February 25, 2018

Second Amendment Creation Was a Racism Event

If you choose to read this article – I neither encourage nor discourage it – consider what the author says in full. After reading it, come back and reread the below that I copied and pasted from the article. Perhaps you might agree that in the author’s explanation for the “need” of the Second Amendment, it is substantiated by all the claims that he makes in attempts to vilify it, even resorting to place racism at the foundation of the Second Amendment.

Is the author suggesting that it wasn’t until AFTER the United States formed a government military that we were no longer free and secure? I don’t think the author sees what he wrote in this manner but consider what he did say. It would be my opinion that this author is one who “trusts” his government and turns to his government for all his needs. When that is the case, then how he presents his case is from the position of what he was taught and how he has chosen to live his life of servitude.

If his claim is true that the real reason for the Second Amendment was to prevent creation of a professional army, i.e. the law enforcement branch of the Government, because giving government the power over the people historically proved the loss of being free and secure to the people, then this author misses his own point or errs in presenting a poor one.

Perhaps he is blinded by his own anger and hatred.

Preventing the United States from starting a professional army, in fact, was the single most important goal of the Second Amendment. It is hard to recapture this fear today, but during the 18th century few boogeymen were as scary as the standing army — an army made up of professional, full-time soldiers.

By the logic of the 18th century, any society with a professional army could never be truly free. The men in charge of that army could order it to attack the citizens themselves, who, unarmed and unorganized, would be unable to fight back. This was why a well-regulated militia was necessary to the security of a free state: To be secure, a society needed to be able to defend itself; to be free, it could not exist merely at the whim of a standing army and its generals.

The only way to be both free and secure was for citizens to be armed, organized and ready to defend their society. The choice was a stark one: a standing army or a free nation.

Share

The Unfolding Psychological Operation – “Armed Guards Won’t Work”

 

 

Share

Boss Hogg In The News

 

Design masquerading as Diagnosis – the main tool of the elites and their ‘think tanks’ and ‘foundations’…

Well Then, What Will Today’s Fake News Specials Be…

Share

The “33” Club Speaking With Mouths Full Of Bones

 

Share

Weirder Things In A Weird Weird World

Share

My Lai

In one of the most horrific incidents of violence against civilians during the Vietnam War, a company of American soldiers brutally killed the majority of the population of the South Vietnamese hamlet of My Lai in March 1968. Though exact numbers remain unconfirmed, it is believed that as many as 500 people including women, children and the elderly were killed in the My Lai Massacre.. Higher-ranking U.S. Army officers managed to cover up the events of that day for a year before revelations by a soldier who had heard of the massacre sparked a wave of international outrage and led to a special investigation into the matter. In 1970, a U.S. Army board charged 14 officers of crimes related to the events at My Lai; only one was convicted. The brutality of the My Lai killings and the extent of the cover-up exacerbated growing antiwar sentiment on the home front in the United States and further divided the nation over the continuing American presence in Vietnam.
http://www.history.com/topics/vietnam-war/my-lai-massacre

Nothing exceptional about U.S. Military exceptionalism.. Nothing at all..

The most dangerous hands military grade assault weapons can be in is the military’s.. History of military acts bares this truth out…

Share

Does Natural “World” Respect Man If Man Respects it First?

The natural world is incapable of respecting mankind or itself or anything…

“We humans intuitively understood that we had an obligation and responsibility to protect and respect the natural world. And if we did so, the natural world would respect and provide for us as well as all the “others” meaning the rest of creation.”—George Wuerthner

“It is almost impossible systematically to constitute a natural moral law. Nature has no principles. She furnishes us with no reason to believe that human life is to be respected. Nature, in her indifference, makes no distinction between good and evil.”~Anatole France — La Révolte des Anges [The Revolt of the Angels] (1914), ch. XXVII

Dear George, you’re free to think that and I’m free to think you’re crazy…

Lollipop History, Bubblegum Mathematics, Physics gone insane, and whacked out of this world Scientism…

Gawblesmurka!!

Share

While Crying Over Those Children In Florida Don’t Forget This

So you want to give monsters like these your guns aye?

 

Share

Full Spectrum Federalist Dominance Spreading Like Malignant Cancer

Well worth the listen.. And a good description of today’s gatekeepers who go along to get along while saying NOTHING…

 

Share

Maybe If We Prove Something 216 Times You’ll Finally Wise Up?

Share