July 20, 2018

Have We Progressed Beyond The Second Amendment

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

One of the many reasons I don’t and will not support any of the so-called “gun rights” organizations is because, while they may pretend to be supporters of the Second Amendment, they fully support “reasonable” restrictions to gun ownership. It is why, eventually, the Second Amendment will be erased from the Bill of Rights.

For those who may have forgotten the words of the Second Amendment: “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.”

Nothing more and nothing less. Let me repeat that. Nothing more and nothing less.

We know that people have been propagandized to fear guns and along with that fear have been convinced that it’s the guns that kill not people and if we just got rid of the guns there would be no killing. That’s not even a rational statement. Why then?……..never mind.

It’s so deeply ingrained into our processes of choosing words, it becomes obvious, to me anyway, in news articles like the one I read this morning about a man who had been brought to court on charges of illegally shooting a deer. The reporter writes: “…the empty rifle shell casing had been ejected from the gun that shot the deer.” Guns don’t shoot anything. A person chooses to use a gun to shoot with.

That’s only half the problem. The other half are the “gun rights” people who spend much time, money and effort doing all they can to lessen the degree of concessions being demanded by the fascists/totalitarians. If this is what they believe is their purpose, do you really want to support it? Is it that they want an amendment to the Second Amendment? How about the Second Amendment reading something like this:

“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 all at once.”

In Maine, Michael Bloomberg (please see this expose on Bloomberg and his “brown shirts”) for “Everytown for Gun Safety,” plans a referendum vote this November in order to mandate “universal background checks.” The term is double-speak for a complete infringement on the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms…PERIOD. I’m not going to spend time trying to explain to readers what the proposed law would mean, as if somehow seeing this one makes the other restrictions not so bad. They all are infringements!

David Trahan, executive director for the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, offers an opinion piece about the upcoming vote. While the entire piece contains accurate and disturbing information about the realities of a passage of Bloomberg’s proposals, he fails to specifically address the Second Amendment and present it as a guaranteed right without compromise.

How often in this country does anyone spend this amount of time challenging any of the other amendments? I thought so. How often do we hear all the whining about what might happen if a proposal to allow “reasonable” restrictions to free speech, freedom of religious worship, the right to assemble, protection of illegal searches and seizures or the right to a speedy trial? I thought so.

Why then do we expend so much time and energy attempting to convince people that some restrictions to the Second Amendment are more damaging than others? Is a right still a right if it is partially taken away?

The NRA does the same thing. I’m tired of always hearing from ignorant supporters that the NRA is “the best thing we got.” I say if you have friends like the NRA, who needs enemies? The NRA does a marvelous job of slowing down the eventual destruction of the Second Amendment; while making tons of money by the way. For instance, of late the NRA, and other Second Amendment proponents (wink, wink) have come out to say that they support new technologies on “smart” guns. A “smart” gun is a gun that could not be fired unless it matched the fingerprint, or some other biological or physiological constitution of the person who owns the gun.

Has anybody thought about how forcing the public, for surely it will be mandated, is a violation of the Second Amendment? And this is reasonable? If you WANT, i.e. CHOOSE to have a “smart” gun, go nuts. Don’t force me because I can tell you right now I can’t afford to buy one and THAT is an infringement on my God-given right to protect myself, my family and my property.

The reality of all this is that there are far too many people who are brainwashed (and they don’t know it, of course) who believe that giving up “reasonable” rights is for the good of all. The propagandizing of this nation is nearly complete. Fascists and this government have turned us all either scared or stupid, willing to give up anything of “national security.”

While I do not think opinion letters, like the one mentioned above, should not be written, it would be much better, if they showed belief in the Second Amendment, as written, without amendments and “reasonable” limitations, to present that opinion from a position of complete adherence rather than attempting to convince people it goes too far.

One step beyond the words of the Second Amendment are too far, but not to the majority. Tomorrow’s reasonable was yesterday’s too far.

The end is near.

 

Share