5/29/2022, on Fox News, Mo Brooks explains to the nation that the Second Amendment was intended to protect the citizenry from a tyrannical government. Course it wasn’t, but then Mo, being Mo, believes that it was. Mo, no doubt believes in ‘The Lost Cause’, too; and, until it became too obnoxious to say out loud, that the South would rise again. Mo, was one of the founders of the Freedom Caucus.
Mo explained to the Fox host that, “The Second Amendment is designed to help ensure that we, the citizenry, always have the right to take back our government should it become dictatorial.” Thanks, Mo. This certainly affords us more insight into the January 6, 2022, Insurrection, and the record sales of AR-15s. As justification for overturning a free and fair election, they would take back their government and install a dictator. That votes don’t count, only guns do. That might makes right. How can twenty million assault rifle owners be wrong? Who are you going to shoot, Mo? The voters? The Libs?
The Second actually says, “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.” In Mo’s defense, the ‘Lost Cause’ was made up, too.
It would be very interesting to hear more from Mo’s world, but we should be thinking about the overall problem of the Second Amendment. What with the States each having their own State Police and National Guard unit (which they didn’t back in the 18th Century), and the U.S. Government having a huge Department of Defense; there is no need (if there ever was) for any state to have yet another well-armed militia. The Second doesn’t say anything about the individual’s right to bear arms; and if the Constitution it doesn’t say anything about a right, it doesn’t exist; so sayeth the majority.
If the Second was ever justified, it was a long time ago. What is needed is an obsolescence Article that declares any or all parts of the Constitution that are no longer applicable inapplicable. Such an Article would clean out all that was applicable then but not now such as the problem with the Senate, the Electoral, and the Tenth. No need to amend, just strike them through. If the gun nuts want the right to bear arms, let them try passing an Amendment giving them that right.
When and if an amendment passeth all understanding, maybe it should be voided lest it be misinterpreted. Chances that if there is disagreement as to its meaning the writers themselves couldn’t quite nail it down. Loads of trouble could come from trying to implement something that isn’t easily understood. A politically-minded Supreme Court Justice might see something like the Second Amendment as a ball of clay that could be molded into about anything.
Postscript: How did this blow by the Media?
Postscript II: Mo also said, “The courts are not the final arbiter of who wins federal election contests.” Mo must have forgotten Bush v. Gore.