What if you were at a ball field just practicing? And what if some leftist piece of garbage decided to open fire at you and everyone out there just because he didn’t like your politics? Would you be ready if you weren’t one of the first victims? How about if some leftist terrorist in the guise of a college “professor” was hitting people in the head with a bicycle lock for the very same reason? Or, how about having bricks and bottles thrown at you by leftist terrorists in the guise of “protesters”? And if it was a bunch of pampered college terrorists wandering around with baseball bats on a “gun free” campus? Would you be able to defend yourself?
There are two lessons to be learned from these incidents: 1) regardless of what any court says (local, national, or federal) the 2nd Amendment is not subject to their restrictions regarding individual arms or the restrictions of any government body on such arms; and, 2) the leftist agenda of violence is escalating because the left is looking for a war.
The first lesson to be learned is that, regardless of what level of government you are dealing with, governments have no authority – none – to restrict your right to own or carry any personal weapons (i.e., arms) either concealed or open. Period. It does not matter what local law enforcement “likes” or doesn’t like. It doesn’t matter what any politician says or does nor the legislation they cook up. It doesn’t matter what any court “rules”.
When it comes to the Constitution, it is plain and simple. “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.” That’s the entire amendment. Anyone who can read can understand what is written here.
There are two parts to this amendment – the prefatory clause and the operative clause. The prefatory clause is: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, … “. The operative clause is the remainder of the amendment: “ … the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The prefatory clause is merely an introduction to the amendment. It is contextual only and is not a restriction imposed on the citizenry of the united States. To understand this clause, you need to understand a bit of history.
Throughout history armies have been “levied”, or raised, from the local population. The people comprising those militias were men who just happened to be full-time holders of other jobs – like farmers, blacksmiths, bakers, etc. They were often “commanded” by the more educated, not always the more capable.
As the ability of governments to pay for professional military forces (i.e., mercenaries) grew, so did the cost of hiring them which was paid for in immense taxes. Those same governments (that means kings or tyrants. Is there a real difference?) finally figured out that it was a lot cheaper to form and train their own loyal, professional military forces as a core defense force with militia still providing the bulk of the army. That particular move not only cured, mostly, the issue of loyalty but it made the taxpayers a lot happier, too, since it meant less taxes to pay for not so loyal mercenaries who could, and often did, take your money and slit your throat to demonstrate their appreciation. The militias, however, were not “trained” like the professionals and became what is known in military parlance as “cannon fodder”.
Over time, populations increased as did the authority of particular governments. Peace through superior weaponry can do things like that. That is why the reliance on the militia increased, too. The bigger the population, the more space you needed, and the bigger military force was needed to protect that space. In the eyes of the tyrants it wasn’t needed to protect the people. Where we see the original levies of citizens comprising any military force, as well as the rapid increase in the size of those forces, we see that there was no truly concerted effort to train them in “soldierly” skills.
After all, what right thinking tyrant would want an armed population capable of marching to the front door of his or her palace and overthrowing their regime? Such an act just might result in a tyrant losing his head for his tyranny. Better to keep the citizenry untrained in combat skills and unarmed when not at war. But that, too, didn’t sit well with most people especially given that all people, whoever they are and wherever they live, have the right of self-defense regardless of what governments claim in their worthless laws about the matter.
Not only did those same citizens argue that they had the right to be armed for self-defense purposes but they also had the right to be armed against government should it decide that the citizens were the enemy. History has proven those who advocate for the right to be armed to be right in their beliefs about the level of tyranny of all governments toward their own citizens when the citizens can’t fight back. Don’t believe that? Watch this:
The issue was resolved by governments being forced to acknowledge that individuals do, indeed, have the right of self-defense. And while they were at it, they came to understand that it was far more economically efficient to not only let those same citizens defend themselves with whatever weapons they chose to own but to require that whatever weapons they did possess had to be used during any militia duties. In other words, the militia was armed by weapons every man provided for himself. Therefore, such an acknowledgment of the right of self-defense brought with it the acceptance of the right to be armed in whatever manner each citizen saw fit be it club, pitchfork, pole axes, knives, swords – or God help us – firearms.
Let’s get something straight, right here and now. We aren’t talking about private ownership of crew served weapons. What we’re talking about here is the right to own and carry individually operated weapons. there’s a massive difference and the government has no authority to “approve or disapprove”, one way or the other. Don’t get sidetracked by that stupid diversion.
To prove the foregoing point, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), Justice Scalia, author of the majority opinion, wrote: “Nor is the right involved in this discussion less comprehensive or valuable: “The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.” The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! And Lexington, Concord, Camden, River Raisin, Sandusky, and the laurel-crowned field of New Orleans, plead eloquently for this interpretation! And the acquisition of Texas may be considered the full fruits of this great constitutional right.” (Emphasis added.) You can read the syllabus of the decision here.
America at the time of the colonies was a wild and dangerous land. Not so much unlike today. That’s why the colonists were armed. Each and every one. And that is why they demanded that such right not be “infringed” by government. On a day to day, moment to moment basis if you left your brace of pistols at home you ran the risk of having a really bad day. There’s something about the idea of getting shot to death when you try to commit a crime that tends to dampen that criminal motivation in most people. Not everyone but certainly the vast majority.
Note the effect of an armed populace on the criminal mindset and consider how any tyrant would feel in regard to attempting to disarm such a populace and the result of that attempt. I would venture to say that King George knew that feeling on a very personal level, as should everyone who dares to infringe on that right. That, by the way, would include violent leftists and any government official – elected or otherwise – who dares to use their authority to infringe on that right even one slightest bit.
The operative clause is the point of the amendment. It is this clause that guarantees the right. It doesn’t create the right. The Constitution doesn’t create any rights. The Constitution only guarantees rights. That’s why when it comes to individual rights and liberty the Constitution is applicable in every locality and nation within the Republic as well as at the federal level.
“ … the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” What part of that is it that the leftists don’t understand? None of it. They understand it all too well. This is where their agenda enters into the picture. The leftist agenda cannot move forward on its merits. That was soundly proven in last year’s presidential election.
Therefore, the left must destroy the idea of God, thereby, destroying the idea of God-given rights. Destroy that idea and only government is left to determine what rights citizens have. And those rights can change at any given moment on the whim of whoever is in power.
Take away the right “ … the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, … ” and you have the ability to force your agenda on those very same people regardless of whether they give, or do not, their consent to that agenda. Now you know the real objective of the left.
As to the second lesson to be learned – you better get ready if you have the means. War is coming. The issue is not between left and right. It is between good and evil. This is going to be a knock down drag out war for the soul of America. It’s time you made a choice.
That means you need to learn about weapons. All kinds of weapons. How to identify them. How to make them, if necessary. Most importantly, how to use them.
The idea that your life and the lives of those who rely on you must wait for rescue when faced with an active shooter situation is not only ludicrous, it is immoral. Being in a situation like any of those I mentioned at the beginning of this article puts you in a position of being a victim or being responsible. You can go ahead and wait for the 3 minutes it took the police to arrive on scene at the ball field, if you want. A very, very commendable response time. And if you wait that 3 minutes, you will be lauded by the left as your casket is lowered into the ground with photos of your friends and family mourning your passing – presuming they weren’t victims, too.
Or, you can exercise your God-given right to protect yourself, your loved ones, and those around you who are not able to defend themselves. Will you be castigated in the leftist Mainstream Propaganda Ministry? Absolutely. Will you be alive? Very much so.
Whichever choice you make rest assured that if you decide to do nothing you will not only be a victim of what is to come (maybe sooner rather than later) but your name will be forgotten in history as one of those who refused to take a stand against evil.