|
To The Gun Owners
I just don’t understand you people. I mean, what is it, the second amendment that says you have the right to own firearms? Can any gun owner tell me what that really means? Tell me also, why did the founding fathers, Madison in particular, feel it a need to place that amendment as number two? Until then, I will tell you what I think the meaning of the second amendment means and why Madison placed it is there.
First things first. Let’s place the letter of the law for all to read:
"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."
Next, let’s break it down. Only, rather than breaking it down from beginning to end, let’s break it down from end to beginning. Let’s start with the last two statements, “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Well, we all know how the United States Constitution is “null and void where prohibited by law”. Again, no law can be made to infringe on such an inherent right. They guaranteed it. But as we all know, that’s a bunch of bull. But the constitution being “null and void were prohibited by law”, is not the issue here (although there is room for debate). What is, is, your insistence that it is because of the second amendment that you can “…keep and bear Arms”. Even though you use it for actions never intended by the meaning of the amendment.
Now we look at the first two statements and tie them together with the last two. It states that, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” but what does that really mean. Well, we were just coming off a 13 or so year war with Great Britain. They were sucking the population dry with the taxes and tyrannical laws. The United States was to be a free country. Free, like in no taxes really. Free to speak you mind and live as a sovereign. Free to own slaves. So when Madison says that there is something that is very “…necessary to the security of s free State,” we have to ask what that actually is and we find the answer to be in statement number one, “A well regulated Militia…”
Let’s look at it like this, if we are going to have a “free state”, then one of the most necessary things needed for such is “a well regulated Militia”. In order to make sure that we have well regulated Militias, the Con-stitution states that the right of the people to bear arms will not be infringed. This is placed as number two to keep this a free country and not one with ramped taxation and/or tyranny. If you have a “civilian” government, then what would there be to prevent them from turning tyrannical on the population? That, would be your Militias.
If you really look at it, what it is saying is that there needs to be Militias formed and “well regulated”. This does not set up an army nor does it mean that the civilian controlled army is that well regulated Militia. The powers “given” to the “civilian” government for an army are listed in article one, section eight, giving them the “power” to “…raise and support Armies…” It is also in article two, section two, where it says, “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States…” Looks to me like a separation between the two, the army and the Militias. So what exactly does all this mean?
When we were fighting the British, there was no “Commander in Chief” handing Washington his orders. My guess is that they all held council and voted on it. Then they told George what to do. Of course, he would basically be today’s equivalent of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, while congress were the Chiefs. It seemed to have worked for them under the Articles of Confederation. So now they were going to give all the strategic war planning to this one presidential figure. But this power is not only over the army and navy, it is also over “…the Militia of several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States…” Several states, but not all the states. So which states? This statement in this clause is a little too vague. My guess is that they refer to the individual state’s National Guard as today’s Militia. But again, there is no provisions given to the government to raise money for these militias only for the army and navy. Sure, the POTUS has the power to call up these, thought of, Militias to go off to fight in wars and I assume only wars declared by congress, but what about controlling them in the United States? The only persons I see calling up any of the state’s National Guard unites are all governors from those states, not the POTUS. He can only call them up to go fight in federal government wars (at least that’s what it says…I not sure where or for how long though), he is not allowed to use them for putting down civil state insurrections. That is more of a police matter and, I guess, the National Guard is a power reserved only for the governors of each respected state. But then those at the Kent State Massacre would be government officials worthy of being shot under the second amendment.
So, the U.S. government can raise and control armies and the POTUS is their Commander in Chief who can also call up only several of the states’ Militias. The National Guard seems to me to be more of an army reserve that does disaster relief when not called up by the POTUS to go to war. Again, if the Con-stitution was written before the Bill of Rights and the second amendment, then what exactly did the second amendment mean? What did it clarify?
Remember, the first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights, was an addendum to the Con-stitution. Madison and Jefferson saw the need for the Bill of Rights so the “civilian” government would not become too powerful. These guys knew who were in charge. Even though they talked up a good game about being free, they still were still rich men who owned slaves and were working for the monarchy before the takeover in 1776. So keeping the Militias, which took out the Crown, seemed like a great idea at the time…and it was. Only this amendment is not so you can all go out there and buy guns you will never hunt game with. It was never intended that you go out and buy a gun, then put it in your drawer for a rainy day, although... And it does not give anyone the right to have a gun only for the expressed “right” to strike fear in others with. Your right to keep and bear arms exists for those in a “well regulated Militia”. That’s it. The new government at the time was not going to pay for you to defend you from them, so they told you you could buy the guns as long as you are in a well regulated Militia, one that is there to keep watch over them. Either way, you didn’t buy it today to join and be in a well-regulated Militia. When was the last time anyone took out a government official and stood on their second amendment right to do so? Never! The second amendment is there so you can have a gun and can defend your neighbors from a tyrannical government. You can look at it this way, you own a gun that you keep and bear it at all times. You are walking down the street when you see Officer Michael Slager, shoot and kill, in cold blood, unarmed Walter Scott who was running away from the police rather then the police give chase, he calmly stood there and shot this man in the back…8 times This is where the second amendment comes into play. It gives you the right to defend yourself and others from “them”, not from each other. You knuckleheads are supposed to love each other and be weary of the government. The man who shot the video could have and should have shot Officer Slager before he took the kill shot and stood on our second amendment right to do so.
You gun owners out there have your heads up your asses. The second amendment doesn’t give you the right to own guns to hunt with, that had always been a given. Nor does it give you the right to use it to intimidate your neighbors with. The second amendment is there to give the people of the United States that right to keep and bear arms while in a well-regulated Militias, in order to keep this country (state) free and not under the domination of any tyrannical government. The people wanted to be assured that this new government that was forming would show concession that the people were over them, not the other way around. That is way it is there. It is there to keep the government scared of the people, or at least give that impression. Because, when the people fear the government you have tyranny, when the government fears the people you have freedom. ~ Thomas Jefferson”
All this talk about the need to disarm the American people is unnecessary. Every time a Manchurian shoots up a school, out come the politicians, especially the democrats, calling for “gun control”, which is just new speak for writing laws to infringe on your constitutional guarantees. You know, make your guarantee to keep and bear arms null and void, prohibited by law. And all that really is, is the “government” just trying to keep the arms from getting to the people. These people are scared of a fair fight. Plus, the very wealthy people who own the corporations, like the Koch brothers or Michael Bloomburg, control the government. The very rich people know that if we were to ever wake up and figure out what people like them have been doing to us for the past hundred years or more, there would be a revolution over night. They are rightly terrified of that. Want to keep people from killing each other, then drop the pot laws and make it available to all. Once they chill out, it will be like Denver, who saw their murder rate cut in half since pot became legal (bet you a million that the school shooters all had no significant levels of marijuana in their systems). I am quite convinced that every single billionaire in this country knows the truth of how they became so rich. The real truth of under paying and over charging. They don’t want you to “keep and bear arms” because they know the time will come when the arms are pointing at them, rather then being arms wrapped around them.
Take the militia that showed up at the Bundy Ranch in 2014. This is a textbook example of the second amendment in action. A well regulated militia showed up and made sure that Cliven Bundy was free from agitation from any government that would want to tax the hell out of him. It’s not that I agree with these people, the tea party, but look at what happened. They showed up, armed and the tyrannical government stood down. People who work for the government will attack an unarmed activist, but put them up against folks brandishing firepower and forget it. They stand down. The possibility of getting hurt is too high – that’s not what they signed up for. They have no problem wearing battlefield armor while shooting teargas and swinging clubs at unarmed protesters. That’s a little easier to do. Get them in a fair fight though and they will never attack. That’s how you keep the security of a free state. Remember that the state is the people. The tea party showed us that that is why we have a second amendment.
Now I’m not advocating for an armed revolution. As long as you don’t show up with a gun there is no way anyone could get shot, at least on our part. Get it? So come to the revolution, but leave the guns at home. There is too much technology out there that redefines the old adage, “the pen is mightier then the sword”. You’ve got to stop thinking violently though. Our shear numbers and strategy will overwhelm them. We can beat them and we can beat them without arms, other then the ones we bring to rap around each other. Just follow the plan and please, leave the guns at home.
|
