The Right To Shoot Tyrants
Is the Second Amendment the right to shoot deer, or is it the right to
shoot tyrants?
By de Andréa
January 28, 2013
I have written many articles lately about guns and
the Second Amendment including what
to do when and if they come for your guns.
I received a mixed bag of responses, some calling me a barbaric war
monger among others. I just wanted clear
up one very important misunderstanding, first - I did not write the Second
Amendment, someone a lot more intelligent than I wrote it. And second - I don’t look forward to shooting
or hurting anyone. I even walk around
an insect to avoid stepping on it as long as it is not trying to move in to my
house and take over my life; and incidentally I feel the same way about the government. But if either one attempts to do one or the
other - I will step on it…
And then there still seems to be a little confusion
about the Amendment itself, so let me expand a little more about it, especially
in this context just in case some of you may have misunderstood that as
well. Here is the text of the Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary
to the security of a free State
The first thing you will notice is that doesn’t
say: ‘being necessary to shoot a DEER’.
Now I do recognize that this is about all one hears regarding the
Second Amendment and I know one tends to believe something, if that’s all one
hears. But as my Daddy used to say: “Son…don’t believe everything you hear! Eventually I learned not to believe much of
anything I heard, especially from lawyers and politicians and even some
teachers. All the laws and all the rhetoric seem to
reference hunting and paper target shooting, and guess what, the Amendment
doesn’t say: being necessary to shoot a
paper target either. As a matter of
fact the framers didn’t even have deer hunting or target shooting on their minds
when the created the Amendment unless it was hunting tyrant politicians and
shooting ‘them’!
The
Militia
So let’s once again start at the beginning. The Amendment is in four parts. The first part reads: “A well regulated Militia…” Now one must at least know a little about
history, specifically early American history.
America
wasn’t born with a military at its disposal.
In other words we didn’t have one.
Just before, during and after the Declaration was written and sent to King George William Frederick III of the United Kingdom (our tyrant Monarch at the time), the Colonists new that they must have some kind of military, an
Army at least. So George Washington
tried to put one together, it was pitiful.
The Militia was already in existence, a bunch of farmer’s shopkeepers
and hunters; they knew how to stealthily stalk an animal and strategically get
close enough to shoot it before it spooked and ran off. Some had even fought Indians and had learned
to fight Indian style. The Citizens
Militia actually taught the Army how to fight.
The traditional military strategy and tactics hadn’t changed much since
the first century AD. The Militia
introduced a whole new way to fight a war, and because of it we defeated the
most powerful military in the world and won the Revolutionary war.
So you see the Militia was the citizen’s army not
the government military or the National Guard as is so often ignorantly touted (which
didn’t even exist at the time). More
importantly is that the public so often ignorantly believes it. You see the Bill of Rights is not the rights
of the government, as the politicians would like you to think; they are instead
the rights of We The People, the citizens, and there is a good reason for it.
The
security of a Free State
The second part is the part that tells you what the
purpose of the Amendment is. The words
hunting, deer, or paper target not only doesn’t appear in the Amendment, but
they do not appear in the entire U.S. Constitution. Just because President Clinton once
ignorantly said that he believed in the Second Amendment “The right to keep and bear arms
for the purpose of hunting,” everyone ignorantly believed that the
right to keep and bear arms was for hunting.
So what is the purpose of the Amendment? The second part reads: …“being necessary to the security
of a Free State Free State . It’s not too
difficult Dianne! You see the Framers
new the Government wasn’t going to be concerned about the security of your
freedom; on the contrary they knew the government would do everything they
could to take it away, a little piece at a time. And if they succeeded in encroaching on your
freedom the last resort was that the people were armed.
The
right of the people
The third part is: …“the right of the people to keep
and bear arms”… It doesn’t say
the right of the government to take away arms or even restrict arms, and it
doesn’t just say the right of the people to keep or possess arms, it says to
keep and to bear arms. Moreover, it
doesn’t say only bb guns or 22 caliber single shot rifles, it means to possess
and carry any kind of arm that the people want to keep and bear. It means any arm that the government
has. One would be hard pressed to
maintain a free state
against the threat of a tyrannical government that has fully-auto fifty caliber
machine guns by trying to defend oneself using a 22 caliber rifle or a 410
shotgun. In other words the people must
be armed with at least the same conventional weapons that the government
has. I personally would like a tank and
a missile launcher. The Second Amendment
doesn’t have any restrictions…if you think there should be, then one must amend
the Amendment according to law. In the
meantime I will stand on the Second Amendment the way the Framers wrote it,
intended it, for
the purpose of defending my Freedom.
Shall
not be infringed
The fourth and last part is the most violated part
of the Amendment, ironically it is the part that says the government can’t even
think about violating or restricting or even infringing on the right. Our governments have been surreptitiously
infringing, restricting, controlling, violating, and encroaching on this constitutional
law for a long time. And that is how we
arrived where we are today. All in the
name of safety, while the only way to be safe, is to be able to defend oneself.
So you see the only thing standing between “We The
People” and tyranny is the Second Amendment, or what is left of it.
I find it
interesting that the anti-American, anti-Constitutional, anti-Freedom anti-gun
people who pretend to be so concerned about the 20 murdered 7-8 year old
children in a school in the state of Connecticut, are the same people who have advocated the murder of more the 50
million unborn children all across America.
I don’t
know, I just have a hard time balancing the logic on that one; it somehow
causes me to doubt their sincerity. How
about you?
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., recently unveiled
new gun-control legislation, calling for a ban on more weapons than the
original “assault weapons” ban as well as a limit on feeding mechanisms such as
magazines. At least she may have finally
defined what an assault weapon is… it apparently means all weapons!
If you’re going to reduce the number of rounds in a
gun, where is the constitutional stop for that?
Do you do it at 10 rounds? Seven rounds?
Six, five, four, one? Or do you
just say everything has to be a single shot and not go boom? When you go down this road of incremental
encroachment upon our Second Amendment rights to defend freedom, I think they
probably would not stop at machetes or even large capacity rocks. But that’s the direction they want to go my
friend. Because they don’t want to
control guns, they want to control people, they want all the power. What
do you think they are going to do with that power?
We must also be ready to fight against the looming
push for universal gun registration. That
would mean that every transaction on guns in America would have to be approved
by a federally licensed firearm dealer. That
would mean that Christmas would be outlawed unless all of us got a federal
firearms license. If we want to trade
guns or buy one for each other, it can’t change hands without having the
universal registration component as well as the registration of all
grandfathered guns that one already has.
Moreover it puts you on a list that just leads to the next obvious step
of total gun confiscation.
And they didn’t stop there; they are also attacking
the heart of the gun… ammunition. If you
can even find it, it will cost you double or triple, it will be taxed like cigarettes.
No more mail order, no bulk purchases, and
then the DHS is buying up millions of rounds of hollow point ammo, why? And then we must have a background check to
purchase ammo and then sign for it; this is a de-facto gun registration itself.
It looks like everyone is preparing for war.
So how should Congress approach gun issues? It’s easy; lawmakers should read the
Constitution behave themselves and obey it for a change.
We need to hold our ground and keep our weapons in order
to keep our freedom. Let me take you
back to what Judge Andrew Napolitano said.
I thought he made it very clear. He
said, “The Second Amendment isn’t about the right to shoot a deer. It’s a right to shoot tyrants. We have that Second Amendment to protect us
from tyranny, and as long as that restraint is there, we’re unlikely to see a
tyrant take over this country.”
And will all these gun laws stop the murder of
innocent children? Obviously Not! But overturning the GUN FREE ZONE ACT will…
THE BOTTOM LINE: As I said at the beginning, I
did not write the Second Amendment, someone a lot more intelligent than I wrote
it. And I really don’t look forward to
shooting or hurting anyone. But if my
freedom of speech my freedom of religion and my right to defend it is
threatened, I will shoot the tyrant that comes to my door to take it away…
…“tis in vain, sir, to extenuate the
matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace,
but there is no peace. The war is
actually begun! The next gale that
sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be
purchased at the price of chains and slavery?
Forbid it, Almighty God! I know
not what course others may take; but as for me, give me
liberty or give me death!”--- Patrick Henry speaking to the congress just before launching the
Revolutionary war.
Now I hope you understand how
important the Second Amendment really is, what it says and what it’s for… Without it we may as well be living in North Korea
Thanks for listening – de Andréa
Copyright © 2013 by Bottom Line Publishing - Permission to reprint in whole or in part is
gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment