What Would The U.S. Look Like Without The 2nd Amendment?


With all of the anti-gunner blowhards yelling all over the media that guns need to be banned, maybe we should take a minute to step back and think about what the 2nd Amendment is about and why we have it so that we can give an answer to those folks. And, possibly, the best way to analyze this thought is to consider what our nation would look like if we didn’t have the right to bear arms in our Constitution.

That’s exactly what Peter Skurkiss wondered in a recent article. The obvious answer is that gun ownership would be much more restrictive. And, as Skurkiss points out, that’s the easy part to figure out.

The bigger question is how it would effect our overall culture. In Skurkiss’s opinion, our government would likely have been much more oppressive and controlling. Historically, there has been a correlation (it can be argued that there is a causation relationship) between banning weapons such as firearms and repressive governments. And this kind of controlling government (for our own good) is exactly the kind of government that anti-gunners tend to advocate because they believe that they know better how we should live than we do.


So, why do those who want oppressive government control want gun control? Skurkiss writes,

What does this have to do with the 2nd Amendment and gun ownership? Simple. Most office-bound bureaucrats, left-wing judges, and government elites are not exactly prime examples of virile American manhood. Quite the opposite. When you think of this government class, which is predominately male, a picture of a feminized metrosexual springs to mind, especially the higher up you go in the hierarchy.

This point is this. In the back of their minds, even if it is buried at a subconscious level, these people fear an armed citizenry. An armed citizenry puts a check on how far and how fast the government class dares to push its progressive agenda by unconstitutional means. True, the 2nd Amendment by itself has not completely stopped the unconstitutional drift to the left, but one has to believe it has prevent what could have been from being what is.

Now, whether you think that most government bureaucrats meet Skurkiss’s description of a complete wimp, his point about those same bureaucrats being afraid of gun owners is right on: bureaucrats and anti-gunners oppose the 2nd Amendment primarily because it makes them fear pushing their political agenda for more government control in a more aggressive manner.

So, in case anyone asks you why we need to own guns, you can answer that it is to defend ourselves from assault from other citizens and to keep our government from overrunning our own lives as history shows that governments want to do.



  1. One of my doctors had a medical questionaire with several questions about my mental health and gun ownership. I wrote n/a in the answer space and told them that it wasn’t what I was there for and that it was none of their business. They told me it was an Obamacare requirement. I told them to give the government my reply. Since then no more gun questions.

  2. the government can not require a doctor to ask that question. if I were a doctor I would put down no gun here. most med. places don’t allow guns . so another place for the criminals to go. knowing they will be the only one with a gun there. when I tlak to an antigunner I ask show me a city with strong gun control that has less gun incidents per cp. that ph. Arizona.

  3. It’s Obvious that these Anti-Gun Idiots aren’t the Least Bit Concerned with Our Safety, but what if Their Armed Security were Also Disarmed, would they Still Feel Safe Leaving THEIR Homes everyday.??? I’ll Bet Not…

  4. Gun control is not about making the population more safe. It would clearly make it more dangerous, since only criminals would have guns.
    The real issue is PEOPLE CONTROL. A disarmed population is easy to control – it has no way to resist oppression.
    The anti-gunners and extreme lefties want to control EVERY aspect of our daily lives, and a population of gun owners keeps them from implementing the policies that would give them that ability.
    Historically, the first step in implementing a repressive regime, be it a dictatorship or an oligarchy, is to DISARM the population. Learn from history or you are doomed to repeat it.

    • Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol-Pot, Idi Amin, etc. have proven this to be correct. No armed American with a lick of sense would surrender their firearms just to be murdered by the government. And, YES, there are government officials who would condone the “elimination” of their opponents. Hillary has been facilitating this activity for years.
      Read one of the provisions of the Foreign Account Transaction Compliance Act (FATCA) which allows the government, even if you have no foreign account, to declare you a “Recalcitrant”. A “Recalcitrant” is someone who resists authority and is difficult to control. If you are declared a “Recalcitrant” by the government, they can seize ALL of your property and put you in prison with no charges, no indictment and no trial. There, you will remain until death. Didn’t know this, did you? Your Congressional Representatives looking out for their power, not for your welfare.

  5. The framers of the Constitution were concerned with aggressive government and that’s why the left is so active in fighting for gun control. Also, if the press were not so repetitive in announcing these tragedies maybe impressionable youths would not see any advantage in comiting the acts that are reported over and over.

  6. After I originally commented I seem to have clicked on the
    -Notify me when new comments are added- checkbox and now every time
    a comment is added I recieve four emails with the exact
    same comment. Perhaps there is a means you
    can remove me from that service? Thank you!

Comments are closed.