2nd Amendment : 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.
A well regulated library, being
necessary to the intelligence of a free state, the right of the
people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed.
A well regulated automobile industry,
being necessary for the mobility of a free state, the right of the
people to keep and drive automobiles, shall not be infringed.
A well maintained farm, being necessary
to help feed the people of a free state, the right of the people to
keep and maintain farm equipment, shall not be infringed.
The last three statements no one would
argue with. The first one however, even though it uses the same
punctuation and syntax, has been. Why?
A lack of knowledge of history or
perhaps even a willful ignorance.
Lets look for a moment on history.
The battle of Lexington and Concord was
fought because the British marched a large force there to try and
take the colonists weapons, as well as ball and powder. In other
words the king, their government, wanted to disarm them.
The people who lived in the areas where
troops had been forced upon them, such as Boston, were already ( at
least officially) disarmed and were subject to the whim of the
military of the empire. They had no free speech rights, or the press,
nor the right to assemble. They didn't have the Bill of rights to
protect them which would include the 2nd amendment.
The second amendment wasn't about
hunting, it was about protecting themselves from a tyrannical
government.
During the 20th century Nazi
Germany, in the 1930's, under the orders of Hitler,disarmed the
nation, claiming it was for the “safety of the children.” 13
million defenseless people were slaughtered in mass executions and
concentration camps.
The Soviet Union and China did the
same, and they slaughtered an estimated 100 million.
Vietnam, Cambodia,Turkey, all over the
middle east and Africa, millions have been slaughtered by dictators
because they have had no means to defend themselves.
In places like England or Italy or
Norway, where they are still disarmed, you can be arrested for
posting something on FB or Twitter that's not PC or approved by the
government. They have no real free speech because they can't defend
that right.
You say well that can't happen here,
really? What makes you so naive to believe that?
Jews that I have talked to, who
survived the death camps, to a person, told me that they didn't
believe it could happen there, until it did.
Some have said that our fore fathers
couldn't have imagined the type of weaponry available today, and your
right they couldn't have, but it was never about the type of weapons,
it was about your ability to defend yourself against all enemy's,
including your own government, if needed. Even George Washington knew
this to be true, he is quoted as saying; “ A free people ought not
only be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms,
and ammunition, to maintain a status of independence from any who
might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own
government.”
Even as we have this debate, the
government, under the last several administrations, have been slowly
and quietly undermining the Constitution in small ways, and some more
obviously larger ones, all the while relying on our own ignorance of
our history and the Constitution to get away with it. The only thing
that has stopped them from going full bore is the fact that there are
over 100 million of us that are armed, and many of them will defend
the constitution “against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”
One last thing. I hear the opposition
suggesting all the time that it was about maintaining a militia not
about individual rights.
OK lets address that for a moment; who
made up the militia? The militia consisted of every able bodied man
and boy, who could carry a musket. Where did their weapons come from?
Themselves. There was no government hand out of weapons and
ammunition, in fact their was no standing army at all. The founders
were leery about have a full blown military because it could lead to
a tyrannical military backed government, which was exactly what they
were trying to gain liberty from.
Today we have a large military, and
massive police force along with a score of intelligence agencies,
all armed to the teeth. None of which is constitutional. What is to
stop a sitting president, and congress as a whole,from becoming
tyrannical and using all of this against us? Nothing, except the
second amendment.
Time and again the left has made it
clear that they would disarm us in a heart beat if they thought the
could, and time and again, during every presidential campaign and the
aftermaths I have read and watched as people have screamed and
hollered that said president was going to become a dictator. What has
stopped them? It's certainly not the rule of law or the constitution,
they ignore both of those on a daily bases, no, I submit to you it is
because we are armed, just as the founders believed we should be,
that is the only thing holding them back.
Take away the second and we will loose
them all.
