College Student Proposes Doing Away With 2nd Amendment

A Second Constitutional Convention

My reply, awaiting moderation:

"The Second Amendment, a true artifact of the 18th century, should also be jettisoned. Contrary to the views of conservative justices on the Supreme Court, the amendment only protects the right to bear arms in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia. While the Framers of the Constitution intended the Second Amendment to curb the arbitrary use of power by the federal government, not even a million gun-slinging Texans could hope to counter the power of the U.S. government today, backed in full force by the world’s largest nuclear arsenal. In light of this week’s tragic shootings at a high school in Ohio, it should be clear to any logical observer that the Second Amendment serves no meaningful purpose in the 21st century."

So saith Steven Sweeney. Having once been a clueless leftist college student myself, I can forgive his callow inexperience with the ironclad Law of Unintended Consequences, however, given that he just proposed the next American civil war I would like to point out that ignorance of the law -- even an unwritten one -- is no excuse.

To get what he wants Sweeney would have to kill many millions of American firearm owners, and they will not go gently into his collectivist good night, i.e. they will shoot back. It is probably outside his experience, but there are people who are not only willing to die for their principles but to kill in righteous self defense of them as well. Such people will certainly not wish to exchange their lives on a mere one to one basis, so the body count would soar into the tens of millions. It takes an arrogant college student to propose mass homicide in furtherance of his most cherished misconceptions. Most folks with experience in the real world would rather just not go there.

Second, Sweeney seems woefully ignorant of the current state of the United States military and of military history in general. The efficacy of nuclear weapons use on your own soil even to an oppressive government that didn't mind wiping out an entire rebellious region would be nil. Such use would guarantee the downfall of such a regime. And his Borgian "resistance is futile" mantra ignores the reality of today's military. Who is it, does he think, that makes up the tip-of-the-spear units of the military? Why it is the sons and daughters of those traditional Americans who most bitterly cling to their God and guns. And who does Sweeney think they would turn those sophisticated tax-paid weapons on if such an order came to kill their fathers, mothers, aunts, uncles, brothers and sisters? Once again, Sweeney should get out more into the real world.

In addition, the history and ability of tyrannical regimes with mighty militaries to deal with insurgencies is hardly persuasive to his thesis. They lose more often than not. To try such a course in the United States, whose citizenry is the most heavily armed in the world -- EVER -- as Sweeney proposes? Well, all I can say is good luck with that. He would find all his intellectual applecarts overturned in a sea of real blood.

Before Mr. Sweeney tries to remake the Founder's rule of law and the Constitution he should perhaps study the Law of Unintended Consequences first.

It would save all of us a whole lot of agony.

Mike Vanderboegh