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,”
Indeed.
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.
Bingo!
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!’
You Funny!
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 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.
***************************************************************************** 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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.