The Rise And Fall Of The Second Amendment
Authored by Donald Jeffries via I Protest,
Everyone has undoubtedly heard about the shooting during the Super Bowl victory parade in Kansas City. These victory celebrations always bring the potential for trouble, what with all those young males consuming prodigious amounts of alcohol. And they draw the worst elements; the seemingly perpetually armed gang-bangers.
The shooting has triggered the yawningly predictable response from the “Woke” crowd. Which at this point means nearly our entire government and corporate leadership. One marvels at how many times clueless celebrities can breathlessly tweet out, “We have to do something about this!” or “We are failing the children!” It’s odd how the inanimate object- the gun- is always the Oswald-style patsy in these incidents. Often the names of those wielding the inanimate objects for no good are barely mentioned. Quick; name the Parkland school shooter. The Pulse gay night club shooter. It’s the guns, racist! The tweets in response to this most recent shooting, especially those emanating from the dying embers of Hollywood, are examples of insipid mindlessness. Digital postcards from the Idiocracy.
The text of the Second Amendment itself 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.” In my book Crimes and Cover-Ups in American Politics: 1776-1963, I devoted a section to the very clear comments by all the Founders, regarding what the Second Amendment actually meant. It would have been nice if they’d worded it better, so there wouldn’t be an opening for the usual suspects to interpret it to suit their agendas. But each and every one of those who ratified it, even the odious, bankers’ stooge Alexander Hamilton, left no doubt in their public comments, that the Bill of Rights protected the individual’s right to keep and bear arms.
It’s ironic that the word “militia” is in there, seeing as how that term has come to be demonized, especially since the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing, when Bill Clinton exploited it like a poster child for muscular dystrophy. All the state controlled media has to do at this point is claim some poor sap was associated with some “militia,” and its de facto evidence of guilt. Of something. Anything. James Madison, considered the father of the Constitution, noted in The Federalist Papers that "a standing army....would be opposed [by] militia." He wanted State governments to have the ability to “repel the danger" of a federal army. You know, like the Military Industrial Complex, which he could not have foreseen in his wildest dreams.
Thomas Jefferson in particular was vehemently opposed to a standing federal army. Like the rest of the Founders, he believed it was the responsibility of a citizens militia of ordinary Americans to defend their state, or in the rarest of circumstances, the entire country from an outside threat. He also made it clear that an armed citizenry was the best defense against government tyranny. As president, Jefferson slashed military spending. He noted, “Standing armies [are] inconsistent with [a people’s] freedom and subversive of their quiet.” In 1789, the author of the Declaration of Independence wrote, “There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors….Such an instrument is a standing army." No wonder he’s now a hopeless dead White “racist.”
By the time of Lincoln, our first imperial president, a national military was an unquestioned reality. No more fears about a standing army. Honest Abe instituted the first unconstitutional military draft, resulting in the bloody riots in New York. The immigrants du jour of the day, the Irish, quite naturally objected to being forced to participate in a senseless slaughter they had no historical or cultural association with. Lincoln’s federal army cut a deadly swath through the south, raping, destroying crops, burning homes, and engaging in the boldest larceny in the history of warfare, as they stole every valuable that wasn’t nailed down. For this, all Americans pay homage today. They were great American heroes.
The power of the national military grew, and we eviscerated George Washington’s warnings about “no entangling alliances,” and John Quincy Adams’ admonitions that we not “go abroad in search of monsters to destroy.” World Wars I and II were something Jefferson and the other Founders would have mortified by. They would have led chapters of the America First Committee. Another modern hero, Franklin Roosevelt, would have had them “cancelled” and perhaps imprisoned. That precedent had been set when Lincoln imprisoned his dissenters without any due process. Once the Pentagon was built, and the unconstitutional intelligence agencies established, we had something more than a standing army. We had an Occupying Force.
So this clash between individual firearm owners and a national military was inevitable. Individuals were not necessarily going to agree with the policies and actions of this national army, especially when it was given authority to run roughshod over American citizens. Look at what happened to the World War I “Bonus Army,” veterans of that senseless conflict, who naturally objected when their promised “bonus” was denied them. They set up tents on the Capitol, and U.S. forces, led by future superstars Douglas MacArthur and George Patton, defeated them as easily as William Sherman defeated the women and children of the Confederacy. So if you’re in our glorious federal military, don’t complain if they break a promise.
The distinction between Jefferson’s vision of a well armed citizens’ militia, and the modern Military Industrial Complex couldn’t be more obvious. Conservatives, however, generally adore this federal army, and the intelligence agencies that accompany it. They also worship our militarized police forces, and were ecstatic over the implementation of no-knock SWAT team raids on private homes. Until they raided Mar-a-Lago, that is. But all that’s been forgotten. The FBI was not abolished, and the Right seems cool with the Occupying Force again. Exactly how different is a gun aficionado saying “Thank you for your service” from a masochist saying “Thank you, may I have another?”
The individual right to bear arms conflicts with armed (and militarized) police officers, and certainly with the armed forces of the United States, the largest military the world has ever seen. When a citizen has an encounter with a law enforcement officer, regardless of the nature of the “law” they’re enforcing, the Second Amendment disappears. You’re not going to find a case where an armed citizen shot a cop in self-defense, without being prosecuted. It doesn’t matter how unjustified the officer was, the officer is by default considered to be in the right. If you don’t like it, take it to court. Where you will unquestionably lose. The courts are always going to be the final arbiter in any battle between armed citizens and the Occupying Force. And you know what side they’ll be on. Every single time.
It wasn’t until 2008 that the Supreme Court first ruled that the Second Amendment protected an individual’s right to self-defense in his own home. This hasn’t stopped some unfortunate homeowners, like Byron Smith of Minnesota, from being convicted of murder; he shot two home invaders who proved to be unarmed. Others in similar situations have been charged as well, while in some cases reason still prevails and the homeowner is considered to have acted understandably. From what I’ve heard, you are always considered justified in shooting someone if they are setting fire to your home. How this differs from robbery is something only our esteemed judges can fathom. So if you have a home invader, throw him some matches, and urge him to commit arson. Maybe he won’t understand the nuances of the law.
So here we are today, in America 2.0. The battle lines have been drawn. In this corner, you have the challenger, the Second Amendment. An antiquated notion dreamed up by long dead White “racists.” And in the other corner, you have the Occupying Force, hailing from Washington, D.C., undefeated and untied. Second Amendment activists today concentrate on simply keeping their own weapons. Being able to hunt legally. To go target shooting. There is no emphasis on protection from government tyranny, which was the motivation behind the amendment in the first place. The Occupying Force knows it has nothing to fear from “gun nuts.” They remember the victories at Ruby Ridge. And Waco. And the Bundy ranch, to mention just a few examples.
If all the gun enthusiasts that Hollywood frets over really had government tyranny in mind, like the Founders did, they would have reacted differently during the unconstitutional COVID lockdown. I must have missed all of the standoffs between armed small business owners and the Occupying Force, which was denying them the right to earn a living. Or between concealed carry owners and authoritarian officers demanding they wear a mask, or stop letting their children play in a park. Presumably, the vast majority of those who came to the January 6 Stop the Steal rally in Washington, D.C. were gun owners. And yet, the authorities couldn’t find a single gun anywhere. That’s not only an odd way to conduct an “insurrection,” it’s indicative of the mindset of most gun activists. Just let me hang my weapons on the wall.
Now, please don’t think I’m suggesting that gun owners take up arms against the government. The military industrial complex would make such a thing impossible, regardless. But if your primary issue is the Second Amendment, you ought to at least acknowledge that its purpose was not to protect your right to hunt, or to target practice. It was as a safeguard against an encroaching, corrupt government. I think that, if enough small business owners had let the authorities know they were armed and ready to defend their livelihood from an out of control Occupying Force, that perhaps the lockdown wouldn’t have been quite as successful. How about armed pastors, defending their right to conduct religious services? You had one half-assed protest in Michigan, which was demonized over a Confederate flag or something.
While the Left wants citizens to be subjected to the mercy of kind-hearted, well-armed police and soldiers, some on the Right want to arm teachers, for instance. Now, having looked at enough TikTok videos to see just how many teachers today are fortunate that the mental institutions have mostly closed, these are the last people on earth I want to be possessing firearms. In school. While my kids are compelled to be there. Can you imagine an unstable, purple haired “educator” becoming irate at a MAGA hat or something? Do you really want that person to have a gun handy? Somehow, I don’t see more guns in schools making things safer.
As always, we didn’t reach this stage overnight. That’s why I focus so much on hidden history. The “loyal” unionists should have realized that by permitting a despot like Lincoln to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, and shut down over two hundred newspapers, they were paving the way for future government tyranny. The people who sat idly by while Eugene Debs and the other WWI protesters were ludicrously portrayed as “yelling fire in a crowded theater,” made possible the Orwellian concept of “Hate Speech” which we know and love today. That same generation accepted the ridiculous, anti-liberty figure of “Uncle Sam,” and allowed it to symbolize the growing unconstitutional federal government. The Occupying Force. Really, how different is our Uncle Sam from Oceana’s Big Brother?
World War II- the “good” war. The “greatest generation.” Read what I wrote about their true conduct in Crimes and Cover-Ups. The Korean “conflict,” like every nonsensical American interventionist escapade since then conducted without a declaration of war by Congress, as they’re constitutionally required to do. Now, we’re permitting billions to flow into a Zionist dictator in Ukraine, while American citizens are living in tents and shitting in the street. But all this was possible because the government- through its military industrial complex and its localized police forces- has “the meat,” to quote the Arby’s commercial. There is no limitation on their firearms. No one will accuse them of “stockpiling” weapons, or possessing “illegal” weapons. And our brave police officers must be able to protect themselves. It’s an “officer safety” thing, you wouldn’t understand.
Any discussion of “gun control” from todays Left begins and ends with individual ownership. They don’t talk about “responsible” gun ownership on the part of police forces. Like shooting deaf people in the back when they don’t respond to your orders. Or our increasingly “Woke” military forces. Like killing that wedding party in Yemen was pretty irresponsible, I think. If some lone, deranged individual plowed down a wedding party, do you think he’d ever see the light of day again? But military atrocities are rarely acknowledged, let alone prosecuted. Look what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nothing to the brave soldiers who played soccer with decapitated heads, or killed a family of civilians. Instead, it was then Bradley Manning, who exposed the atrocities through Wikileaks, that was punished. Along with Julian Assange, who will still probably feel the wrath of a justice-free legal system.
Hollywood doesn’t really have anything against guns. After all, every blockbuster action movie throughout history has featured guns of all varieties front and center. The hero- often played by a hypocritical “liberal” that pontificates about gun control while being protected by armed personal security- can’t beat the armed bad guys without arms of his own. I think that’s kind of what Thomas Jefferson was talking about. If the police and the military are going to have guns, the citizens should be allowed to have them, too. Must be allowed to have them, as all the Founders carefully noted for posterity. That’s one of many reasons the Founders are ignored today, other than to be castigated as worthless, “racist” relics from the stone age.
I would love for there to be a way to destroy every gun in the world, starting with all those controlled by governments. But that isn’t possible. We can even create them on our own now, with those incomprehensible 3-D printers. And how many gun control laws are already on the books? The big cities, where the most gun violence occurs, have the strictest gun laws. As the conservatives accurately point out, the criminals aren’t buying guns legally, and will always find a way to get them illegally. So any restrictions on firearms impacts law abiding citizens exclusively. You know, the ones who are no threat to ever commit a violent crime. And yet, the “Woke” mantra, from Democratic Party politicians to their sycophants in the entertainment world, is that something must be done. For the children! Who they are in favor of aborting or “transitioning.” That’s the only kind of “choice” they support.
That something, of course, is to ban individual ownership of firearms. These “Woke” activists want only the police and the military to have them. Not you. If that doesn’t reflect the most naive trust in authority imaginable, I don’t know what would. And it contradicts the whole spirit of our own fight for independence. The Minutemen. Give me liberty or give me death. Obviously, we could never have seceded from British rule (and yes, that is the proper term), without the possession of firearms. The Shot Heard Around the World couldn’t have happened without a weapon to fire it. King George could have decided to enslave all the colonists, not just the Black ones. And without guns, what exactly could the colonists- our ancestors- have done about it?
I’ve never been a violent person. I don’t understand violence, so I certainly can’t comprehend gun violence. I love peace. Give me the Summer of Love again, without the drugs and the government infiltrators. But the gun “debate” isn’t going to go away until either the Second Amendment is officially abolished, or a majority of the citizens make it known that they will accept no more restrictions on their constitutional right to bear arms. If nothing else, having a well-armed citizenry makes the criminal government think twice before launching yet another unconstitutional act. It’s bad enough living under an Occupying Force when millions of Americans do own firearms. Consider what it would be like without them. Again, I am not advocating violence of any kind. But we must speak out while we still can.