ZeroHedge:

Through landmark Supreme Court decisions, gun controllers could have anti-gun judges re-interpret the Constitution in a way that disregards the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court has a long history of re-interpreting the Constitution as a way of justifying government overreach in matters traditionally belonging to the states. This has been the case with the Supreme Court’s acceptance of New Deal legislation and its creation of a federal “right” to abortion.

It also does not help that the Second Amendment’s original decentralized militia model has been gutted, thus exposing several chinks in the Second Amendment’s armor. The militia’s original concept—locally-controlled military units designed to keep federal standing armies in check—has been effectively neutered.

Okay, this is a pregnant bit of prose and needs a little unpacking.  First of all, rights come from the Almighty and are always safe.  As we’ve discussed many times before, the second amendment is a covenant between men and before God, for blessings upon obedience and curses upon breakage.  Reinterpretation of the second amendment only means that men are preparing for war.  It has nothing to do with our rights.

Second, as we’ve also discussed many times before, the notion of the militia must be soft in the interpretation of the covenant of the second amendment.  The founders didn’t write the second amendment because of the militia, as if the sole reason for the second amendment was that a militia must function.

The proper function of the unorganized militia is only one of many reasons, and the founders only needed one.  That the many others aren’t specifically called out in the Bill of Rights doesn’t mean they weren’t taken as axiomatic during the time of confirmation of those rights.  As we’ve observed before:

… all the founders needed in order to object to federal control over such God-given rights is to find a single example of such an infringement that would be found unacceptable.  The militia served as this example.  That doesn’t mean that it is, would have been, or must have been, the only example or reason for the amendment.  The amendment clearly states what the FedGov shall not do, not what it can or may do or the sole reasons for its existence.

So a man has a right to the ownership of weapons if he is a paraplegic and unable to serve in the militia.  A people have the right to overthrow their government whether there is such a thing as a militia or not.  I can tell the militia (whatever that is in this context or any future context) to go pound sand and that I refuse to join, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with either [a] my God-given rights to keep and bear arms for self defense or the amelioration of tyranny, or [b] the fact that that right is recognized in the constitution, which is a covenant under which we have agreed to live.

My rights (and duties) flow from the Almighty, the very fountain of liberty.  The constitution is a mere covenant.  The Bolsheviks should tread carefully.  Breakage of that covenant means more than they think it means.

Finally, anyone who thinks that a civil war in America will go down with great armies lining up in fields of battle with tanks, aircraft and artillery, is foolish beyond belief.  4GW will be the order of the day, and few people in America are prepared for such a thing.  Neither is the FedGov.

Nothing and no one has been “neutered.”  Only the form has been changed.