Skip to comments.Reality Check: The "Politically Incorrect Truth" About The Second Amendment
Posted on 01/04/2013 8:39:08 PM PST by neverdem
WXIX-TV Tucson reporter Ben Swann takes a look at what he called the "politically incorrect" truth about the Second Amendment. In his "Reality Check" segment for the local FOX affiliate, Swann explains the true intention behind the Second Amendment.
"This is where American history becomes very politically incorrect because the Second Amendment was not drafted for hunting, or just self defense from an attacker. The Second Amendment was put into place to guarantee the rights of the individual to be equally armed as military, both foreign and domestic, in the event that the citizenry might actually, at some point, have to fight their own government," explained Swann.
"Again, it's a very controversial subject. But if we're going to have a debate about what rights we're actually going to guarantee under the Constitution, then we need to have an honest debate about what the Founders were attempting to guarantee," Swann said.
"The Second Amendment is about making sure the population would not be controlled, dominated or oppressed by a government," Swann explained. "It's not my place to tell you what the Founders were thinking, or what they would be thinking today. But the principle of what they put into place had nothing to do with the kind of weapon they were guaranteeing, it was simply about matching force."
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
“put into place to guarantee the rights of the individual to be equally armed as military, both foreign and domestic, in the event that the citizenry might actually, at some point, have to fight their own government,”
So, we need to start facing facts that such “arms” include tanks, ships, fighter jets and the like. Even thousands of us armed with the best MIL-style autos are just going to get creamed by a few bombers overhead. Our little handguns aren’t going to cut it.
Unfortunately, far too many treat the constitution as a living document.
The tyranny of government, via laws in 1934, 1968, and 1986 have empowered government over the people, and now the people are at risk, being several degrees less armed than the power of government called the Army. Even less so when factoring in the AF, Navy, Marines, Coast Guard, National Guard, State Police, BATFE, FBI, US Marshals, Park Service, etc, etc.
I laugh when the potheads try to tell me that the Second Amendment is about the National Guard. LOL! It's obvious that they are clueless as to what the Bill of Rights is.
Clue: The Bill of Rights doesn't guarantee rights to the government. The Second Amendment was not written to guarantee the government the right to have a National Guard.
Our only hope now is that the service men and women are our most patriotic citizens and they would stand for the people and not for the despots in a shooting war.
Perhaps, if we were to make the mistake of gathering in one convenient spot for the bombers to hit. But there’s no reason we would have to do that.
If we ever reach the terrible state where American bombers are creaming American cities, I don’t think we’ll be worrying about whether it’s “legal” to have heavy weapons, anyway. We’ll be way past debating the meaning of the Second Amendment.
Reason prevails, in the purpose of the 2A, as stated in the post. What other reason for its high rank? A hobby? A collection? Hardly.
Even before the 2nd Amendment, Article I section 8 gave Congress the power “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;”. A Letter of Marque gives an individual the power to make war in the name of the United States, most commonly allowing a ship owner to become a privateer and capture enemy ships. They didn’t do that with either stern language or muskets. Instead they had to own the 18th century weapon of mass destruction - the cannon - to capture enemy ships.
The Bill of Rights is an enumeration of the natural rights of man. These rights derive from God, NOT from government.
Privileges - such as a driver’s license - are granted by government and can be taken away.
If the government tries to deny the people their God-given rights it is their sacred duty to resist.
Gurilla warfare, the type fought by a civilian population is almost impossible to defeat by a normal military. Special forces specially trained have limited success. The ‘rebels’ have the choice of time place and method of assault. Great Britain was the most powerful armed force in the world at the time of our revolution. They were beaten soundly. We lost our collective asses in Vietnam to a gurilla type war machine. Look at Afghanistan. Its like a video game. We knock them down in one place and they pop up in another. That is why no nation in modern times has been successful there. Air power, tanks, drones and ‘smart weapons’ all can make a mess of things but cannot in anyway be decisive in that sort of conflict. Nuke ‘em? Maybe. But who is going to give the order to do that, especially if the fighting is taking place in NYC or LA or Atlanta or Dallas or DC? More to the point. Who is going to carry it out? IMHO with the exception of a few social climbing generals the rest of our military would side with their families and the civilians. War is hell and Civil War is probably the worst kind of hell. It may be what the Marxists want.
Sort of like that scene in JAWS,,,
‘WE ARE GOING TO NEED A BIGGER BOAT!’
Point is, we are not going to scare government with a few pop guns. They will not be intimidated. They have the firepower and have ruled MIL apparatus illegal for mere civilians to own - not what Founders intended. The Founders intended the government fear its people.
Privileges - such as a drivers license - are granted by government and can be taken away.
If the government tries to deny the people their God-given rights it is their sacred duty to resist.
***************************************************************************** Say it again...and again ....we have to educate a lot of people, now.
Now we only need out RINO representatives to make the same case and then call for the abolition of all gun (arms) control laws instead of what they will do and cave to the likes of that ugly wench senator from CA.
“If we ever reach the terrible state where American bombers are creaming American cities...”
The Messiah wouldn’t bomb big cities, that’s where his supporters are located. He’d go for strafing runs against towns, maybe neighborhoods based on voting patterns.
Despite popular myth, the AmRevWar was NOT primarily a guerrilla war nor was GB “beaten soundly”.
And again, I point to the fact that any gov unafraid to ruthlessly bomb anything from sky and sea WILL win over those rebels in this day and age. The samples cited only demonstrate the wimpiness of the US machine - the US could destroy half the earth if it had the will. We mere citizens have been disallowed the heavy artillery - mere handguns stand no chance without commandeering it.
I think 8 million scoped deer rifles would scare them a lot. One shot from each on select targets would make a lot of bodies and a lot of fear.
The idea that the 2nd Amendment was ratified by a group of literal revolutionaries who had just defeated the world’s then-most powerful empire for the purpose of ensuring that some 21st Century Elmer Fudd would have the right to hunt Bambi is absurd beyond belief or rational discourse. All that one must do to understand its purpose is to read the argument for revolt against a legally-constituted government in the Declaration of Independence.
Equally absurd is the argument that the 2nd only applies to muskets and the like, since that’s all that existed then. Ask the moron who makes that point if he or she would similarly allow government censorship of the Internet because it didn’t exist in 1791, and watch the drooling idiot shut up instantly and look for someone else to talk with ASAP.
I know we have "precision" weapons but how do you drop a 500 lb. bomb in an urban neighborhood and hit only the right wingers?
Major cities would be denied water and food in short order.
Various wordings of the Second Amendment were tried during its development. The end result *purposefully* leaves out any enumeration of reasons why an individual has the right to keep and bear Arms. Any reason *why* an individual may or may not keep and bear Arms, was left to the states and the people thereof, to settle among themselves.
The only enumeration in the Second Amendment focuses on what to do about a group of men under Arms - what is to happen when individuals who bear military grade Arms are in a group, and they *are* capable of exercising martial power. What *then,* was to become of that power?
The answer was, that both the states and the federal government would rely upon *the group* being formally mustered, well-regulated, well trained to Arms, well discplined, and answerable to civilian authority.
Both the states and the federal government sought unity of function and preparedness of the militia of each state. The state militiae should be “well trained to Arms” and be capable of, and mindful of, lawfully exercising martial power and respecting lawful civilian authority.
In the old days up to around WW-I times and for a while thereafter, there was a tradition of local militia drilling on the common, the town green, or the county fairgrounds. It gave people an opportunity to remain somewhat familiar with military duty; it helped to keep them from becoming too rusty. It demonstrated the proper practices and discipline *for all to see.*
It is a shame that most communities and counties and states got out of that practice.
All the uses of weapons, firearm or not, for non-military purposes, were left to be decided by the states and their people.
Again, there would be no condition within the Second Amendment, by which you do, or do not, have the right to keep and bear Arms; because, the Founding Fathers correctly anticipated that any such enumerated condition might be used as grounds for an individual to either be forced to bear Arms or be stripped of their Arms.
I shudder to think of the firepower if even every tenth scoped deer rifle was pulled out of the closet and put into service. A tyrant’s loyalist forces could pick just about any street in America and somebody would start picking them off one by one. Drip, drip, drip.
I don't know about all of the services, but I have lived most of my life in Jacksonville, NC, the home of Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base. I can attest to the fact that these brave men and women would stand for the American people and not the corrupt federal government.
Au contraire. Fighting against an armed, indigenous insurgency is a challenge for any military however well armed. Unless the government is willing to carpet bomb our cities, they will have a hard time using such weaponry. Or finding enough fellow Americans to carry out such a strategy.
“And again, I point to the fact that any gov unafraid to ruthlessly bomb anything from sky and sea WILL win over those rebels in this day and age”
You mean like how Afghanistan and Iraq were pacified? The way cartels in Mexico were neutralized? lol
It’s a fools errand to try to fight them on their terms, with a similar force in the field. You don’t go try to dogfight F-15s as an insurgent. You kill the pilot with a snub 38 as he is gassing his car on the way home.
A squadrom commander gets a photo of his daughter in the mail. She is walking into the school. Crosshairs are drawn on her.
A geeky drone operator in Vegas is in a bar. A smoking hot 23 year old woman is really into him. She asks what he does. Drunkenly, he tries to impress her by saying he’s a drone pilot at Nellis. He explains to her that drone pilots are fully qualified pilots too. She screws his brains out that night. She asks him to meet her somewhere the next time he’s off.
He is shot dead as he gasses his car. The assailant was a 25 year old man. The older brother of the girl from the bar. They tracked him carefully. They were in Vegas on a mission with a 357 and one box of bullets. You see, their father was killed by a predator drone strike.
Five assembly line workers are murdered in a coordinated sniper attack as they walk into the Martin missile assembly plant that builds the Hellfire missiles. 30% of the workforce quits. The miltary has to secure locations they never dreamed of.
Artillery units are bitter at being asked to fire non precision HE into an American city. Desertions are rampant with crew served weapons. The “loyal” units ust be carefully vetted for locals from the state being attacked.
Tanks are thirsty. The fuel trucks that supply them are driven by the likes of Jessica Lynch. Tanks cannot find a target, but fuel truck drivers are sniped wholesale. Some by freelancers belonging to no organization. They were aa leaderless cell of one and simply saw a target of opportunity.
No,,a resistance movement would not need F-15s or Artillery. All of these examples are happening somewhere in the world right now. Nazis couldnt stop them, we cannot, nobody can. Such wars are unbeliveably violent, and should be avoided at all costs,,,,, except the loss of freedom.
It is the acme of evil that our government is headed straight for despotism and deep corruption. But no, they could not defeat us.
Our entire military was almost ground to hamburger in iraq, which is about the size of Texas. No dice.
“Major cities would be denied water and food in short order”
The economy grinding to a halt,, that’ll be popular with wall street. And the cities the national government decides to starve out, everyone in that city becomes an insurgent. People in other cities watch it and become disgusted, the resistance grows exponentially. Other nations gleefully go to get some revenge and demand the UN to bring an end to the American genocide.
Youtube is filled with heart rending cell phone videos of starving children.
The harder you attack the innocent people, the more the movement grows. They cannot escape the dynamic.
From our other founding document, the Declaration of Indepedence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
Why the *F* do you think they want to grab them all first?
OK. After the first three or four air strikes on city or urban populations, with a number of 0bamaBot collateral casualties, what direction would the administration’s poll numbers move in and how fast?
Yes, but I haven’t actually heard anything about “hunting rifles” in this latest grabber hysteria. In any case, my point was more in support of Mr. Corleone’s thoughts re: guerrilla warfare. For the record, I see no reason for citizens to be denied access to any man portable system fielded by our military, and I will oppose any firearms ban/registration scheme.
This thread discusses the ways in which insurgents might be able to attack off-duty military.
I reject the argument that it is even necessary to defeat our own military until such time as the military is used against the people.
That will not happen until civil disobedience makes it impossible for those "lesser magistrates" to accomplish the government's objectives.
Prior to the military occupation of Boston and the subsequent outbreak of hostilities which were the American Revolution, there were many incidents of conflict between the colonials and their "lesser magistrates". One example would be the treatment of those who accepted the job of distributing the tax stamps which were required on all official documents by the Stamp Act. Although I am not familiar with the particulars of this topic, I have seen political cartoons of the time depicting the tarring and feathering of these lesser magistrates.
We have already heard from at least one county sheriff in the U.S. that his office will not participate in government confiscation of arms. Those sheriffs who do not take such a stance become the "lesser magistrates" who will have to be convinced or coerced into supporting the people and not the government.
Those lesser magistrates who fail to uphold the Constitution will be expected to leave office.
In reality, if it got to the point of sending in bombers or close-support air strikes, we would already have obtained effective counter weaponry, either by armory or field capture; or by the defection of units loyal to the people/Constitution.
Also, if bombers were used, the U.S. government would not be any more immune from foreign/UN intervention than Saddam, Gaddafi, or Assad. They would be hoisted upon their own Globalist petard...and weapons & supplies would start arriving across both the northern & southern borders.
Precisely. Read the discussion on whether or not there should be a standing Federal Army in the Federalist Papers, and this is evident.
"A well Regulated Militia..." was a well-controlled Army. (Think of what a regulator or regulations do--they control.)
It had little to do with training, but with the ability of the people by force of arms and sheer numbers, to prevent the Army from imposing tyranny as the British had done.
The founders recognized the possibility from the onset, and relied on the overwhelming force of arms in private hands to act as a deterrent to tyrannical government.
-—”The Second Amendment was put into place to guarantee the rights of the individual to be equally armed as military, both foreign and domestic, in the event that the citizenry might actually, at some point, have to fight their own government”
And that is perhaps the best ARGUMENT FOR ALLOWING ASSAULT WEAPONS:
If the government has Assault Weapons, the people should be able to have them to defend themselves from the government!
and boys and girls, that is the way it is done............
The Liberator Pistol is a History lesson in itself,
if one is interested,,,
Luepold Mark IV, mounted on a .308 and 30-06....Ave nice day....
It was designed to be a living document, but when's the last time it was amended properly?
The Framers' original intent is discussed in this 1991 law-review (U. Penn.) article, which was about distribution of power in the Constitution, which reserved to the People alone the power of the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box, the Second Amendment making the last absolutely secure from any attempt by Congress, the States, or any combination of politicians and magistrates to attenuate or abolish:
And that is perhaps the best ARGUMENT FOR ALLOWING ASSAULT WEAPONS
“Shall not be infringed” is certainly right up there as an argument, apparently lost in 1934.
Especially for white men from the countryside and suburbs. Everybody knows those sumbitches make very unreliable Communists and have to be watched like a hawk. They just don't have the right 'tude at all.
....but fuel truck drivers are sniped wholesale. Some by freelancers belonging to no organization. They were a leaderless cell of one and simply saw a target of opportunity.
This is called Generation 4 War .... a general's nightmare. Guerrilla actions a la the French maquisards and Serbian anti-Nazi guerrillas were Gen 2. Al-Anbar and Sadr City were, and Afghanistan is, Gen. 3. Gen. 4 is what the Al Q'aeda Salafists have wet dreams about, but their plans keep getting interrupted by Hellfire missiles.
Tons of veterans -- 10 years' worth -- know all about Gen. 3 war now. And they have knowledge of how Gen. 4 is supposed to work.
Yamamoto and Kipling were right. Invade America, wage war on America, which is her People, and you will die, along with your troops in the field.
I've read about that little puppy. It was .45 ACP, had an effective range (due to inaccuracy) of about 7 yards -- funny, that's a typical gunfight engagement distance -- and one could copy them and turn them out in one's garage with just a couple of old, hidden-away machine tools.
They were air-dropped in numbers into occupied Europe.
Nasty little boogers, if you were a Nazi.
The next generation Liberty pistol will likely be a double or triple barrel type of a derringer made completely from an engineered plastic like Delrin straight off a 3D printer.
Every part is plastic, even the firing pin will only have a metallic tip and will be of a metal less detectable to a scanner, non ferrous like aluminum, though for the first couple of shots its quite possible to actually use a plastic firing pin. Just need enough travel and strong enough main spring behind it. Its been proven that even the large low pressure case of the .45acp can be fired in a plastic barrel, and a triple barrel .22 would be a perfect close quarter pistol, no rifling, no traceable firing pin strike.
> Our only hope now is that the service men and women are our most patriotic citizens and they would stand for the people and not for the despots in a shooting war.
I have talked to many service men and everyone of them have been very patriotic. I have little doubt that if they were ordered to murder civilians they would turn on their own masters. It would be a little like “Last Resort”...http://beta.abc.go.com/shows/last-resort
which was cancelled For some reason...lol
I actually do believe the Constitution is a living document— just not one subject to change on the whim of those who don’t like what it plainly says.
The Constitution is a living document— and its DNA is not subject to manipulation...