Along with infringing the right, removing the protection of the right from government infringement would justify the armed overthrow of such a tyrannical government.
The Second Amendment did not create the right to keep and bear arms, and the right would not cease to exist if the Second Amendment were to be repealed.
Removing the protection from infringement would simply embolden the government to infringe that which they have no power to infringe. Although perhaps not true of any of the later amendments, it should be obvious that the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution to clarify that the federal government was not being given any power to violate that which is protected by the first ten amendments.
To suggest that repealing the words, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", would somehow give the federal government the power to infringe which our Founders clearly did not intend it to have, is to suggest that they knowingly planted the seeds of tyranny in their own founding document.
Excellent explanation. Chuck Schumer, Frank Launtenberg, Mike Bloomberg et al will surely take heed. But I’m on your side and covering your six, as if you needed covering.
Agreed - The central tenet here is that those rights in the first 10 ammendments aren’t “granted” by the government at all. They are mentioned to specifically prohibit their infringement. That’s why they have been chipped away at over the last 50 years. Any outright appeal would be too obvious.
There is a great article in Pravda today on the right to bear arms. No, seriously, Pravda! who would believe it!!
So said the US Supreme Court in Presser v. Illinois.
It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the [2nd amendment] out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government.
Naturally, until Heller, the [corrupt] federal courts held this case for the opposite proposition, that states may disarm the citizens - that citizens do not possess a right to keep and bear arms.