Abolish the Second Amendment: We don’t need it

Servando_Gonzales_com_hdr2By Servando Gonzalez

The right of the people to keep and arm bears shall not be infringed. —Bumper sticker in New Mexico.

I think that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution should be abolished, particularly the part that says, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Why I think so? Because most Americans believe that the Second Amendment gives them the right to keep and bear arms. That is not only untrue, but also gives them a false sense of security.

Actually, the Second Amendment does not give you the right to keep and bear arms; it only recognizes that unalienable right. By the way, there is nothing in that recognition indicating that you have the right to carry only unconcealed arms. Actually, people who beg the government for an authorization to carry a concealed gun are voluntarily forfeiting themselves of their unalienable right to carry guns.

As the Declaration of Independence recognizes, “All men are created equal, and they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” (meaning Property).[1] These unalienable rights to life, freedom and property are not given to you by your government, nor is the government going to protect those rights. This is the reason why the Second Amendment recognizes your right to keep and bear arms to .

Therefore, the right to keep and bear arms to protect your life, liberty and property is not guaranteed by the Second Amendment, much less by the U.S. government. Only the arms you have an unalienable right to keep and bear protect these rights. Surrendering that right is just the first step to force you to renounce your unalienable rights to life, liberty and property.[2]

Some American gun owners have been saying over and over that government thugs can only take their guns when they have to pry them from their cold, dead fingers. Nevertheless, during the Katrina gun grab, the gun grabbers didn’t have to pry the guns from the gun owners’ cold, dead fingers: the gun owners sheepily surrendered their guns to the gun grabbers. I think it is time for gun owners to put their money where their mouths are.

 General Antonio Maceo

General Antonio Maceo

In the late 19th century, the Cuban patriots waged a successful war against Spain’s tyranny. The Cuban soldiers, poorly dressed, most of them barefooted and lacking in armament and food, faced a powerful army. The Cubans’ weapon of choice was the machete. A few months after the war began, however, it was a common occurrence to see the heavily-armed Spanish soldiers fleeing a machete charge lead by General Antonio Maceo and his courageous men — some of them ex-slaves.

Maceo’s idea of freedom is revealed in his words, “You don’t beg for freedom. You win it with the cutting edge of your machete. Begging for rights is only appropriate of cowards, incapable of exerting them.” Maceo knew it very well: he was a descendant of slaves.

My point is that the Second Amendment is redundant, to the point of being foolish. This explains why, even though your right to Life, Liberty and Property is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence and mentioned in the Fifth Amendment, there is no specific amendment solely devoted to mentioning that the right of the people to Life, Liberty and Property should not be infringed.

Moreover, the Second Amendment seems conceived for freedom beggars, not for free people capable of fighting for their unalienable rights. Actually, even if the Second Amendment is abolished, and the Constitution itself is modified or simply cancelled, free people still have the unalienable right to life, freedom and property, as well as the right to have the means they need to protect those rights.

Also, how can anybody believe that the U.S. government is going to protect Americans from the ones who want to deprive us from our right to keep and bear arms when it is precisely the Invisible Government within the U.S. government that is secretly working hard to deprive us from this unalienable right?[3]

Now, if you don’t have what is needed mentally and physically to use your arms against anyone who tries to deprive you of your unalienable rights to life, liberty and property, I suggest you to voluntarily surrender your arms to the government right away. Nevertheless, I am not the one who is going to criticize you for your decision. If you value life more than liberty, it is your right to live as a slave.

Criticizing the widespread government corruption and abuse of power, the Roman satirist poet Juvenal once wrote, “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes,” — Who can protect us from our protectors?[4] The answer is very simple: We ourselves. Only we, not the government, can protect us from our government “protectors.”

Nevertheless, though this article may be construed as proof that I am a gun nut, I assure you that I am not. Actually I am fully for the banning of firearms.

My solution to eliminate the need for firearms is very easy to carry out.

Let’s begin by disarming the criminals and the politicians (sorry for the redundancy). Once the criminals are disarmed, we should proceed to disarm the police, (again sorry for being redundant), beginning with their SWAT teams. Once the criminals, the politicians and the police are disarmed, we need to disarm the DHS, and the rest of the alphabet soup of new agencies created after the 9/11 events with the pretext of protecting us from terrorism — actually to terrorize us. And then, and only then, most of We the People would not feel the need to carry guns — unless you live in a bear area.[4]

Finally we need to disband the present quasi-mercenary standing army[5] and their mercenary military contractors, and close all U.S. military bases abroad. Moreover, we need to stop fighting unnecessary wars abroad on behalf of transnational bankers and corporations that are not American anymore. As General Smedley Butler clearly stated, “There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights.”[6] We need to change the U.S. military into a Swiss-like system of conscription, where all able citizens must serve in the military for a short time, then become part of the reserve (militia), and keep their fully automatic military rifles at home.[7]

That would be a truly peaceful America![8]


1. This is clearly expressed in the 5th Amendment to the Constitution, which states that no person “shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
2. Most Americans seem to forget that we don’t need to beg for the government’s consent to exert our unalienable rights. Actually, it is the other way around. We have a government, because we, as free men and women, consent to have one.
3. Faced with the fact that it is not easy to deprive the American people from their guns, the freedom-hating globalist conspirators, led by the psychopaths at the Council of Foreign Relations, are planning to do it through the UN Arms Trade Treaty.”
4. Just let’s keep the Sheriff and his/her deputies dressed in light-colored uniforms (not in Nazi SS black), and carrying .38 Special, six-shot revolvers after changing them back from law enforcers to what they originally were: peace keeping officers.
5. James Madison clearly expressed his opposition to it: “A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty.”
6. Jefferson, Madison and Washington, also warned about the dangers of foreign entanglements.

7. This huge army of citizens, and a small core of professional military, will be enough to protect our borders, our homes, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
8. Switzerland, one of the most militarized countries in the world, is also one of the most peaceful. Swiss government statistics for the year 2010 record 40 homicides involving firearms, out of the 53 cases of homicide in 2010, which is an annual rate of homicide by any means (not guns only) of 0.70 per 100,000 population was — one of the lowest in the world.

© 2014 Servando Gonzalez – All Rights Reserved

Article first published in NewsWithViews

Get Citizensjournal.us Headlines free  SUBSCRIPTION. Keep us publishing – DONATE

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Citizen Reporter

Received from the author- 12-29-14

Hi Mr. Miller:

I am not surprised with the responses to my article. Even though what I said is perfectly clear, and you understood it, it seems that most people cannot think outside the box.

I am working on a second part of this article to try to clarify my point a little more, although I think that it is no easy for people to accept new points of view.



Timothy Bond

If anyone seriously suggests disarmament involved nearly 200 million firearms in a nation of over 330 million people, that person is a sandwich short of a picnic. Cities try this every year and all year long, through voluntary buy-back programs and by law enforcement confiscating firearms in their usual duties.

Short of a totalitarian Nazi movement what on earth could he think would accomplish this?

This writer once again, clearly demonstrates to me, where anarchical thinking intersects with utopianism

Timothy Bond

His logic may be good, but his premise is totally false. The “unalienable right”s are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. NOT the 2nd Amendment.

The center of his false premise is the assumption that the reason for the 2A was to provide for self-defense, thus protecting your right to life. FALSE.

How did a person who seems to smart, manage to miss something so obvious. After all the reason is right there IN the Second Amendment. “to protect a free state”

Charles Muller

I was all ready to write a nasty letter to the Citizens Journal. Then I actually read the article, which makes a lot of sense, at least for a country and people who actually believe in God and natural rights, which I don’t think very many do. So, their secular “god” is government and their Second Secular Commandment is the Second Amendment.

As long as we have Presidents saying we’re “not a Christian nation anymore ” we will need written laws from the state. Now, if we could only get the secular humanists to follow them and stop trying to wreck what we have …