Our Guarantee of Sovereignty... The Second Amendment

Submitted by SadInAmerica on Thu, 08/20/2009 - 1:03pm.

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed... Second Amendment of the US Constitution

Not a day goes by where some paper in America publishes a column complaining about the number of guns owned by US citizens. Within the confines of the Obamacare debate, the writers all but scream about the danger these "Second Amendment Fanatics" pose to the rest of America, especially during one of the acrimonious town hall meetings. A huge point has been missed by every one of these columnists; the only known citizen injured at one of these meeting was Kenneth Gladney in St. Louis, MO. Mr. Gladny is a conservative who also happens to be black. A circumstance every liberal columnist will avoid commenting on like the plague.

Such hypocrisy is more common than not, especially in today's new progressive America. This attitude, bolstered by the election of an unrepentant socialist to the Presidency, has brought along a whole new collection of laws aimed at removing the ability of Americans to protect themselves and their families if the sanctity of their home comes under attack.

H.R. 45, offered up by Congressman Bobby Rush, another Chicago politician, would require a federal license for all handguns and semiautomatics, including those you currently possess; and It would require handgun and semi-auto owners to be thumb printed at the police station and to sign a certificate stating that you would keep that horrible weapon of mass destruction unloaded.  In addition to this the bill will require that anyone owning a firearm must also undergo psychiatric examination at their own expense. The bill was written to not only discourage, but to place a stigma on anyone who would dare to own a firearm. What is really draconian in H.R. 45 is the "crimes of omission" bit. A gun owner can be convicted of a crime if they forget to submit some piece of info to the government. Big Brother must be appeased, the constitution be damned.

Barrack Obama made a huge point of asserting his support of the Second Amendment while he was campaigning. Bills such as this one, coming from legislators who have easy, consistent access to Obama, foreshadow a different stand entirely. Our President's consistent attack on our once-secure freedoms shows just how dangerous Obama considers a fundamental interpretation of the constitution. His hydrogenBarrackide is working on the constitutional germ in our country.

Let's take a close look at the Second Amendment...

Line 1: A well-regulated militia,
Every single one of those opposed to any American citizen being able to own a firearm claim that the word "militia" here means "army", and since we now have an organized military for the federal branch we no longer need states militia such as those gathered together in the old days.

I find it interesting that in one breath these lefty logicians manage to change the interpretation of the word "militia" back and forth all on one sentence. I think James Madison understood the difference in meaning. He and his fellows had just finished defeating the best organized army and navy in the world at that time.

Line 2: being necessary to the security of a free State,
Those who want the American people disarmed focus on the word "state" in this line. They point to it with shaking finger and declare, "See! Right there. That proves this amendment is all about the federal government."

No, it's not. If anyone bothered to understand the history of this country, they would find that one of the chief debates during the time of its foundation was that over "free states" and a strong federal government. The majority came down on the side of the states. And no, they were not all Republicans. The line doesn't just intimate, it declares boldly that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, not the federal government. They did not wholly trust Washington before the district existed.

Line 3: the right of the people to keep and bear arms,
I don't know how liberals manage to twist the word "people" here to mean US Military Personnel, but they do. It has been said that liberalism is a mental disorder and when you get into a debate about the US Constitution, the evidence supporting that statement becomes overwhelming.

This line states plainly that the amendment is focusing on the individual right to own and operate a firearm. It doesn't say anything about the make, type or model of firearm. Simply because Mac 10s and Uzis didn't exist during the late 18th century is meaningless where this right is concerned. If you don't like it, go through the process defined in the constitution and change it, but you cannot disregard it, at least, not if you really do support the constitution.

Line 4: shall not be infringed.

Congressman Rush must be a product of No Child Left Behind. I say this because he must not understand big words like "infringed". For all those liberals out there who spent their time in school taking diversity classes instead of the three Rs, infringed means to violate, trespass or not fulfill. In essence, this line says that you can't take the peoples' guns away from them.

Of course Congressman Rush comes from Chicago, the same city that produced Obama and everyone's favorite governor Rod Blagojevich. There are few cities in the US that can claim higher crime numbers than Chicago, except for possibly New York. Both cities boast extreme liberal governments and motivations. Isn't it interesting that the more civil rights are infringed, the higher the crime rate climbs?

What the majority of liberals do not understand is that most American citizens prefer to exercise personal responsibility. They want to be able to provide for themselves and their families, whether that be housing, feeding, or protecting. It is that spirit of self-reliance that helped to propel the US into a singular position in the world. To a liberal, that is one of the most hateful portions of American history.

Bob Beers - August 17, 2009 - source CanadaFreePress

Bob L. Beers is a member of the Nevada Assembly representing District 21 in Clark County, Nevada. Prior to his election in 2006, he was an author involved in graphic arts and illustration.  Bob can be reached at: bobbeers@cox.net

Tag this page!
Submitted by SadInAmerica on Thu, 08/20/2009 - 1:03pm.