EVERYONE LIKES TO TALK ABOUT WHAT THE SECOND SAYS BUT HOW ABOUT WE TALK ABOUT WHAT IT DOESN'T SAY...
THE SECOND AMMENDMENT DOESN'T ACTUALLY SAY ARMED WITH "GUNS" DOES IT. IT JUST SAYS ARMED..
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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." Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended scope.
Arms is short for armaments which comes from the Latin term armamentum which is from the term armare which means to arm meaning to give weapons. Basically it is derived from two Latin terms meaning to give weapons or weapons.
Nor does the second amendment specify the weapon must be lethal or for home defense.. It says for a well regulated militia and I would assume what the founding Fathers meant by well regulated is regulated by the State or authorized by the state and not by just any gang of uneducated redneck racist thugs calling themselves a militia.
HERE'S 10 OF THE BEST NON-GUN SELF-DEFENSE WEAPONS THAT MEET THE SECOND AMMENDMENT FOR BEING ARMED.
https://www.tbotech.com/10-best-non-gun-self-defense-tools.htm
https://www.outdoorrevival.com/old-ways/defense-weapons.html
https://spy.com/articles/gear/outdoors/best-self-defense-weapons-men-276589/
When the proposed Constitution was before the people for ratification, many anti-Federalists worried that the new government would be too powerful, and could become tyrannical in exactly the way Trump and his nazi republican insurrectionists have become.
The founders rejected the notion that individuals (like Trump) or some group (like the proud boys) could use armed force just because they did not like a particular law (or election result?).
https://youtu.be/-Gxc3X0jPww
In fact, they believed quite the opposite: The Constitution specifically empowers Congress "[t]o provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress insurrections (against the lawful government) and repel invasions."
The power was first exercised during the presidencies of George Washington and John Adams, when the federal government called forth state militias to suppress insurrections known as the Whiskey Rebellion (in western Pennsylvania) and Fries’s Rebellion (in eastern Pennsylvania). Both insurrections had grown out of anti-tax protests, in which mobs crossed the line by using armed force.
According to the Declaration of Independence, the only legitimate governments are those with the consent of the governed. When a government becomes the enemy and not the defender of human rights, the people can withdraw their consent (in an election?) and set up (or elect?) a new government.
https://civilrights.org/trump-rollbacks/
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/security/reports/2019/12/10/478458/president-trumps-alarming-human-rights-agenda-home-abroad/
In Federalist No. 46, James Madison reassured the public that the many checks and balances in the Constitution — the separation of powers between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, for example — made it very unlikely that a tyrant could seize power. If a tyrant did, he would speedily be deposed by the state governments, who would lead the armed people in the militias.
"Prudence dictates" against changing long-established governments, or withdrawing consent for "light and transient causes," said the declaration. But by 1776, "the long train of usurpations and abuses" by King George’s government had demonstrated "a design to reduce" the colonists "under absolute Despotism" much the same as Trump did throughout his presidency...
https://www.vox.com/2016/8/22/12559364/second-amendment-tyranny-militia-constitution-founders
No comments:
Post a Comment