Monday, March 14, 2011


"The Second Amendment prevents the federal government from completely abolishing official state militias - nothing more, nothing less. Nothing in the Constitution prevents the federal or state governments, or both, from outlawing the formation of storm trooper squads on U.S. soil and limiting gun ownership to members of the National Guard. Members of right-wing paramilitary militias, of course, might claim a "natural right of revolution," of the sort invoked by the American patriots of 1776 (and by the Confederates in 1860-61), There is no constitutional right to revolution, however. There is, of course, a provision for instances where armed bands amass weapons and attempt to overthrow the federal government. The Constitution permits the death penalty for treason."

- Former conservative Michael Lind pretty much putting a stake through the heart of the NRA position on gun control in his book Up From Conservatism: Why the Right is Wrong for America


  1. No pron ads? I want my money back asshole!

    j/k It is so good to have you back.

  2. The wording of the Second Amendment always confused me because of the damned second comma.

    "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."

    Why is there a comma and not an "and" between 'State' and 'the right'? With an "and" it would be a more obvious proclamation that both state sponsored militias as well as an individual's right to keep a fire arm were made sacrosanct. With the comma instead of an "and" it almost makes it seem like "State" and "the people" were being used interchangeably.

    While Mr. Lind may be factually correct in the interpretation of the Second Amendment as it was written in the Constitution I think the Supreme Court has since expanded the definition of who is allowed to bear arms to private citizens so long as they use it for "legal" purposes.

  3. The supreme court definitely has upheld the rights for private citizens to bear arms. Back when they wrote the constitution the militia WAS the private citizen. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed as to protect thr free state from an oppressive government. Or anything else for that matter.

    1. You're just wrong about that, Anonymous. What you're seeing there IS NOT THERE. There IS no "right to revolution". Read the quote from Lind again, and absorb its message.