is because a black man is sitting in the Oval Office. There is no other logical reason.
Around the country, the NRA spreads rumors that Obama will take guns away from citizens, and that lie served its purpose of selling more guns to frightened people. In Modesto, the local gun clubs have conversations about hiding firearms and not registering new guns so the government can't confiscate them. Senior citizens are applying for concealed gun permits at a record level because they believe they’re in danger.
All this fear mongering serves no useful purpose but to sell guns and keep the public on edge. It may, as a marketing ploy, sell new guns and increase membership in the NRA and militias, but as far as any benefit to society, they are epic failures.
There is a march on Washington on the anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing to protest something, and the march’s organizers encourage participants to carry guns as they march as a sign of protest. Exactly what are these people protesting where they need to carry guns? Does the teabagger movement make any valid argument by arming themselves at their gatherings, or are they sending a message that they are armed and unhappy with the legally elected government?
It is 2010 and there is no need for militias of any kind. The United States has organized militias that are the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines who do an incredible job of protecting the homeland. A militia serves one purpose, and it showed its purpose in the form of the Hutaree group, and their intentions are clearly to wreak havoc and overthrow the government.
It is time to revisit the 2nd Amendment, repeal and replace it, and start over regardless of the outcry from the fine patriots who think they’re in a fight over who is sovereign in America. If the group with the biggest guns really controls the government, the Army is in charge and not the teabaggers or their faux patriot militias.
Text of 2nd Amendment: 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.
Note: The author owns several firearms and supports a responsible 2nd Amendment.
Comments
You are an idiot.
How about we require an iq test to own guns?
That'll easily exclude you.
Any other parts of the Constitution we want to ignore? How 'bout we just get rid of that pesky ol search and seizure thing it's old fashioned or perhaps the right to speak your mind.
The reason we are where we are is because of this moronic "living constitution" attitude. When the meaning of Constitution is at the whim of those charged with it's interpretation it ceases to mean anything at all.
Your proposal of "repealing" the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution is wholly unreasonable. Moreover, your conflation of "assault weapons", which is an arbitrarily grouped set of semi-automatic rifles (a rarely criminally misused subset of firearms) that includes many popular target shooting and hunting rifles, with "assault rifles" is inherently dishonest; this, however, is consistent with my observation that civilian disarmament advocates are dishonest and irrational.
Your proposal of "repealing" the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution is wholly unreasonable. Moreover, your conflation of "assault weapons", which is an arbitrarily grouped set of semi-automatic rifles (a rarely criminally misused subset of firearms) that includes many popular target shooting and hunting rifles, with "assault rifles" is inherently dishonest; this, however, is consistent with my observation that civilian disarmament advocates are dishonest and irrational.
I won't insult you, but I will suggest that you do your homework before you write another article along these lines. READ not just the Constitution but also the various papers produced by those who wrote and signed it. The intention of the 2nd amendment was never to protect the country from outside sources (as you infer in the article). Rather, it was intended to give the average citizen the ability to rise up in armed revolution against a tyrannical government should one ever come to power in THIS country. Only unjust overnments and their shills have cause to fear that.
What is reasonable? Who defines reasonable? Do not conflate protection from foreign war powers with protection to 'secu[re] a free state.'
You also write, "the Army is in charge." Would you prefer to have a military state? Pakistan has one, and is doing really well, same with the Philippines. [/Sarcasm].
Also note well, that it was not long ago that the Assault Weapons Ban prohibited the purchase of magazines with more than 10 rounds, collapsing buttstocks and a host of other features. The NFA of 1934 (IIRC) was the first step in regulating firearms, and if left to the whims of the government, the 2A may as well be dead letter (just like the privileges and immunities clause.)
Hell, while we're repealing the Second Amendment, we might as well do away with the Fifth too. God knows we don't need to let vicious criminals know their rights. [/Sarcasm].
You sir, ought to do more research before writing a blatantly ignorant op-ed.
It is time for those of us who believe the Second Amendment should be repealed
to stand up and run for Congress. To that end I am accumulating links
to web articles and lead comments advocating repeal at
http://www.mjbarkl.com/run.htm . Best wishes, --Mike
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!