Founding Fathers Added 2nd Amendment to Protect Us from a Government that Would Turn Against Us

| |

Top Tier Gear USA

militarized cops

Watch Ben Swann rip apart the all the gun control pundits who have been casually rewriting the 2nd Amendment.

We’ve heard ridiculous claims that the 2nd Amendment is “outdated” or worthless because the government is armed to the teeth far and away over the citizenry. We’ve heard semantic arguments that the 2nd Amendment never meant for “individuals” to protect themselves but was only for “militias” (as if a militia is not comprised of individuals).

The bottom line?

“The Second Amendment is not about hunting, or even just defense of your own home,” Swann says. “It was written by men who ultimately believed that governments and armies would turn on their own people.”

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details).

Contributed by Melissa Dykes of The Daily Sheeple.

Melissa Dykes is a writer, researcher, and analyst for The Daily Sheeple and a co-creator of Truthstream Media with Aaron Dykes, a site that offers teleprompter-free, unscripted analysis of The Matrix we find ourselves living in. Melissa and Aaron also recently launched Revolution of the Method and Informed Dissent. Wake the flock up!

Wake The Flock Up! Please Share With Sheeple Far & Wide:
  • NonYo Business

    This just in… Breaking news. Water is wet, and Obama is a Traitor!!! I hope you are all as shocked as I am.

    • RandyJ/ProudSurvivor

      Wait-wait! Water is wet?!

      • When surface tension doesn’t get in the way.

      • I’m finally getting 97 Dollars p/h,….It’s time to take some action and you can join it too.It is simple,dedicated and easy way to get rich.Three weeks from now you will wish you have started today….

        ===>>> See website listed in my РŔŐŦĨĹĔ


  • whiteberry

    Holy cow… speaking out like that on a mainstream news station!! A tiny bit of faith in humanity has been restored… if only for a brief moment…

  • stephen joseph

    And those who oppose our constitution are enemies of our state, including presidential hopefuls and the current government. So as “the people” have a duty to throw it out.

    • Which is why I say that the concept of a military hero is mutually exclusive.

  • Sovereign_Citizen

    Yes, the founding fathers enumerated rights given to us by God to kill the people in the government should they ever try and make slaves of us.

    We will of course have to kill every Liberal to ensure we are safe but we should be able to get it all done by noon and be home by 5.

    I see no issues with any of this and every day that goes by, our side is getting larger and larger.

    • NonYo Business

      Divide and Conquer… works politically as well. Liberals, Repub, Demonrats, and Hispanics, and muslims, and christians… The real enemies are in the white house, congress, sitting in the judge’s chairs; in the Board of Directors in major corporations.

      • Sovereign_Citizen

        Agreed. Groups can be divided only into two separate groups though, those who love Freedom and work to be Free and everyone who doesnt.

        Those that dont deserve nothing.

    • Where does the right to kill the people in the government if they try to make us slaves appear?

      • Sovereign_Citizen

        At the part where it says that we “…are endowed by our Creator to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit Of Happiness.”

        • Where it doesn’t even use the word kill?

          • Sovereign_Citizen

            You lost:). Go home:)

            We are going to kill them all and anyone who defends them.

          • That which can’t be quoted can’t be cited. Your ignorance can’t protect you from yourself, let alone the government.

          • Sovereign_Citizen

            We will kill them all and you lost and proved my point to boot You Liberals are so idiotically stupid:)

          • Tatiana Covington

            Screw old documents anyway, your life is your own, no matter what! The hell with everybody else.

          • At least I’m not moronic enough not to know the difference between a classic liberal (which I could be) and a contemporary liberal, which I’d never be.

          • tayronachan

            Ah yes, a “classic liberal”. Isn’t that something along the lines of Thomas Jefferson?

          • Pretty much, as well as the original members of David Nolan’s Libertarian Party.

        • don’t bother answering that windbag trucker, he’s is already omniscient

      • Gil G

        They love the thought they have the right to murder with impunity.

        • Statists always prefer to be able to murder their subjects with impunity, but we were talking about there being a justification in the organic law of this republic to murder government agents with impunity, and there isn’t.


    It’s very obvious that the constitution was written before there was a jew owned central bank, otherwise it would never have been allowed. It’s well past time that we exercise our second amendment for the intent on which it was written or we are all damned to death or slavery.

    • There were no jewish bankers behind those tables that Jesus overturned?
      The second amendment doesn’t apply to anyone but Congress. This kind of ignorance makes me wonder if we’d be better off under a government by the illiterati.


        Where did you get from my comment that I was saying that there were no jewish bankers behind the tables that Jesus overturned or that the second amendment doesnt apply to anyone but congress?

        • Because there have always been jewish bankers and jewish owned central banks, since long before Mary was born, let alone Jesus.


            I don’t dispute that, and never did. Does it still make usury right? Does it make it right that the Rothschilds have killed good, legitimate presidents because they didn’t want a new controlled central bank that turns every one of its citizens slaves? Does it make it right that AIPAC is actually the real government that controls this countryor that the Zionist Jews has infiltrated every thread of fabric of society and holds it hostage??

          • Usury only affects those who at constrained to using the currency of the realm, which I am not. None of that which isn’t right is beyond what we can anticipate if we know about the way that corrupt people and organizations operate. No one holds anything of essential value in my life hostage in any significant way.


            My point in even mentioning the “central bank”off-site was code that it’d obvious that the second amendment was written before the Rothschilds got their claws into America

          • Since the only group of people whom the second amendment is operational upon is members of Congress, as is the entire Bill of Rights, it is silly to worry about it unless you are a Congresscritter.


            Where do you get that it’s only for members of congress

  • Jonny rRingworm

    Very impressed that he said what he did on the liberal controlled media. Yes it’s common knowledge to most, but the left is trying to reword it for their agenda. It’s amazing the complete lies that are told, glad to see the truth for a change.

  • jim_robert

    gladuis neminem occidit, occidentis telum est.” (A
    sword is never a killer, it is a tool in the killer’s hands.)
    Lucius Annaeus Seneca, circa 4 BC – 65 AD

    “Americans [have] the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust their people with arms”
    – James Madison, considered the father of the US

    “[T]he people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.”

    – Zacharia Johnson, speech in the Virginia
    Ratifying Convention, 1788

    “During World War II, six million Swiss had guns and six million Jews did not.” – Author unknown

    “…sort of like the people who repeat foolish slogans like “guns kill” – as though guns sprout little feet when no one is looking and run around shooting people all by themselves.” –
    Doug Casey, financial columnist

    “If you don’t have to give up your car because others drive drunk with theirs, then why do you have to give up your gun because others commit crimes with theirs?”
    – Anonymous internet wag

    “When a crime is committed, does the gun go to jail?”
    – From

    “Let’s stop playing games. The problem is people, not guns. Our society suffers from a deficiency of personal responsibility – not from an excess of personal freedom.” – Star Parker, African American writer and commentator

    “The horrifying truth is this: we live now
    in a culture that not only does not respect life, but discards it like trash — not only at the beginning of life, but also at the end, and every place in between. What has happened to us?”

    Catholic Deacon Greg Kandra

    “…we’re also going to make it clear that when a pig gets iced that’s a good thing, and that everyone who considers himself a revolutionary should be armed, should own a gun, should
    have a gun in his house.”

    Bill Ayers, leftist activist and confidant of gun control happy Barack Obama, in A Strategy To Win, appearing in New Left Notes, September 12, 1969. Note: This quote is included
    both show the hypocrisy of today’s anti-gun left, as well as expose them as the purveyors of violence the left
    has always been. This in no wise implies support of Ayers,
    and in fact I amutterly against what Ayers articulates here.

    “The urge to save humanity
    is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.'”
    | – HL Mencken

    “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect
    themselves against tyranny in government” –
    Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

    “Blaming Newtown on guns is like blaming Chappaquiddick on the Oldsmobile.”
    – Ben Crystal, Personal Liberty News

    “An armed society is a polite society. Manners
    are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.”
    – Robert A. Heinlein

    “Eliminate guns and they go to bombs, eliminate bombs and they move to poison or something else. Bad people are just bad people.”

    – “David,” otherwise anonymous
    internet poster.

    “The trigger is in the head, not the gun.”

    – Michael Howell

  • jim_robert

    Essentially, the argument for allowing citizens AR-15s is the
    concept first advanced by France with its Force de Frappe
    or Force de dissuasion. A brief history lesson is in order regarding
    this, as it is directly applicable to the question Piers Morgan just
    doesn’t get. In sum, after Charles de Gaulle’s return to power in 1958, he was concerned that the US would not protect France from a Soviet invasion – by the 1960s, the US was knee deep in Vietnam, and besides, why would the US risk America for France? As Wikipedia notes – and is critical to the
    discussion here – “The strategic concept behind the Force
    de Frappe is one of countervalue, i.e., the capability of inflicting
    to a more powerful enemy more damage than the complete destruction of the French population would represent. The enemy, having more to lose, would therefore refrain from proceeding any further. This principle is usually referred to in the French political debate as dissuasion du faible au fort (Weak-to-strong deterrence) and was summarized in a statement attributed to President de Gaulle himself:

    “Within ten years, we shall have the means to kill 80 million Russians. I truly believe that one does not light-heartedly attack people who are able to kill 80 million Russians,
    even if one can kill 800 million French, that is if there were 800 million French.” Similarly, General Pierre Marie Gallois
    said “Making the most pessimistic assumptions, the French nuclear bombers could destroy ten Russian cities; and
    France is not a prize worthy of ten Russian cities” and French Admiral de Joybert in his book La paix nucléaire (1975), simply put it this way “Sir, I have no quarrel with you, but I warn you
    in advance and with all possible clarity that if you invade me, I shall answer at the only credible level for my scale, which is the nuclear level. Whatever your defenses, you shan’t prevent at least some of my missiles from reaching your home and cause the devastation that you know. So, renounce your endeavour
    and let us stay good friends.”

    Judge Alex Kozinski, of the liberal 9th Circuit Court, made a similar
    point in his dissent with his fellow judges, and is worth quoting at length:

    “All too many of the other great tragedies of
    history – Stalin’s atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few – were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations. Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act required here. If a few hundred Jewish
    fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so
    easily have been herded into cattle cars. My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed – where the government refuses
    to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.” Judge
    Alex Kozinski dissenting in Silveira v. Lockyer, 328 F.3d 567 (9th Circuit 2003) (full text

    This, then, is the answer to the AR-15 question. While the force that is allowed citizens is indeed still asymmetrical, both the Constitution, as well as experience from history, dictates that citizens, to remain free, must have enough force at their disposal to be a “force de dissuasion.” The above, along with the facts that the
    AR-15 has indeed been used multiple times for home defense (as noted in this paper), and is almost never utilized in crimes, and is not automatic, is the answer why we should allow so called
    “assault rifles” (which in fact, are not assault rifles!) to the public.

  • RandyJ/ProudSurvivor

    The Second Amendment was written so American citizens-Patriots, in fact-could protect themselves from exactly the sort of government we now have. Period.

    • The second amendment was written to tell Congress not to infringe our rights to keep and bear arms. We should have been enforcing it for the last couple centuries so we wouldn’t need this group to re-educate ignorant sheeple.

  • Our government has never not been against us. Judging from our efforts to prevent it from becoming still more draconian, Thomas Jefferson knew the way it would go when he wrote: “The spirit of the times may alter, will alter. Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless. A single zealot may become persecutor, and better men be his victims. It can never be too often repeated that the time for fixing every essential right, on a legal basis, is while our rulers are honest, ourselves united. From the conclusion of this war we shall be going down hill. It will not then be necessary to resort every moment to the people for support. They will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget themselves in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of this war, will be heavier and heavier, till our rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion.”

  • What good would a firearm be without a bullet?

  • jim_robert

    Interesting. Another, more recent study, this time a 30-year, $150 gazillion dollar study, funded by the Univ. of Intellectual Dishonesty, in Leftistville, NY, revealed that 99.9% of all deaths in America were due to leftist policies like abortion (55 million and counting) and Obamacare (soon to approach that figure).

    The obvious conclusion, noted researchers, is that socialism is the great fiction, whereby everybody endeavours to live off of everybody else.

  • What government?
    Supreme ” Court” ?

    all disappeared since the 1800’s

  • Gil G

    In that case if you’re not part of a State militia then you have no 2A rights since this guy admits it’s “not about hunting or even self-defence.”

  • He already knew that but pretends he doesn’t.

  • Frank Energy

    Almost no one has come to the conclusion that I find most appealing…..the “well regulated militia” is the muscle part of the government, the military, being in effect regulated from carrying out improper orders…..regulated by the sheer presence of lots of guns in private hands.

  • Gil G

    The author made it clear he believes it doesn’t protect hunting or self-defence.

  • The CAFR account’s interest funds these freaks probably:–CAFR.html

  • “I do not know whether it is to yourself or Mr. Adams I am to give my thanks for the copy of the new constitution. I beg leave through you to place them where due. It will be yet three weeks before I shall receive them from America. There are very good articles in it: and very bad. I do not know which preponderate. What we have lately read in the history of Holland, in the chapter on the Stadtholder, would have sufficed to set me against a Chief magistrate eligible for a long duration, if I had ever been disposed towards one: and what we have always read of the elections of Polish kings should have forever excluded the idea of one continuable for life. Wonderful is the effect of impudent and persevering lying. The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, and what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it’s motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion.[1] The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusets: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen yard in order. I hope in god this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted.” – Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, Paris, 13 Nov. 1787[2]…%28Quotation%29