Skip to comments.Charles Murray: If Liberals Change 2nd Amendment, It Will Backfire And Militias Will Rise Up (video)
Posted on 04/25/2014 10:02:16 PM PDT by i88schwartz
CHARLES MURRAY: If by some miracle that change were made in that Amendment, it would be the biggest unintended consequence in the history of liberalism. You know what's going to happen? Every red state and a whole bunch of blue states, too. The state legislatures will create militias. And guess what? There are going to be a whole lot of people who want to be in those in those militias. There are going to be --
JOHN AVLON: We already have those, it's called the National Guard.
BILL MAHER: Yeah, exactly. Thank you, John.
MURRAY: No. If you change the Amendment, it's not limited to the National Guard. They can form other kind of militias.
AVLON: I think --
MURRAY: Just let me finish the thought. You're going to end up with large militias which are going to change the relationship -- at least psychologically -- of the states and the federal government.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
REMOVE words. Thats what needs to happen.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
They’ll never get a Constitutional Amendment passed to do that, so I’m not sure what he’s talking about.
Every non-Communist American state should have that wording in their own constitution!
“We already have those, it’s called the National Guard. “
In Texas we also have a State Guard (ie Citizen Militia). One of the Lt. Governor candidates has publicly stated he wanted to enlarge that. The State Guard cannot be nationalized unless the state wants it to be.
I have NO interest in serving in the National Guard or Military, but I would defend Texas in the State Guard if needed. I am 66.
The would be tyrants had best be careful for what they wish. This is and will still be Texas.
Everyone knows, you don’t mess with Texas. (We still have Texas Rangers)
This was a Bill Maher circle jerk. Maher and his guests are always high, stupid or both.
And they were just scaring one another with stories of huge militias made up of the guys like us who have actually worked for a living and consider them to be pimples on America’s rear end.
So I guess that’s why they were reassuring one another by saying things like, “Well, we already have a National Guard.” As if. I guess they have reason to be scared.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Period. No! leave it alone. A well ordered militia is neccessary for a free state. In Colonial times a militia was a citizen army, not a professional army like today's national guard at the disposal of the government. The well ordered means it has organization and control and not a mob.
The right of the peop[le to keep and bear arms. This is neccesary for people to form a militia.
The two thoughts in the second amendment go hand in hand for power to be distributed to the people.
Damn right, tweety!
Uh...who today is regulating the militia to which you are referring?
The militia? There is no The Militia. People can form militias and regulate themselves. The forefathers had foreseen Obama with his civilian police force as powerful as the military, brownshirts.
That being the case, there is no need to keep any reference to a militia in the 2nd amendment.
Scared. That is the magic word. How can I ever forget. The first night FOX covered Bundy Tucker Carlson said, “We can’t have people running around pointing guns at the Feds. It’s SCARY.”. I remember thinking, yup, Tucker, it is SUPPOSED TO BE. That is why it is there. The Second Amendment. Folks who consider themselves our masters better think again. We are SUPPOSED to scare them.
Obama’s actions have shown that the words in the Articles of the Constitution have no meaning. Why would he care about the amendments?
Well regulated meant well trained back in the day.
Federalizing the state guards was another progressive move following the Spanish-American War justified by the “need” for a better-trained national army. It just happened to severely weaken the states ability to resist the central government gone bad.
Yeah...like “gun control is a steady hand and a beady eye”
IIRC, members of the official military were not referred to as ‘militia’ but as ‘regulars’. The militia means organized citizenry, not military.
"Theyll never put women in combat."
"Theyll never force the military to take open homosexuals."
"Theyll never kill babies by sucking their brains out as they are being born."
"Theyll never have SWAT teams for the Department of Agriculture, the Railroad Retirement Board, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Office of Personnel Management, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service."
Get the picture?
Our police forces at all levels have become that standing army our Founding Fathers were worried about. Look at the BLM. Heck, the DoEd has a SWAT team.
>>Well regulated meant well trained back in the day.
Correct sir! From my profile page, one of the more profound things I ever read on the subject; picked up from another FReeper:
The term “regulated” applied to clocks means “accurate in keeping time”. It made sense, particularly in 18th Century armies, to pay a lot of attention to how well soldiers could operate in massed formations. Soldiers had to be drilled to load, aim, and fire as one unit. You do NOT want the rifle next to you to be firing (and emitting a shower of sparks) while you are pouring gunpowder into your musket. Everybody had to do every step together with no screwups.
Folks who consider themselves our masters better think again. We are SUPPOSED to scare them.
The Militia (unorganized) is for everyone else who can carry a weapon....
Go ahead and pass some illegal law that alleges to remove the 2nd Amendment, and those traitorous bastards will find out that there are many more of us then them... Not to mention that those in the Military, and National Guard will honor their oath and join us.
The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
Fight the Free Sh☭t Nation
JOHN AVLON: We already have those, it's called the National GuardWrong. That is the National Guard, not State Guard. Many States (like Virginia) have a State Militia.
Our legislatures Militia, Police and Public Safety Committee.
In colonial times a militia was a group of neighbors who may on occasion drill on the town green and in time of crisis, notified by the ringing of the local church bell, assembly with their weapons ready to act as needed. The leaders were elected.
The assumption was that everyone would have their own weapons as their was no requirement that everyone carry the same one.
Think in terms of the minutemen at Lexington and Concord.
Not of the same category at all.
Because do many Dems are 2nd Amendment supporters, as noted by these libs, it will be 40 years before there are enough of them to change the 2nd Ammendment.
And when they try, there will probably be a civil war first.......
The common mustering place for militia in Colonial times was at the local pub. And they drank beer.
Every example you mention was brought about by executive action in the executive branch of government. As Paul Forehead Begala put it, “Stroke of the pen, law of the land, kinda cool” as the departing Bill Clinton signed a blizzard of executive orders while daring his successor to rescind them.
On the other hand, amending the Constitution is a long & difficult process that involves every state legislature in the Union & requires supermajority votes along the way toward ratification.
Sure, Obama could get on TV and announce he was declaring a national emergency and issuing an executive order outlawing the private possession of all firearms: “I am declaring a state of emergency and that means, Mr & Mrs. America, turn them all in, and that means immediately! All Federal law enforcement agencies are hereby tasked to carry out what I have ordered. Thank you and good night!”
Noooooooo.....I don’t think so. Insurrection would erupt in mere seconds.
What this ROF Supreme Court justice wants & what he gets are two vastly different things because that pesky Constitution with its Article V lockstep just keeps getting in the way.
FWIW, see what pronouncements come from the lefties during the NRA’s big shindig this weekend. Moms shouting “What do we want? Repeal the 2nd! When do we want it? NOW!!” would be fun to watch.
Sometimes the old ways are better. :^)
I was over in Alabama last year and talked to a officer in the National Guard at a café were I was having breakfast. He told me it was there active duty weekend so that was why the uniform. I asked what they were going to be doing for the weekend and he smiled. Well as we have two Humvees and a old tow truck we sure as hell are not going for a drive. There are no weapons on site and no ammo so shooting is out also. We will set around and shoot the shit tell Sunday afternoon and then go home. I ask what would happen in a call up. He said his people would have to bring there own weapons and ammo in there own pickups.
Sounds like my drilling weekends in the Navy Reserve. At some point, (probably after watching an old B&W USAF electrical safety film featuring a B-29 and a hapless airman using copper tubing for a fuse) I decided it was a waste of my time. Plus, it looked like Gore was about to be elected. I submitted my request for transfer to Individual Ready Reserve (non-drilling status) the same weekend the Admiral in charge of our region came and gave us a pep talk about how things will get better. Call me cynical.
My point was that is is possible to effectively neutralize the Constitution if the Congress, the Executive Branch, the Courts and the Press choose to ignore it.
For example, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
While Congress itself has made few laws which are contrary to this portion of the First Amendment, Congress, by neglecting its role of being a check and a balance to both the Executive and especially the Judicial Branches has effectively negated this protection.
Executive Orders, Executive Branch administrative regulations and Judicial rulings have worked to shred freedom OF religion, among so many other freedoms.
There are sins of omission as well as sins of commission. Congress is and has been for decades guilty of the former and thus have effectively negated (Changed) the Bill of Rights.
His "change the 2nd amendment" statement connotes some kind of attempted legitimate change. If you're talking about illegitimate and invalid change, the Progressive Socialists have been doing that for over 100 years.
What else is new?
You raise an interesting point about abrogation of the Constitution by dereliction of responsibility by the branches of government, but how about some specific instances at the Federal level? States can & do go rogue against citizens’ rights, but Federal attempts are the most vulnerable to being ruled unconstitutional.
Can the Second Amendment protect citizens of New York, Connecticut, & California against laws that criminalize that which had been legal and makes criminals out of those who have done nothing overt? Good question, I would think.
I tend to believe that what the power-hungry in Washington would like to do, and what they can get away with, are as yet separated by a chasm which the Constitution itself has ordained.
Lefty professors & politicians denouncing the Constitution as the product of dead white slaveowning white men in the eighteenth century won’t make it go away.
Ignoring the Constitution is not “changing” the Constitution. He’s talking about “changing the 2nd Amendment.” I don’t think that’s going to happen.
Good points all.
And you sir, are correct in more detail. Darn shame I had to be 50+ before I learned that fact.