I think the whole problem is that people don't read the whole amendment or understand that it Mandates a well armed and trained Civil Militia, and that Congress should fund this. Both sides are wrong. A totally disorganized bunch of people with guns isn't going to withstand a tyranny. They really do need to be organized, armed - with arms kept in the home to be ready - and trained, and have a known and ready communications system and command structure.
But the National Guard is NOT the civil militia. That's pure baloney. A real civil militia would involve all or at least a good majority of able bodied citizens, for one thing, and the national guard doesn't. They would be citizens, not soldiers, and not subject to federal command structure. That's one way the Swiss have always kept out invaders.
A proper civil militia would not be under the aegis of the feds, and not be trained and use protocols from the standing army. It would be entirely separate, the idea being that the standing army, which by ancient custom should not be used inside our borders, is complementary to a group that would defend us inside our borders. Although they could certainly work together in the case of an outright invasion, unlikely as that is. Although maybe someday we'll be weak enough to invade once we give all our wealth and manufacturing power to the NWO.
Right now the national guard is just a subsidiary of the standing army -- same uniforms, same training, same chain of command. Which means they are brainwashed and likely to take Army orders descending from the government even if such orders violate the constitution. Especially since current day education leaves people so ignorant most think the Constitution is a rock band.
That would also quell the tiresome complaint that every juvenile idiot can buy a handgun to show off and play around, but may know nothing about safety or respect for the weapon or one of it's major purposes of true civil defense. They would have to learn about the darn things, along with strategy and tactics, as part of their civil militia training.
I have always been skeptical of this idea that each individual could take the the woods like Rambo, and hold off the Army. On the other hand, a well-trained civil militia, that had organization and communication, weapons and strategies and emergency procedures, could be an instant insurgency force if necessary. Just their existence would make tyrants think twice.
I think both the left and the right are wrong on this one. The first order is to fund, form, arm and train a true Citizen Militia, and stop this lie that the Army National Guard is any such thing. It's more like the duty to bear arms rather than the right to bear arms. Everyone isolates the two parts second amendment to beat their own drum, but it's obviously an independent and dependent clause. It clearly relates the establishment of a civil militia to the right to bear arms. The reason for the confusion on Both sides is that we don't have a real civil militia, and there is no way I will buy the lie that the Army National Guard is one.
A citizen militia is just that -- an organization citizens form for military purposes. It's not up to the (or a) government to do that, fund it, or run it. It's something that's formed due to a perceived exigency on the part of citizens. In the event that such becomes necessary to protect freedom, the likely adversary would be "A" government, maybe our federal government, but maybe an invading military power or just a gang of pirates. The 2A merely guarantees that under no circumstances is any government of the U.S. (federal, state, or local) permitted to deprive citizens of their right to own, keep, and bear swords, guns, etc., which they might use, at their individual discretion to protect and defend themselves. If King George decided to take back the "Colonies" in 1812, it wasn't going to be a simple matter of sacking the government, then marching through the land announcing that Americans were again British subjects without first having to contend with all the muskets, etc., that were privately owned.
During WWII, one of the Japanese leaders opined that they couldn't invade the U.S. because there would be an American with a rifle behind every bush. The 2A is a guarantee against ANY government that messing with me or us isn't going to be easy.
If I choose to join an ad hoc militia, that's my business just as owning military implements is. In 1789, the Constitution was ratified that restricted the governments formed under it from infringing upon my right to privately own and bear arms. The government can't take away my fleshly arms without individual due process nor can it take away my extended arms without individual due process.
It's really not a hard concept, and I'm sure you'll be able to understand it....
|
John, do you remember a couple battles that took place at Lexington and Concord ? A disorganized bunch of people lead by Captain John Parker ?
They stood up to tyranny and many, many paid the ultimate price. They fought for a way of life, a life of freedom not servitude. They were out manned, out gunned and out organized by the standing armies of Great Britain. But they were not out classed.
The disorganized bunch of people at the birth of our nation had just as much to lose as we do today. They risked all and in prevailing they designed a government of checks and balances to prevent tyrannical rule.
But even they had the foresight to realize that governmental rule is imperfect and through enumeration in the Bill Of Rights, "the disorganized bunch of people", were guaranteed their inalienable rights. One of which the supporters of tyranny keep trying to alienate from us.
If the supporters of tyranny achieve their goal and disarm "the disorganized bunch of people", what's next ? Will we then start burning books that the tyrants don't agree with ? Will we be required to support one religion sanctioned by the tyrants ? Where is the line drawn ?
I make a lousy orator but possibly you can find some answers in the words of Patrick Henry.
"... it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it."
Huh?
The left is wrong period. Conservatives has been consistent for over 200 years. It is as it reads...no interpretation needed. If you want to change it...pass an amendment.
Funny. That's not what it says.
The Second Ammendment doesn't transfer a damn thing to anyone. It demands that authority doesn't screw with what we already have , and have had from the beginning of time.
Pardon me Sir, but I strongly suggest you re-think that statement.
We may well be at the point of our 'American experiment' where the only capable means of resisting the tyranny we face, is activity of a totally disorganized bunch.
A well organized bunch is easily defeated by such a monster as our true enemy who has deeply entrenched it's operatives into our political powers.