Getting Back to Second Amendment Basics

Warsaw UprisingDave Kopel has an excellent article at the Volokh Conspiracy reminding us what the Second Amendment is really all about. He tells the story of the uprising at the Sobibor extermination camp on October 14, 1943, and at Treblinka on August 2, 1943, both in Poland.

I’ve seen a lot of talk about this topic recently around social media, probably because Dr. Carson opened the door last week, and the left went nuts. It’s a good discussion to have, especially given the cartoonish arguments you see plastered all over cable news and social media. I feel like this whole country has descended into cartoon arguments, on all parts of the political spectrum. Kopel notes:

Some people claim that firearms did not make, and could not have made, any difference in the Holocaust. Sobibor and Treblinka show the opposite. Once the formerly-unarmed Jews got their hands on firearms, the extermination camps were on their way out of business. There is a reason that people in death camps are not allowed to have arms. There is a reason why governments which intend to send people to death camps always disarm them first. Once the genocide targets are armed, genocide becomes much more difficult. Killing armed victims is much more difficult than killing unarmed ones.

We should not be afraid to discuss the original purpose of the Second Amendment, which was to assure the people would continue to have arms in order to resist tyranny should that become necessary. There are many examples of armed Jews resisting the Nazi regime to be found in the annals of World War II. They also were facing a government armed with rockets, tanks, planes, and artillery. Most of them expected to die resisting, and die they did, but they died on their own terms, and more importantly weakened the regime that was out to exterminate them and thus saved the lives of many others.

If this country were to continue its descent into madness, and many of us were to become labeled undesirable, I have no intention of getting into the cattle car. In such a circumstance, I would not expect to live. But my goal (I would even argue civic duty) in such a dire circumstance is to make sure I take at least a dozen of my potential killers with me. Gun control groups keep labeling the philosophy of armed resistance “dangerous insurrectionism,” but I argue it is an important immune response that’s important to keep alive in the body politic. Only a fool would believe it could never happen here.

The founders originally established the Second Amendment because they were concerned about the distribution of military power within society, and believed that power should ultimately rest with the people. The new constitution had given the federal government the power to call the militia into federal service, and also to train and discipline it. This was met with great suspicion by anti-federalists. The fear was that Congress could let the militia wither on the vine. In fact, that is exactly what Congress has done!

But the founders were wise enough to ensure, through the Second Amendment, that while the people’s militia might end up neglected, it could never be disarmed. Through this neglect, Congress has left it up to all of us to ensure that the people’s militia remains “well-regulated,” and we need to be sure to pass these traditions and philosophies down to future generations. Never let anyone try to tell you that this is a radical or nonsensical thing to do. Be prepared to argue. In that, you might find Kopel’s article very useful.

16 Responses to “Getting Back to Second Amendment Basics”

  1. Andrew says:


  2. LC Scotty says:

    Had the Jew been able to take just one soldier for each one hundred Jewish victims, that’s 60,000 troops. That’s roughly 4 divisions. Certainly not enough to end the holocaust, but enough to make the Allies job a bit easier.

    If you take a little more realistic number (say 10 for every hundred Jews) that’s about half the SS gone.

    Consider what’s happened here. 1 guy in CA, who everyone knew who he was and what he looked like killed several cops and had the cops statewide so scared shitless that they were capping little Asian ladies when they were looking for a big black dude. We have a surveillance state that would have made Hitler green, yet it was a few weeks before they cornered the LL Cool J look-alike. 10 or 20 thousand Jews saying “nope” is going to be problematic, not just in terms of the people they plant in the ground, but also the time/energy/resources spent trying to track them down can’t be used for anything else.

    • aerodawg says:

      The military classic ratio of friendlies to insurgents in order to win is 10:1. It’s not even necessarily having to kill enemy troops, but simply tying them down guarding critical infrastructure and the like, preventing them from conducting actual military operations.

      So if 5 percent of the 6 million decided to resist that could theoretically tie up 3 million troops indefinitely, Nevermind the ones they manage to kill or the infrastructure they disrupt.

    • Brad says:

      Yes, the Dorner case was very instructive. His lone-wolf war against the LAPD left 5 dead and six wounded.

      What if it had been five lone-wolves? Or a hundred?

      The anti-gun people shouldn’t tempt fate and start a war they would lose.

  3. LC Scotty says:

    And really, even if it does not alter the outcome one whit, it’s still better to take a few of the bastards with you on your way out.

  4. alanstorm says:

    “The founders originally established the Second Amendment because they were concerned about the distribution of military power within society, and believed that power should ultimately rest with the people.”

    Wasn’t it the LEFT who used the slogan “power to the people!”? Were they naive back then, or simply lying?

    (Yes, Iknow the answer’s ‘yes’.)

  5. NotClauswitz says:

    The Left only applauds armed-resistance when the Left does it, especially with their own iconic Leftist-gun the AK47, otherwise they say it’s impossible and won’t work.

  6. RAH says:

    If it comes it will be slowly Like the 75 in NY that had their guns taken due to medical prescriptions. I really do not think the Alex Jones idea that they will round us up to put in camps is realistic. In this country it will be a Bundy situation that suddenly blows up and people take sides.

    • Granny Grunch says:

      Medical prescriptions? There should have been police losing their guns since a large number have had “medical prescriptions” written by their MD “for nerves”. If NYS is going to play that game,lists should start appearing of policemen who are or have been receiving meds on the banned list.

  7. Brad says:

    “The founders originally established the Second Amendment because they were concerned about the distribution of military power within society, and believed that power should ultimately rest with the people.”

    Exactly right.

    The battle over gun control was never really about crime control. Gun control is about power, political power. We have power, and the Leftists and Police-Staters want to strip that power away.

    Too many people forget about our history, they dumb-down understanding of the Revolutionary War and Civil War and claim they were fights over taxes and slavery. No, both those wars were fights over political power, over self-rule. Our people fight to preserve their power of self-rule.

    Thanks for the tip about the Kopel article.

  8. Alien says:

    Setting the base number at 6,000,000, if only 3% of those headed to gas chambers resisted – 180,000 – and achieved a 1:1 exchange rate that’s about 10 Wehrmacht divisions, plus the not inconsequential related cost and disruption of procuring, training, equipping and moving their replacements. And, in a great many cases a 3% resistance achieving a 1:1 exchange rate would completely eliminate the armed personnel herding the intended victims, allowing dispersal of the intended victims and requiring the time and cost of a second roundup.

    Bump the resistance numbers to 5-6% and the exchange rate to 1.5-2.0 and the control effort cost probably becomes unsustainable, especially if the impact is greatest on those who would become front line troops and their management core: sergeants, lieutenants and captains take longer to replace than grunts, and the replacements are probably not as effective.

  9. RAH says:

    Carson’s statement was pure genius It match his theme of resistance when killers come. Based on some comments the gun banners place the evil of guns higher than the evil killing Jews

  10. GMC70 says:

    • “The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed – where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.”

    Judge Alex Kozinski, dissent in Silveira v. Lockyer

    Few have said it better, at least recently.

    • LC Scotty says:

      Travel in a time machine to Phnom Penh around 1970ish. Tell everyone you meet that wears glasses, is educated, speaks a foreign language or lives in a city that they will likely be kidnapped, tortured and murdered by their own government in about 8 years or so.

      They’d take pity on you and medicate the crazy guy. And then they’d be dead 8 years hence.

    • Sebastian says:

      Yep. One of the best Second Amendment quotes out there.

  11. Kirk Parker says:

    I love Suzanna Gratia Hupp’s congressional testimony about this.

    (Slightly) paraphrased: “With all due respect, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to protect all of us [gestures to the audience] from all of you [gesture to the Congress-critters up front].”