“Second Things First”

 

“Opening minds and angravating liberals since 2001”

“I am a guardian of freedom and the American way of life.”

Genesis 3:19 / John 3:16

 

My Friends & Fellow Skeeter Davis Fans:

IT is time to revisit the 2nd Amendment.

I will try to explain it in such a way that even a Liberal can understand it.

As we have been told, you can lead a horse to water but you can make him drink, sadly so is true that you can lead a Lib to the truth but you can’t make him think.

I am not going to give the entire background on the Amendment. I am not going to parse the alternative wording that was considered.  We are going to look at these simple, unambiguous words.

“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.”

Let’s break this down first, phrase by phrase.

“A well regulated Militia…”. Basically this refers to a standing army, one that is not just armed but trained.

“…being necessary to the security of a free state”.  Refer to the need for a standing army if there is going to be a free state to protect the people from the invasion of a foreign entity.

“…the right of the people to keep and bear arms”. This gives the people the right to own and, quite frankly, carry, guns.

“…shall not be infringed”.  There is no discussion, no modification and no exceptions. Basically, Molon Labe.

Pretty easy stuff, right.  Even piece meal it is self-explanatory.

What happens it that you have these Interpretive Dance and 14th Century Sri Lankan Poetry college graduates who think they have found loop-hole after loop-hole in these two-dozen-plus words.

If they started at the end of the Amendment, they could have ended there: “Shall not be infringed.”

Let’s rephrase this for the Libs out there at home: “Because a free Country, to remain free from enemies, must have a trained armed forces, it must allow their citizens also to be armed to prevent the state from imposing their will on the people by force.”

Capice?  Get it?  Unnerstan? Copy?

In light of the fact that the Colonies had suffered under the yoke of oppression by an occupying force, one that was their de facto government, one that held ultimate power over all aspects of daily life, the Founding Fathers took pains to see that this would not happen in the future.  (They must have envisioned a “Biff.”)

Unless you are severely mentally deficient it does not mean that the people can keep and bear arms as long as they are in the militia.  It does not mean that now that we are not under British control that there is no longer need for this. It mean what it says.

(It also means that no matter what some school books say, THOSE are the words, not one more, not one less.)

Militia, in Revolutionary times referred to the military.  At this time each state had a militia and by the Continental Congress and the Articles of Confederation stated: “…every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.”

The controlling interest in the military shifted from the individual states to the Federal government with the adoption of the Constitution and limned in Article I, Section 8.

The Revolution was from April 1775 until September 1783. The Constitutional Convention was May through September 1787, years AFTER British rule.

So the idea that the militia was just the basic citizens or akin to the National Guard is dispelled. The thought that it only applied when we were under British controlled are similarly inane.

If you wanted to be absolutely crass and in your face about the intent of the 2nd Amendment, it would read something like: “The government has a well-armed military force.  We canNOT guarantee that you will always be ruled by good or benign people.  To give the average citizen some leverage and some level of protection, no law now or in the future will ever take away the right of the people to own and carry arms to protect themselves, ever, from the government.”

Capice?  Get it?  Unnerstan? Copy?

As you can see, the problem is that no matter how long or short a law or anything else is, leave it to the Left to refine or redefine what the few or many words “really” mean.  I mean, look at the crapshows and cesspools of legislation the Left have made of the 8th Amendment (where the left found the secret “abortion clause”) and the all but unrecognizable 14th Amendment (the “Slave Amendment” that hid the mysterious “gay marriage clause” all these years).

The Left, largely, hate guns. And the Military.  And the Constitution.  And God. And all things right, good and just. (Why?  We discussed this in the multi-part “Why Liberalism is a mental disease.” In a nutshell: They hate themselves, to make them feel better they try to do “good things”.  Sadly they have no idea that all the “good” they are trying to do is actually evil.)

I have owned guns.  Not once did one ever jump out of the case, cabinet, safe or holster and fire at anyone.  I have heard the same from all my fellow gun owners.  My guns never judged.  They never looked for a person who might be “different” in some manner to do any harm.

But we have seen all kinds of Left-wingers, Muslims, mentally-defectives and the like shoot up schools, waiting rooms, movie theaters, night clubs, churches and the like.  These are the places that most people call “Gun-Free Zones.”  In fact 92% of the sites of mass gun carnage, the ONLY gun there was there illegally.

You do the math.

Libs create “safe places” where guns are banned to do a “good thing” and the only ones not obeying the signs are the murderers.   So, basically, anyone who has ever voted for a gun ban, gun free zone and the like have the blood of the murdered on their hands.  If there were armed people in those situations either the crime would not have happened or perhaps the first and only “victim” might have been the shooter.

 

We can beat this horse as much as we want, but the bottom line is that the Founding Father’s in their nearly infinite wisdom, saw what can happen when a gummint runs amok and starts to limit, curtail or ban certain things.  They saw the need for a freedom of the press (and we WILL be talking about that real soon), freedom to worship, freedom to assemble freedom to speak one’s mind as well as own a gun and the rest of the items contained in Bill of Rights.

Indeed, you can look at virtually every one of our rights and guarantees in the first Ten Amendments and look back to the events of the day under British rule and see how they were in response to the iron fisted rule over the Colonists.

(One can only imagine if there were to be a Constitutional Convention today and some of the things that might be in today’s version of the Bill of Rights.  I can think of a few.  If you have any ideas, by all means, send them to me and perhaps we will do an issue.)

So the next time a Lib tells you that we do not need AK-47s to hunt deer, tell her she is right, but we do need to certain types of gun to protect ourselves from being the hunted.  (Wait for the next issue for further “ammunition.”)

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: