The Second Amendment: Constitutional Truth Versus Obamunist Lies

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."                                                                                                         Thomas Jefferson

By Frank Shannon

     With the Newtown Massacre, as with other acts of basest evil perpetrated with a gun, the Obamunist regime has, predictably, used such an occurrence as a means of foulest exploitation, politically feeding, as it were, on the victims of such an outrage like the ideologically-corrupt vultures that they are.

     Barack Hussein Obama, despite the claims of pundits on the political right, my own stomping ground, is neither incompetent nor ignorant of Constitutional principle. Charges of incompetence and ignorance have been leveled against Obama in all areas – whether economic, domestic, global, military, dealing with terrorism, or with regard to social issues here in the US. Obama knows exactly what he’s doing, the Constitution – or the will or well-being of the American people – be damned.

     A big part of the problem that allows Obama, declared to be an expert in Constitutional law, to subvert and disregard the Constitution is the fact that far too many Americans are, in fact, ignorant of the Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights. This is, in part, attributable to the fact that textbooks that have been inflicted on recent generations of our children have been grossly misrepresentative of our Constitutional rights. The Second Amendment, case in point, is more often than not misrepresented as the function of the states to organize militias or the right of the states to regulate firearms ownership. The Supreme Court, however held in the District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008 – five years ago - that the Second Amendment does indeed protect an individual’s right to keep and bear arms.

     Politicians and political "leaders" seem intent on diverting the collective focus of the American public on "sports shooting" and "self-defense" when it comes to firearms. The purpose of the Second Amendment’s guarantee of our right to keep and bear arms, however, is not for the purposes of shooting burglars or hunting deer. It exists, in fact, for the express purpose of affording the American people the ability to defend itself – through armed force – against the tyranny of an oppressive government.

     "The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms," wrote Thomas Jefferson, our third president and principal author of the Declaration of  Independence, "is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

     The Federalist Papers, a series of eighty-five articles written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay as a sort of public relations move promoting the ratification of the US Constitution, provides ample insight into the original intent of the Founding Fathers and the necessity of the Second Amendment in maintaining the heritage of liberty with which we’ve been endowed by the wisdom of the Framers of the Constitution.

     "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms," wrote James Madison, our fourth president and the key author of our Bill of Rights,  in Federalist Paper #46. "The ultimate authority . . . resides in the people alone."

     "[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude," Alexander Hamilton, our first secretary of the Treasury, wrote in Federalist Paper #29, "that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights."

     American citizens "little if at all inferior to" a standing army "in discipline and use of arms"? And the Obamunist regime would deny us "assault" weapons or "military-style" weapons? The Founding Fathers, it’s clear, had other ideas.

     "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed," Hamilton wrote in The Federalist Papers.

      So, with the Founding Fathers’ conviction being that the American people be able to defend their liberty against a tyrannical and oppressive government, and since doing so requires that we, collectively and essentially a "militia," be armed and equipped in a manner capable of matching up to a military force, the notion that Americans don’t "need" certain firearms, such as those disingenuously villainized by senators Dianne Feinstein of California or Schmuck Chumer (also known as Chuck Schumer) of New York in the 2004 Assault Weapons Ban with which they violated the Constitution is an exercise in mendacity which needs to be opposed at every step. The same goes for any prohibition against "high capacity magazines." The Anti-Constitutional Left is concerned with thirty-round magazines? Heck, I want belt-fed ammo!

     Why, the Anti-Constitutional Left asks, would anyone want or need high capacity magazines? That’s easy. To lay down and sustain lethal firepower against the oppression dished out by a tyrannical government.

     So, folks, don’t buy into the diversionary efforts by the Left to make the issue about hunting deer or shooting burglars. Don’t be drawn into the dog’n’pony show provided by Vice Bungler Joe Biden when he advises women to get a shotgun,  while other, even more dingbatty leftists are advising women, in the event of a rape attempt, to urinate or puke on a rapist, or use a whistle or a ballpoint pen. A ballpoint pen? My advice would be to empty the magazine of a 9mm semi-auto into the groin of the attacker. Considerably more effective than a ballpoint pen. Still, while permanently ending the threat posed by any rapists is a good thing, the bottom line of the Second Amendment has been – and will remain – the defense of our liberty against tyranny, especially when the threat exists in the guise of our own government. Those "in power" may have forgotten – or chosen to disregard – the words of Lincoln at Gettysburg, "of the people, by the people, for the people." As long as we, the people, remember those words – and are willing to remind those in power, in strenuous terms when necessary – hope remains for the United States of America.