Monday, March 5, 2012

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

31 comments:

Anonymous said...

If you really want to see "who" we are fighting and what they have in mind for us at least in part, be sure to watch this segment from Breitbart tv.

Honest to God video of Bolsheviks plotting the destruction of the country. It ain't "theory" anymore. Wonder if this will make the "news."

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/03/04/Exclusive%20Occupy%20Abolish

Anonymous said...

My son is finishing his basic training this week with the Army Reserves. My gut tells me that if his commander tolk him to shoot me, he would probably shoot the commander. A lack of logic is what is missing from most progressives.

Anonymous said...

Hmmmmmm.....Mr. Sweeney

I remember a labor leader by the name of Sweeney who was a Marxist, if ever there was one.

I wonder if they are related?

Sean said...

What a cute little Marxist he is, indeed. He's all for dumping the Second, but keeping the First. How, I wonder, does he expect the citizens to have any teeth to do that, and to stop assembly-line politicians from garnering life long seats, with public funds gaurranteed for sitting officials? A SCC would wind up a socialist nightmare, even worse than the one we have now.

Anonymous said...

Apparently this idiot doesn't think anyone needs self defense in today's society. The primary purpose of Amendment II is for self defense and defense of citizens against government tyranny, regardless of whether the tyranny comes from our own government or an invader. Also, a little research would show that the words "well regulated", as used at that time, mean "well trained or well aimed". For example, well regulated gunsights will "point" to the same target the bullet will hit. Also, Alexander Hamilton declared that the militia are all the people, except for a few politicians.

rexxhead said...

I have the feeling your comment (and mine) will be 'awaiting moderation' for a very long time (can you spell F-O-R-E-V-E-R ?).

SWIFT said...

All left-wingers are cut from the same material. They use the first and fourteenth amendments to spew their disgust, distain, opposition and even hatred of the second amendment. Due to the fact that they do not own guns, they probably figure "the only ones" will sally forth to do their bidding, while they risk nothing and sit on the sidelines as approving observers. What a flawed philosophy and obviously not well thought out. All wars, including civil war, take on a life of their own. All plans are worthless the minute the first shot is fired. To use an example of unintended consequences, I read an article in Military History about the Nazi invasion of Yugoslavia. Many different factions, some spurred by ethnic hatreds, joined the fighting: pro-nazi Croats (Ustasa party), pro-catholic Croats , Communist partisans under Tito, Serb Chetniks, the U.S., Britian Germany and Russia. A major miscalculation by Hitler. I believe Student Sweeney could learn from this. There will be no "sidelines" where he can sit an be safe once the first shot is fired. By the way, that goes for sheep and fence sitters too.

J. Travis said...

I have noticed a good many of these "college students" writing "letters to the editor", or op-ed pieces which get syndicated and published simultaneously in many college newspapers.

I wish I could believe that every such letter was produced by a callow crank, acting alone. But it is obvious, by now, that many are in fact trial balloons by agents of the regime.

I wish I could believe that at some point, some adult supervision would prevent the regime from using the Federal military against US citizens, or nukes against US cities.

I remember when even suggesting such action by the Fed.gov would be laughably preposterous.

With a regime as demonstrably evil and stupid, is this truly as unbelievable as we once thought?

Steve Shanahan said...

Best of luck today with the procedure. You are in our thoughts and prayers.

MamaLiberty said...

Would love to drop this ignorant snot onto a street in S. Central Los Angeles (or any number of other such places), just about the time it gets dark. Wonder if he might have a change of heart... if he survived, of course.

The cops don't even go in there except en mass, and with plenty of backup weapons.

Damned fool.

Anonymous said...

Equally offensive is Sweeney's desire to do away with the Electoral College and thereby officially reduce our country to mob rule.

Good Greg said...

His second amendment piece was bad enough, but the entire article was a bunch of progressive drivel. Food, housing and medical care are now rights. So basically, he wants a constitution that validates the nanny state.

Anonymous said...

quote
"it should be clear to any logical observer that the Second Amendment serves no meaningful purpose in the 21st century." unquote

ah yes...note to self..file under

"...more proof that education can't cure terminal stupidity."

Gun Shy Tourist said...

He's probably a twenty something year old college kid from the Boston suburbs, who grew up in the shadow of Teddy Kennedy's 'disarm the people' mantra. Isn't it ironic, that the state that once symbolized freedom, and was known for 'the shot heard around the world', is now one of the most repressive, restrictive states in America. It is interesting how time and experience will serve to modify one's perspective. Hopefully, this young man will get perturbed at being called out in his folly, and take the time to do the research in reference to crime statistics in states where the private citizen has been disarmed, versus states with laws that encourage lawful law abiding citizens to own firearms.

Anonymous said...

The Dumbarse thinks we would go against the military directly!

NO, imagine 100,00 to 200,000 or possibly more "hit teams"; many after the same target.

How many legislators are there total in the U.S?

How many political appointees total?

If only 3 million Americans were willing to take up arms against this gangster government, we could field 1 million, 3 person teams or 750,000, 4-person teams, etc.

Get the drift.

Read, "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross.

No, open firefights in the streets is not the winning plan. I agree.

Just sayin'


Diamondback

AJ said...

My reply:

So, you suggest we need a more modern Constitution ala South Africa, Canada, etc? Constitutions which in their respective countries establish that the government is the supreme authority over the people. Constitutions that establish collectivism. Constitutions that establish group rights. Constitutions that grant privileges disguised as rights.

I have a better idea, you should move to one of the aforementioned collectivist utopias and leave the rest of us primitives and our "outdated" Constitution in peace.

BTW, the Second Amendment is still perfectly relevant to curbing tyranny. The if the US government wouldn't use nuke in Korea, Vietnam or Afghanistan, it is absolutely ludicrous to think they would use them here. Speaking of Afghanistan, shouldn't our vastly superior military have brought that fiasco to conclusion by now? Shouldn't the very sight of our incredible war machine have those bass-ackward cavemen shaking in their loincloths? It's been ten years, there is no end in sight. The US will eventually give up the effort due to unsustainable costs and unpopularity at home. The entire population of Afghanistan is less than half the number of gun owners in the US. Do the math.

Furthermore, if it really were valid to say that the civilian population is too undergunned to be a check on tyranny, the correct solution would be to rectify that situation. What kind of pusillanimous runt would rather just throw his hands up into the air and beg for mercy from our new dictator? All the declarations and resolutions in the world mean absolutely zilch if there is no way for the citizens to back them up when push comes to shove.

PS, you may want to take a civics class. We don't live in a democracy. The United States is (or was) a Constitutional Republic. Also, you may want to read the Federalist Papers.



The formatting goes to crap in these blog reply boxes.

Mt Top Patriot said...

The real "artifact" here is this fool of a young man who espouses the disarmament of Americans in order to advance his agenda of tyranny.

If you haven't noticed young man, Liberty, and the primal unalienable right to defend it by any and all means necessary is a relatively new and profound idea, that has come late in the 5000 year recorded history of the human race.

What you propose in indeed an artifact of the past, been born long of suffering by the world since time began.

Your narrative that I do not have the need or have a right to the liberty to defend myself from that ages old scourge of freedom and the rule of law, tyranny, is in itself an antiquated moribund self defeating pile of horse manure that billions of people before me, and even to this day, have been suckered and conned into accepting. At the loss of their very Liberty, property, and life I may add as proof of the truth of what I say.
And besides, just who the fuck do you think you are telling me what I can and can not have?

When the shit hits the fan, remember well what you wished for son. Because I guarantee you boy, you will be looking for a gun to defend your life.
Because no one is safe from the clutches of tyranny. No one.
The truth, the crux of it all, it is only my rifle and the will to use it, is all that stands in the way of the loss of the freedoms you so arrogantly and ignorantly use for your ends and trample upon.

Cameraman said...

Typical Non-Critical Thinking Looney Liberal..He is obvious not a student of History..We say Ok bring it on, we have been ready for Over Two-Hundred Years..

Pvt.Joker said...

My contribution to the comment section on this idiotic article, if they pass "moderation".
"You apparently have been educated far beyond your intelligence. To propose doing away with the Second Amendment is to propose the unnecessary deaths of untold thousands, maybe millions.
If any effort is made to confiscate firearms, there will be no stepping back from that precipice. You will not get your utopia. You will get a civil war. What emerges on the other side will depend on who prevails by force of arms. What are *you* prepared to do?
Will *you* enlist in the Army, to kill Americans? In the name of "peace", and "democracy"?
Be careful what you wish for, sir. You may get more of it than you are equipped to survive."

Anonymous said...

". . . Here's your sign. . . ."

B Woodman
III-PER

theirritablearchitect said...

That this Sweeney fellow buys his own argument, on its "merits," shows exactly how ineffectual the current education system truly is.

Anonymous said...

Whenever some idiot brings up the topic of how we need more gun control and I don't feel like discussing it very long, I just smile and say, "I'm sure more gun control will accomplish something."

The person often says something like, "it will blah, blah, blah (insert socially 'good' thing here)." Then I calmly say, "oh no, that has never happened and can't happen, but I am sure SOMETHING will happen." Smile again.

I am, of course, thinking social breakdown but I never say it because such a person is too ignorant to bother with.

J. Croft said...

re: Anonymous I pieced that together a few years back:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKtOqsZ7lmk&feature=plcp&context=C37e6d20UDOEgsToPDskJCUY30ENtOZXjfKvi3oFM1

J. Croft said...

Oh... and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbjfV6L1zvg&feature=plcp&context=C3b14ff4UDOEgsToPDskI_-RS3qpSgcdtl4yxUc7Qx

Uncle Lar said...

The antigun left just cannot surrender that tired old "milita clause" argument can they.
What they can't wrap their small minds around is that the clause was put in as a justification for requiring all able bodied citizens to supply themselves with personal arms and train with them should a call up be necessary.
And the individual right issue was decided 9 zip by SCOTUS. Whether that was sufficient to overturn DC restrictions on firearms was a 5/4 split decision. Something you will never hear from the left as it flies in the face of their narrative.

Capt45 said...

Like I tell my students, the 2A is a natural right, from God. Period. It isn't granted by the Constitution or Bill of Rights - the latter only acknowledges our rights.

Those rights cannot be 'repealed'because they were not given to us by government/man.

But we have to be brave enough to stand up to their BS like the men at the Concord bridge did so long ago.

Da Curly Wolf said...

*headdesk*

Anonymous said...

Yeah, the boy is apparently not going to post certain comments. Mike's post doesn't appear. Nor does mine, which reads:

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

March 5, 2012 at 12:08 pm

Two responses:

1. Dream on, dearie;

2. Molon Labe.

That is all. Thank you.

Ed said...

How ironic! If you check where he attends college, you will discover that umass.edu refers to the Amherst campus of the University of Massachusetts. Founded in 1863 (wonder what else was happening that year) as a land grant college of agriculture, the athletic teams are called "The Minutemen".

The concept of emulating a farmer prepared to defend himself, his family, his land, and his country with a rifle would probably cause most U.Mass Amherst students to soil their undergarments. Mommy and Daddy would not approve and halt tuition payments and contributions to the beer and pizza fund.

Anonymous said...

This asshole knows better than Supreme Court justices. Because he says so. There really is no end in sight with my generation and this "I'm special and always right" bullshit that was fed to us from day one of our lives.

There has been this very strange undercurrent among the leftists since the Heller and McDonald decisions to either pretend they never happened, or as in this case, say they were "wrong." Anyone else notice this?

Anonymous said...

This is all just part of the Left’s war on liberty.

They can’t stand that you may be able to fight off the criminals or the government – these days it’s getting harder and harder to distinguish between the two.