The Second Thing About the 2nd Amendment and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms that TOO MANY Americans Simply Do Not Understand

“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.”

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is not about hunting, target shooting or even defending your life or your home. Although these pursuits are certainly protected by that same right, they are not what the founding fathers had in mind when they talked about the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Now we are constantly hearing about “military assault-type weapons” and “weapons of war,” and too often I hear gun owners and self-proclaimed supporters of the Second Amendment declare that “no one needs an AR-15 or AK-47!” And one democratic candidate for president finally just admitted it: “hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47!”

The intent of the Second Amendment’s writers is clearly demonstrated in the use of the phrase: A well-regulated militia. The word “militia” comes from the same roots as military and militant and that means fighting wars. Of course, many have tried to define the term “well regulated militia” as the equivalent of today’s National Guard, but both history and just a little thought will inform even the most casual reader that this argument is spurious. The founders clearly wrote “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” and nowhere in the constitution or any founders’ writings was the phrase the people used to describe anything other than the people. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is nothing less than the right of American citizens to retain the means of overthrowing their government should it become necessary. Therefore, “military assault-type weapons” and “weapons of war” are exactly the kind of “arms” that the Second Amendment is talking about.

The First Thing About the 2nd Amendment and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms that TOO MANY Americans Simply Do Not Understand

“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.”

The Second Amendment does not create a right to keep and bear arms. I thought that would get your attention. The fact is, none of the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution (the “Bill of Rights”) create any rights. All of our rights are bestowed upon us by our Creator. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” This is the foundation of government in the United States of America, and what sets it apart from virtually every other nation in the history of the world. The powers that our government holds are granted to it by the people, and the people retain all of their God-given rights that are not specifically yielded to the government in our founding documents.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms was not established by the Second Amendment, and it does not rely on those words for its survival. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms was not created by the political process, and it cannot be withdrawn by the political process. It cannot be abrogated by executive order, by act of congress or decree of the United States Supreme Court. It cannot even be withdrawn by repealing the Second Amendment, any more than the rights to freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion can be withdrawn by repealing the First Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms is not up for a vote. Government cannot withdraw any of our rights through the legal process. It can only take them from us by force—if we allow it to do so.

Loss and Betrayal

There are two kinds of people who cry for more gun control: honest people who sincerely believe that gun control will help keep Americans safer and that safety is more important that freedom–or, to be fair, who simply cannot see the link between gun ownership and freedom; and dishonest and evil-intentioned people who know full well that more gun control will not solve the problem, but who understand that the complete disarming of the American people must be advanced however possible in order to achieve their ultimate goal, the end of the American republic as it was founded.

Really and truly, though, the American republic is already pretty-much dead. We are no longer a nation of laws with a government holding only powers ceded to it by the people at its founding in the United States Constitution. Unfortunately, that document is now nothing more than ink on paper. We live under a government where a corrupt and activist judiciary “interprets” the “living, breathing” constitution as it pleases, to meet its own goals; a congress that cares no more for the constitution than it does for the sovereignty of the United States; and an administration (read that “Department of Justice”) that enforces the law unequally, with preference, deference and no prosecution of the rich, powerful, connected and corrupt, and perverted and bizarrely twisted persecution of those who are just “ordinary” or, worse yet, antagonistic to the deep state.

There is only one thing that has kept the United States of America as free as it is for as long as it has: the millions of weapons in the hands of ordinary freedom-loving citizens. Just as our founding fathers understood, a would-be tyrant can enforce unjust laws and enslave an armed population only with their sufferance.

Breaking up Families

The democrats are getting traction with this issue, so it’s not going away anytime soon, but frankly, I am sick of hearing about it. Yes, children are being separated from their parents who have brought them across the border illegally, and it’s very sad, and I have sympathy and compassion for those children.

But children are being separated from their U.S. citizen parents every day here in this country. Here’s a couple that are running a thriving identity theft business out of their garage. When the police finally catch up with them and arrest them–guess what? They separate the children from their parents. Sometimes there’s another relative to take custody of the kids, but often there is not. The kids then go into the foster care system, where the treatment they receive may or may not be as compassionate and gentle as that received by those illegal immigrant children at the border.

Sometimes the children of U.S. citizens are being “ripped from their parents arms” when the parents didn’t even break any laws. Spank your child in Wal-Mart and it’s possible that DFACS will be waiting at your door when you get home. You could have your children taken from you and dropped into the foster care system just on the suspicion that you may be mistreating them.

When law-breaking moms and dads get arrested, the authorities have three choices: separate the kids from their miscreant parents, put them all in prison together or simply let the parents go, because after all, they have children, and we don’t want to separate children from their parents!  When it comes to illegal immigrants, this is obviously what is wanted by those now screaming the loudest, and it is guaranteed to boost the numbers of those sneaking into our country with their own or someone else’s children in tow. Our compassionate treatment of illegal immigrants with children is why we have so many assaulting our border now!

But with illegal immigrants, there is another choice: immediately put both parents and children back across the border and tell them to go back to where they came from. Or how about this? Build a wall to keep them from breaking into this country in the first place! You and I both know that neither of these options would be met with approval by the same people who are now screaming so loudly about the inhumanity of the Trump administration’s enforcement of our immigration laws. Why? Because their ultimate goal is not the humane treatment of children and families. It is the unending flow of cheap labor and future democrat voters.

Déjà Vu All Over Again

On July 5, 2016, then-FBI Director James Comey declared that Hillary Rodham-Clinton would not be prosecuted for multiple violations of federal law in her mishandling of classified information. He then proceeded to list all of the facts that clearly, inescapably demonstrated that she had, indeed, broken the law multiple times. But, he said, there was no evidence that she “intended” to break the law, and “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring a case, so he was clearing her.

Flash forward to June 14, 2018, when the Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s long-awaited report was released. After clearly demonstrating that political bias for HRC and against Donald Trump was widespread and fanatical among the top brass at the FBI–the same people who were assiduously working to exonerate Clinton and “stop” Donald Trump–he then somehow finds no evidence that political bias played any role in the indefensible “errors of judgment” that he describes in the report.

In both cases, we see the Deep State trying to tiptoe down a thin line between open, bold-faced lying and an unconscionable assault on common sense. The facts are what they are, and they are inescapable: Hillary Rodham-Clinton massacred federal law in her mishandling of classified information, committing crimes that would land anyone else in prison for decades, but she could not be indicted or prosecuted because she was the great hope of those who so-hated Donald Trump and were horrified at the possibility of his election as president. There was never any intention of seriously investigating her crimes, and the political bias of those who were determined to clear her was manifest, but because no one put a big red stamp on the statement clearing her that said, “I hereby make this outrageous decision because I politically embrace Clinton and despise Trump,” Horowitz declares, “Our review did not find documentary or testimonial evidence directly connecting the political views these employees expressed in their text messages and instant messages to the specific investigative decisions we reviewed.”

They do indeed think that we are stupid.