Before any serious discussion about the Second Amendment can begin, it is necessary to make sure those discussing its validity, definition and application really understand why it was written and how it applies to modern society.
Today, most politicians do not understand the Second Amendment or refuse to award it its real meaning. They refuse to recognized what the Founding Fathers intended to achieve and instead attach all kinds of connotations originated from their twisted and purposely wrong understanding of the this sacred right.
Two grave mistakes are commonly made when defining, validating and applying the Second Amendment. First, people attempt to interpret what it means, as opposed to simply reading and abiding by it. Second, it is defined, validated and applied according to ‘modern’ precepts issued by government.
Perhaps the best attempt to understand what the Second Amendment means in its raw form was recently presented by journalist Ben Swann, who limited himself to reading the text and, upon consulting constitutional experts and proper dictionary definitions, made a very good case for the correct understanding of what the Second Amendment really means.
The definition held by those who believe in the right of the people to keep and bear arms and what it intends to guard against — the very same definition now being diluted by government enforcing illegal laws and the media pushing for gun control — is simpler than what many pundits and talking heads want to make it look.
The Second Amendment was not created to be conditioned to the kind of weapons that people may have available to buy or whatever the federal government thinks are ideal social situations for people to own a gun. It is also not limited by the mental health of a society or the vote of a group of people who are so afraid of armed lunatics, that they prefer to be killed rather than protect themselves and their families.
“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.”
After being victims of foreign aggressors, the Founding Fathers and the United States as a whole understood very well that an armed population, not only a standing army, was the best instrument to keep the country safe from both domestic and foreign attacks. That is why the responsibility to defend oneself was put in the hands of The People.
A number of countries whose armies were swept by oppressors and whose populations fell into the hands of local and foreign conquerors are historically significant. Meanwhile, quite the opposite happened with those nations whose people maintained the right to keep and bear arms. The statistics clearly show a direct link between free, armed populations and lower crime rates. On the contrary, subdued, unarmed people are most often subjected to violence from criminals in and out of government.
Governments alone are responsible for the murder of at least 250,000,000 people in the twentieth century and most of the people who were murdered were either lightly armed in comparison to their aggressors or completely disarmed. If the security of a free State — and such state is indeed composed by its citizens because that State is an independent Nation, depends upon its people — it is then the responsibility and the right of those people to keep and bear arms against all threats.
Therefore, the Second Amendment is not about hunting or the ownership of a specific caliber firearm, but about the ability of the people to be armed as needed to defend themselves from standing armies; both foreign and domestic. It is as simple as that. The people have the right, under applicable laws, to own and use firearms of undetermined calibers, sizes or firepower, to defend themselves, their families and their country.
There can’t be a better time to put that right to work than today, when average criminals, mentally ill people and the government itself pose the greatest danger to the security of the people than ever before in history. For those who understand the meaning of the Second Amendment, it is clear that the full conquest of the United States will not occur unless its people are completely disarmed.
The globalists who control the American government have financially and politically disarmed the country, but they haven’t been able to break the will of the people to defend themselves. Americans are beginning to understand that their government cannot protect them and will not protect them, because government doesn’t work for them.
Politicians who move to Washington, D.C., work for foreign interests whose goal is to destroy the United States the same way they’ve destroyed countries in Latin America, Africa and Europe. That is why, when studied from a legal standpoint — the only point of view it should be studied from — the Second Amendment explicitly enables Americans to defend their country as well as to defend themselves from their country if necessary.
The Second Amendment was intended to guarantee the right of the individuals to be equally armed as their country’s military, both to aid the military to defend the country from foreign threats, as well as to defend themselves from the Nation’s military forces, should they turn against The People. The Founding Fathers intended to provide the citizens the ability to be armed well enough to keep their country and themselves free from oppressive forces which could arise internally and externally.
The idea that a semi automatic firearm should not be in the hands of average folks could not be more opposed to the right provided by the Second Amendment, since governments’ firepower has increased exponentially. What kind of self-defense action could an individual sustain with a .22 caliber gun if its government has sound canyons, armed drones and laser beam weapons? In fact, a semi-automatic or even an automatic weapon would be useless.
The next step on the road to serfdom after a population is disarmed is anything and everything that those in places of power believe is enough to keep themselves in power. “You can do all kinds of things when the population is disarmed. You can round them up, you can put them in ghettos, you can execute them, you can do all kinds of things,” says attorney Don Moore.
There is nothing controversial about the Second Amendment and what it means. Controversy arises from those whose power slips away when The People reclaim the rights given to them by their creator, which directly challenge the abusive behavior of corrupted individuals who use government to enslave his fellow citizens.
An honest debate about the Second Amendment will only be effective when those who participate in such a debate do so with full understanding of what they are talking about. The Second Amendment is intended to prevent the control, domination and oppression of the people by the government. Any discussion that starts without recognizing this fact will not only be futile, but also dangerous given the ignorance of the people who are charged with defending its very existence.
No matter what Michael Bloomberg, Barack Obama, or Pierce Morgan say, firearms don’t kill people. Crazy individuals using firearms murder people just as mad individuals use the power vested upon them by their fellow citizens to murder thousands of innocent civilians in a supposed attempt to ‘bring peace’ to their countries.
As foreign as it may seem for Americans or any other population whose governments want them to hand in their guns, the consequences of centralizing government power and disarming citizens are the predecessors of Genocide.
Delivered by The Daily Sheeple
We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details).
Contributed by Luis Miranda of The Real Agenda.
Luis R. Miranda is the Founder and Editor of The Real Agenda. His 16 years of experience in Journalism include television, radio, print and Internet news. Luis obtained his Journalism degree from Universidad Latina de Costa Rica, where he graduated in Mass Media Communication in 1998. He also holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Broadcasting from Montclair State University in New Jersey. Among his most distinguished interviews are: Costa Rican President Jose Maria Figueres and James Hansen from NASA Space Goddard Institute.