The Founders, through the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and their amendments, endowed the US with many advanced political concepts that are today frequently overlooked or misunderstood by the half educated well brainwashed graduates of modern universities. Sometimes called Obama’s zombies.
It is frequently argued that the 2nd amendment, the right to bear arms, exists only to cover the right of citizens to hunt and or defend their homes from criminals. This is blindingly philistine, but typical of today’s ignorant of history “Progressives”.
The Constitution of the Republic of the United States has one main underlying theme, and that is to maximise the rights of citizens, to limit the power of government, but most importantly, and at the heart of its philosophy, it supports the right of the people to rebel against a govt perceived as unlawful. At the core of this intent is the 2nd amendment.
Most socialist democracies across the west lack this fundamental legal right to rebel. Even sadder, its not even missed by most of their citizenry.
They lack the right to rebel, and due to their callow belief in the goodness of big government, underpinned by their ignorance of history, they don’t miss it. They are so weak and submissive and content in that lame submission, they don’t even want it.
Voters in the West, and worse, within the United States, rail against gun ownership without realising what a precious and unique right the US citizens have been given.
US citizens who know their history, who know what the Constitution and the Bill of Rights really gives them, value this right and seek to fiercely protect it against the predations of the left. Those whose intent is to take that right away.
Those who seek to disarm the citizens of the US are seeking an outcome that runs counter to the spirit of the founding documents of the Republic. Through ignorance and misplaced faith in big govt they hold the precious rights their founders bestowed upon them in utter contempt.
They need to wake from their ignorance and understand what is at stake here, and why true Americans will not surrender their arms or their rights under the 2nd Amendment to dirty little communist fly by nights such as Obama and his disciples.
Obama and his ignorant of history acolytes pursue their anti-American objectives at their own peril.
TrueblueNZ 
7 responses to “The Evil Intent of the US Anti-second Amendment Lobby”
Pros and Cons
No Government ever perceives itself as unlawful.
“exists only to cover the right of citizens to hunt and or defend their homes from criminals” Here in NZ we do not even have that basic right. You can defend yourself and others by any means possible except by using a gun.
If you have an armed paramilitary Police and an unarmed citizenry, you have the foundation for tyranny against the population. This happens in every Country were there is a despot Government or Dictator. Step one disarm the citizens.
In the US the right to bear arms seems to extend to criminals and people with mental health issues.
The idea was that a professional full time Constabulary, was to do what every Citizen was expected to do part time, be responsible for theirs, and others, personal safety.
That has morphed into, call the Police it is our job to deal with it, unfortunately the first responder to any Crime is the victim. What is the saying there is never a Policeman around when you really need them.
I hate to think what would happen if the population was disarmed, it would only be a matter of time before a US President decided that it would be a good idea to dispense with Elections, in the interests of the people.
As for arming the Police here, it is only a matter of time, but still not a good idea, unless you also allow the general population to arm as well.
Policing is not the most dangerous occupation in New Zealand. Many industries are far more dangerous. Dairy owners, liquor store owners, Taxi drivers, Security Guards, the list goes on. Police are rarely the target of criminals.
The result would be Police shooting the General public more than they do currently and shooting each other, criminals would arm themselves more than the currently are and the unarmed population would be caught in the middle.
How that would make us safer is a mystery to me and has never been addressed by any of the vested interests.
I want the basic human right to defend myself and others my any and all means possible.
LikeLike
Sorry Red, but along with all the other 2nd Amendment fetishists, you are quite wrong. First, the fetishists always seem to forget the first 13 words:A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…. This talks to the preservation of the state, not its overthrow by armed insurrection. It was understandale in the conext of a fledling nation.
Gun nuts parading through Walmart or Target, gun nuts going for feed a at Chuck e Cheese or Subway are in no way shape or form a well regulated militia, they are simply gun nuts. I often wonder what would happen if a group of blacks paraded their “open carry” 2nd Amendment rights.
You also ignore the historical context. At the time of writing the War of Independence was only 8 short years in the past and the United States did not control all the land now known as the 48 contiguous states. Britain still controlled Canada and Spain had large swathes of the South. Furthermore, the type of arms available at the time were muskets, capable, at best, of 4 rounds per minute, nothing like the assault weapons being used today.
And did you notice that it is the Second amendment meaning that there was a change to the constitution. As amended once, it can also be amended again to suit current circumstances.
You state that the Second Amendment …supports the right of the people to rebel against a govt perceived as unlawful. but I cannot see that in the text. It exists only in the minds of those who fetishise guns and eschew democracy. The ballot box, not the gun, is how we change governments in civilised countries. You would appear to be more at home in the Middle East than in a civilised nation with the rule of law.
Now, I don’t expect you to address the points, I expect you will simply revert to type and label me a progressive commie muslim atheist, which is a shame, really.
LikeLike
“Now, I don’t expect you to address the points,”
And you’re right there. I won’t address them because (as usual) they are tired old extreme left talking points that I have heard a hundred times before. So flawed and with so many errors it would take far too much time & effort to rebut them.
Misinformed, slow witted and only half educated, you’re just the kind of person who would think they held some worthwhile argument, when a modicum of research would reveal those talking points as baseless garbage, propaganda and convenient re-writes of history.
Hitler was elected in a democracy.
LikeLike
Hitler wasn’t elected. He lost the election for President to von Hindenburg, but was appointed Chancellor (PM) by Hindenburg less than a year later.
LikeLike
All very good
But can I have the basic human right to defend myself by any and all means possible please.
LikeLike
A well regulated militia is one that is equipped as well as army regulars. To be well regulated means that our militias are to be equipped so to be on par to fight any army that threatens the free state. (It also means, sadly, that by increments those who have sought to deregulate the militias have largely succeeded.)
This also makes moot your foolish point about muskets being the only form of arms available at the time.
If the founders had intended the definition of regulated (a back-formation of regulations) that you chose to use for your argument, it would make their entire amendment self-contradictory. One can’t make rules about ownership and at the same time not infringe on the right to own.
Hence, since it is safe to assume that the founders were far smarter than you, it is clear that your argument is absurd on its face.
LikeLike
You’re all missing one of the most important words: “necessary”.
A well-regulated (as pascal says: that means “well armed”) militia is necessary to the security of a free state. That is a legal requirement that ever state has a militia, and in fact a legal requirement that every (male) citizen serves in such a militia, and consequently owns sufficient weapons and ammunition to serve when they are called up — that is at least equivalent to the regular infantry, but clearly no restrictions can be placed on weapons ownership, including 50cals, RPGs, B-52s, Minutemen, or (my personal favourite, and clearly useful in e.g. Fergusson recently) Davy Crocketts.
This is why the Second Amendment is different to – and more important than – every other amendment and indeed almost every other clause in the constitution (apart from those that permit taxing). It is about a right, but even more than that, about a duty to both keep (own) and bear (use) arms, the foremost duty of citizenship. And of course that’s the other things the liberals hate: the duty is not only to keep arms, but to use them, to use them in defence of the life of citizens, of the property of citizens, and most importantly of all, defence of the constitution.
Which is why the last seven years give the lie to the Promise Keepers, the Oath Keepers, and indeed everyone who has sworn to uphold the Constitution.
LikeLike