Beware ruling class media organs pushing a new initiative to ban guns

I just watched an NBC special video which was an effort to persuade somebody that the Second Amendment was not about a personal right to bear arms.

The elephant in the room for this debate over semantics and grammar is the following question.

Why would the writers of the Bill of Rights and the state legislators that voted for it bother with any amendment at all protecting the right of any government-owned or government-run militia to bear arms.

That amendment was a direct result of the experience the colonists had with their own government. And yet too many of today’s so-called leftists and fascists claim that the Second Amendment was to protect the state militia, as if it were the same as today’s too-much federalized National Guard.

These gaslighting power-grabbers are gaslighting the public.

The problem with mass shootings today is not that one drug-deranged mental case can get hold of a gun, never mind the most gun-banned jurisdictions in the US are where the most gun crimes happen. The problem is that when they start shooting, there aren’t enough people shooting back at them on the spot and in the act. This fact is so obvious that virtually every movie with a bad guy shooting innocent people is stopped by somebody shooting back.

Somebody might object, what about McGyver, who never carries a gun in the episodes but still manages to save the day? The glaring gaping flaw in that writing is that every time he and his friends are facing armed bad guys, McGyver always manages to rig up something like a homemade Molotov cocktail, or a bazooka made with handy materials, or something that shoots acid at them. In other words, some kind of weapon, often explosive.

What good is “the right of the people to bear arms” if it does not apply to persons living under a regime that does not qualify for the prefatory clause there, “necessary to the security of a free state”. What if the “state” becomes a tyranny?

Besides, that was also in the days when individual states understood the ratification of the Constitution as never prohibiting secession from that Union. After all, that’s implicit in the ratification and in many if not most or all of the legislators ratifying understood it that way.

In any case, the Second Amendment is best interpreted as a written acknowledgement that each person’s right to defend themselves, and by extension, the Constitution, “from all [its] enemies, foreign and domestic“.

%d bloggers like this: