The "Obsolete" Second Amendment

One of the most common arguments of citizen control cultists for infringements upon the Second Amendment is their fevered belief that it is “obsolete.” Their arguments claim to be multifaceted and intelligent, but boil down to two very simple, childish arguments.


The Second Amendment is old, and does not apply in modern times.

The underlying sentiment is that the Second Amendment was written in the old days, before police forces and standing armies and widespread government encroaching on every aspect of your life wasn’t there to “protect” you. This belief is predicated entirely on the entirely belief that the state (government) is a benevolent dictator, and that if we simply give up our crude and savage ways (and our arms), that the state will make everything “better.”

This belief hinges upon the expectation that for the first time in human history, a government with absolute power over its citizenry will not use that power to exploit the citizenry to enrich those at the highest levels of government, and that that government will not resort to oppression and even democide to achieve their ends. Apparently, the 262 million murdered by their own governments in 20th century after disarming their citizens “for public safety” don’t speak loudly enough from the husks of ovens and mass graves still being discovered to reach the ears of those who imagine themselves to somehow be the first to champion the idea of an all-powerful central government.

The fact of the matter, proven time and again through history on every continent (including our own), is that those who have the credible threat of violence will be negotiated with by governments, while those who do not will be slaughtered in genocides or herded onto reservations and concentration camps.


It can happen here.

It has happened here, and within the lifetimes of Americans still living.

internment camps

To date, American concentration camps have been relatively benign (if you consider the endemic destruction and near genocide of Native American tribes on reservations through government-prescribed poverty “benign”), but the simple fact of the matter is that there are Americans alive today that have influenced the highest office in the land who have actively championed death camps, and the mass murder of Americans who refuse to give up their beliefs.

I asked, “Well what is going to happen to those people we can’t reeducate, that are diehard capitalists?” And the reply was that they’d have to be eliminated.

And when I pursued this further, they estimated they would have to eliminate 25 million people in these reeducation centers.

And when I say “eliminate,” I mean “kill.”

Twenty-five million people.

I want you to imagine sitting in a room with 25 people, most of which have graduate degrees, from Columbia and other well-known educational centers, and hear them figuring out the logistics for the elimination of 25 million people.

And they were dead serious.

Radical socialists and self-avowed communists have reached the highest levels of power within the American government for the first time in our nation’s history, and they are adherents to belief systems that have put more far more innocent bodies of citizens in the ground that both of the world wars of the last century. Clearly, Americans need the credible threat of force that is the application of Second Amendment rights to the ownership of arms more now than at any point in history since our nation was young and fragile.


We clearly need the Second Amendment now more than ever, an argument that citizen control cultists know in their hearts to be true, which leads us to the second part of their argument, that the military, surveillance and police forces in place that they now command are so powerful, that resistance against them is suicide. This is the second part of their argument.

Resistance to government force is suicidal

It’s an interesting argument, is it not?  “You don’t need your guns because we are so civilized, and by the way, we can annihilate you if you don’t turn them in.”

How civilized.

Unfortunately for statists, this belief is itself based upon two misconceptions.

Unquestioning military loyalty to unconstitutional acts of government

The claimed military superiority of the statist government is contingent on military itself blindly doing the bidding of the government. The belief that soldiers, Marines, sailors, and airmen are unthinking automatons is a common fallacy shared by  generations of leftists going back at least to the early years of the Vietnam War, if not earlier. It also exposes a  poor understanding by leftists of the loyalties of the American military, who pledge to serve the Constitution of the United States, not the office of the President, Congress, or the Supreme Court.

Unfortunately, the upper ranks of the modern military are incredibly politicized, and it has been claimed that there is a purge of high-ranking military officers that do not share the political ideology of the present Commander in Chief. As tellingly, these purges are occurring at the same time that more junior officers are being allowed to publicly challenge the Constitution they were sworn to defend, without retribution or censure from command. One has to think that the combination of the purging of the traditionally conservative American military of it’s top officers, while allowing the anti-constitutional shrieking of underlings, is a clear message sent being from the highest levels of a very politicized Department of Defense to the military at large.


This could be interpreted as a military realignment with the leftist government, and leftists certainly hope it to be true throughout the force, but that shift in loyalties is only proven to be occurring at the top.

The reality seems to be that while top career military leadership is bowing and scraping in Washington, the young men who actually put their lives on the line in combat units are unswerving devoted to serving the constitutional Republic, not any given transitory leadership that will be replaced in the next election. It is perhaps true that they could be duped into serving against the Constitution and given illegal orders that some units would follow, but that would be short-lived and atypical.

Less than a year ago, 1,100 active duty and veteran U.S. Army Special Forces soldiers sent a letter warning President Obama about what they viewed as threats against the Second Amendment, indicating that if the Executive Branch took action against the Constitution, they would apply their training. These Special Forces soldiers, these “Green Berets,” are an exceptional fighting force when they need to be, but their primary mission is now and has always been the cultivation, training, and development of insurgent forces to depose hostile government dictatorships.

Many of the front-line combat units and retired veterans of recent wars have also made clear their views on any attempt to use military force against the American people by the government.

Those that assume that the entire military would blindly follow orders and attack American civilians simply do not know the American soldier.


And that brings us to the second misconception that statists still seem to harbor.

The misguided belief that the largest and most technologically advanced army always wins

The problem of belonging to a political belief system that encourages the whitewashing and rewriting of history is that this blind obedience to a fake history makes it unlikely for adherents to learn lessons from what has actually occurred time and again in reality.

While we can look to Afghanistan and Iraq to see vivid examples of what happens when a large and modern military with technological advantages runs into a determined band of defenders, it is the “Winter War” between the Soviet Union and Finland that is perhaps a slightly better analogue to what a war by a massive modern army might look like going against a force comprised of tenacious reserves fighting on their own soil.

The Russian military was vastly superior to Finland’s in every way a common tactician would deem important. They had far greater numbers, far better logistical capability, far better technology, etc, etc. Over 1 million troops, thousands of planes, thousands of tanks, versus Finland’s 32 antiquated tanks, 114 planes which were virtually useless against more modern weapons, and 340,000 men, most of whom were reservists rallied from surrounding farmlands. Finland had little to no logistical support from the West until the conflict was almost over, though FDR would later pay lip service to the event, “condemning” soviet actions while brokering deals with them behind the scenes. Russian military leadership boasted that the Finns would run at the sound of harsh words, let alone gun fire. The invasion would be a cakewalk.

The battle that followed would later be known as the “Winter War”; an unmitigated embarrassment for the Soviets, and a perfect example of a small but courageous indigenous guerrilla army repelling a technologically advanced foe.


The Soviet Army invading Finland had total technological superiority, with close to a million soldiers with thousands of tanks and airplanes facing down a force of less than 350,000 Finns that were mostly reservists.

By the time a deal was struck to end the Winter War, 70,000 Finns had become casualties… along with 323,000 Russians.

The current U.S. military is comprised of roughly 2.2 million souls, who are now seeing their promised benefits cut to support a welfare class that continues to grow. Many of them, and perhaps a majority, would refuse to fight their fellow Americans, and those that did remain would be less than enthusiastic.

They would face potential opposition that volunteers from roughly 100 million American gun owners. Perhaps 4-5 million would actively support a rebellion, with 100,000 active fighters. That may not sound like a large force, but it is more than enough needed for 4th generation warfare, especially when trained by the aforementioned Green Berets, and supplied intelligence from all sides, sniping and sabotaging the relatively small number of military and political leaders in a nation that naturally chafes against tyranny.

It is highly unlikely that tyrants would survive long, and those that did would be forced to repatriate… to Cuba, South America, or somewhere in Africa. I hear Kenya is nice.

The simple fact of the matter is that the Second Amendment has never been more important and viable to the health and security of the Republic than it has today, and Americans owe no allegiance at all to any tyrant that would seek to undermine it.


Join the conversation as a VIP Member