Rep. Paul Heroux, an ostensibly pro-gun Democrat state representative from Massachusetts, is intellectually curious about all the anti-gun rhetoric he’s heard from anti-gun Democrats who have been fantasizing about repealing the Second Amendment.
He’s very clear that he doesn’t think that the Second Amendment is going anywhere, but wonders how citizens would respond to the following situations.
What Would You Do?
As a legislator and I am always interested in people’s opinions. This is a thought experiment; a hypothetical. There are no right or wrong answers.
- What would you do if all of the requirements of Article V of the Constitution were met and the Second Amendment was repealed?
- What would you do if the Second Amendment was effectively repealed by a US Supreme Court ruling that the right to bear arms does apply to an individual, but only individuals in a militia?
- If the defense of the Second Amendment rests in reference to the Constitution as it stands now, what argument would you use if the Constitution was changed to no longer protect the individual right to bear arms?
- As a law abiding gun owner, would you give up your guns?
- What do you think would happen to violent crime rates, accidental shootings and suicides?
- Would you follow the new law of the land that was legitimately established, just as laws allowing the possession of a firearm have been legitimately established?
I care about the opinions of citizens of America; I would like thoughtful comments in the comment section about what law abiding gun owners would do if the Second Amendment were repealed or if the SCOTUS issued a new ruling reversing the Constitutionality of the individual right to bear arms.
Rep. Heroux seems to be sincere in his questions and would like thoughtful responses to be placed in the comments of his article, here. Feel free to contribute your thoughts.
Here are my responses to his questions.
What would you do if all of the requirements of Article V of the Constitution were met and the Second Amendment was repealed?
The Second Amendment did not create the right to keep and bear arms, a fact the Founders themselves made abundantly clear. They did, in fact, start the American Revolutionary War precisely because the the right to keep and bear arms is a pre-existing natural right of a free people provided by the Creator, which cannot be repealed by earthly governments. The Founders defended this pre-existing natural right to armed self-defense in pitched battles along the Concord Road on the morning of April 19, 1775, as British Regulars and Royal Marines attempted gun control raids on Lexington and Concord, long before there was a Constitution or Bill of Rights or even a Declaration of Independence.
What would I do if the Second Amendment was repealed, Rep Heroux?
I’d simply point out the fact that a natural right cannot be “repealed” by an arrogant government any more than politicians can demand that the sun rise in the west.
What would you do if the Second Amendment was effectively repealed by a US Supreme Court ruling that the right to bear arms does apply to an individual, but only individuals in a militia?
Again, the Founding Fathers were very clear in their speeches, deliberations, letters, and articles to broadsheets of the time that the right to keep and bear arms is a pre-existing natural right. Further, the United States Supreme Court simply lacks the authority to summarily decide that the Second Amendment means the opposite of what the Founders clearly stated it meant based upon that pre-existing natural right.
For the Supreme Court to make such a pronouncement would merely delegitimatize the Court as a branch of federal government in the eyes of the citizenry, and would undermine the legitimacy of the federal government itself as a result.
If the defense of the Second Amendment rests in reference to the Constitution as it stands now, what argument would you use if the Constitution was changed to no longer protect the individual right to bear arms?
Again, the right to keep and bear arms of military utility is not dependent on any part of the Constitution or its Amendments. It is a pre-existing natural right, and cannot be undone by government. Any government that attacks natural rights is illegitimate, and is not to be recognized or obeyed, but instead must be replaced by any available means.
As a law abiding gun owner, would you give up your guns?
When the law itself is illegitimate, moral and ethical citizens have a duty to stand against the law. No, I would not surrender my firearms. I would likely be placed in the unfortunate circumstance of having to use them to defend the natural rights of my children and my fellow Americans against a government that had lost its legitimacy.
What do you think would happen to violent crime rates, accidental shootings and suicides?
Those would be the least of your concerns, sir. If an immoral government attempted to undermine the natural right to bear arms via by judicial fiat, executive order, constitution convention, or legislative malpractice, there would be war.
The federal government does not have the legal, moral, or ethical authority to ban the ownership of firearms, and never will.
An attempt to pass and enforce such a ban is certain to trigger a very bloody insurrection which would see this nation ripped asunder. Some subset of 100 million civilian gun owners, a substantial percentage of the United States military (including more than a 1,100 Green Berets), and hundreds of thousands of civilian law enforcement officers would fight against those rouge elements in government who mistakenly fight for the idea of “government determines all” over the idea of ” individual liberty must be honored.”
We would not have an increase in accidental shootings, sir, but the number of intentional shootings, assassinations, skirmishes, ambushes, battles, bombings, and lynchings would likely shock the senses.
Would you follow the new law of the land that was legitimately established, just as laws allowing the possession of a firearm have been legitimately established?
Again, sir, no such law abrogating the natural right of armed self defense of an entire people can be considered legitimate. The right to keep and bear arms is a right predates the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.
It is not within the power of any government formed by man to repeal it.