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
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” 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’!
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.
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
”… So why is the Second Amendment
necessary? Well it’s not for hunting
deer that’s for sure. No! Try this… for maintaining 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
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.