The Second Amendment — for Liberal/Progressives (i.e. DUMMIES)

FUNDAMENTALS OF NATURAL LAW: The Natural Right to Self Defense

Let me just say this as forcefully as I can: anyone who argues that the Second Amendment does not protect the individual’s right to keep and bear arms is either arguing from ignorance or lying!  In most cases, primarily those of average citizens, they argue from ignorance instilled by our schools and our media.  But in the case of those who are in positions to know better, they are most always lying to you.  They may argue that the Second Amendment applies only to the ‘militia,’ or they may argue about the definition of the militia or even that the need for the Second Amendment has passed.  But everyone – everyone – who makes an argument like that is a tyrant who is seeking control over you – everyone!  There are no exceptions!  You can see it in this story about a former member of the Supreme Court who is lying about the Second Amendment for the purpose of establish control over the population at large:

Former Member of the Supreme Court Wants to Add These Five Words to the Second Amendment

Now, instead of quoting the founders, or worrying about the definition of militia, or even debating whether or not the Second Amendment is obsolete, let me go straight to the Declaration of Independence to explain why everyone who claims the right to bear arms is not an individual right is wrong.  Then you test my explanation against what the founders believed to see whether you think the founders would have disagreed with me.  Just keep in mind, this requires that you know and understand what the founders believed: specifically, Natural Law and Natural Rights as Locke explained them.

Read the rest (it’s worth it)

9 thoughts on “The Second Amendment — for Liberal/Progressives (i.e. DUMMIES)

      • Joe/Don: Unfortunately Joe is right on this. As an example, the amendment that legalized the expropriation of private property under the progressive income tax is clearly in violation of the “Takings Clause,” and yet both now exist in the same document. No one can accuse Liberal/Progressives of being excessively logical or rational or even particularly bright. They are clever and vicious, and completely free of conventional morality. That is why they are so easily destroyed in rational argument and why they depend on greed and sheep-like behavior to advance their programs. Their credo…”Some animals are more equal than other animals!!!” CDE

        • Chuck and Joe

          I’m not sure you guys are right on this. The example you give Charles relates to the Body of the Constitution itslef…..and NOT the Bill of Rights. I don’t argue with what you say about the Takings caluse etc….. just that it doesn’t address those Rights. The 16th Amendment went against more than merely the takings clause. The Constitution says further in Article 1, section 2….” Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers”.

          Thus the Constitution clearly defines the Only mannor that a direct tax can be implemented by the Federal government. It can only be assessed to a STATE and in the same manner that the number of representatives is assessed, according to the STATE’S census.

          Let’s be clear…. * The Constitution prohibited the central government from having the authority to place a DIRECT FEDERAL INCOME TAX ON INDIVIDUALS. *

          Further….. Article 1 section 8 says ” The congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes , Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; BUT all Duties, Imposts and Exises…. SHALL BE UNIFORM THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES> ”

          Therefore there is NO AUTHORITY for a “progressive income tax” either.

          There are questions as to how the 16th was ratified in the individual states as well.

          But With respect to the Amendment Process… understanding is that the process is suppossed to AUGMENT the Constitutional Protections and ADD to individual rights and States rights…..not DETRACT from it. In other words the Amendment process was not articulated by the Founders as a way to UNRAVEL the Constitution…..and Bill of Rights.

          BUT….. My main point is that the Bill of Rights defined the basic Rights not to be “voted out ” by Majority ( Democrat-Mob rule)…..which was the whole purpose of satarting a REPUBLIC in the first place.

          So Our Basic Rights…..Underlined by the Bill of Rights…..protected by the Structure of government as a Republic….and governed by a Constitution which gave LIMITED ( Enumerated ) power to the Government explicity NOT Plenary ( Unlimited ) power…..for the Basic Purpose of ensuring tyhose rights……futher Amendments wherer to augment those rights and/ or Articulate them further as per the 9th and 10th amendments.

          • Don,

            Let me be clear on this: it is not that the founders did not believe as you say, but that the TEXT of the Constitution and BoR does not prohibit their Amendment.

            Hence the need to understand and link the Declaration to the Constitution again. Once you do that, then the BoR cannot be changed and the 16th becomes recognizable as void because it violates Natural Law.

            Remember: if you can be taxed on your PROPERTY, then you do not own it. Yet your PROPERTY is yours as an extension of your life and labor and, hence, cannot be taken away by force. Therefore, direct taxation on income or property is a violation of Natural Law. Keep in mind, God levied a per capita tax on ALL Hebrews when He ordained the Temple tax. It was the same for the rich and the poor. And that is how taxes should work if they are to align with Natural Law.

            • WRT your LAST paragraph….YES!….and reading the text of the Constitution I highlighted above kinda says a similar thing no ! ?…… apportioned by Census….and EQUAL..( NOT progressive ).. :- ) .

              WRT your Second Paragraph …… YES again…… and it is interesting that the process of Ratification itself was very questionable at best….meaning that those in the *States legislatures* in 1913, got the Original intention of The Constitution as well as the essence of what you are getting at.

              • Don,

                From what I understand, the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified. There is some question about the vote before it was sent to the States having been conducted without a quorum. If this is true, it is null and void — but good luck getting anyone to consent to this fact.

                As we have seen even here on the RNL, people who should and DO know better will still concede to convention to avoid the difficulty and hardship of doing the right thing.

  1. Pingback: The Daley Gator | How about some great links?

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.