Many in the world do not understand about “Americans” and their “GUNS”!

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms (RKBA) is guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States. The Second amendment to our Constitution. That means that our forefathers valued that right only a little less than the Right to freedom of speech! How do we knows this, well it was the second right granted to us in that Constitution. There were a number of things that the British attempted to establish when they wanted to keep America under their thumb. They outlawed the right to assemble and tried to ban Firearms. If you can speak freely and you have Firearms then you are free. To lose these rights means you do not have the means to control your own Government!

Where freedom of speech is not free then you will see a repressive ruling body, not a government. Where you cannot freely own firearms you will not be able to maintain a freedom of speech or a Government “Of the People”.

A lot of time has been wasted on deciding what our forefathers meant by a “well regulated militia”. It is known that they considered every man from 16 to 49 years of age part of that militia. Many say the National Guard is what fulfills our need for a militia. The National Guard is a State run extension of the U.S. army. But then the states also have State militias.

All of these organizations are State controlled. In the case where our people might need to reign in our own government, these organizations would be suspect at best. All of them take the “Oath” to protect the constitution from “Enemies Foreign and Domestic”. They also swear an Oath to their home states. These organizations do not support actions against their own government, even if that government is trying to destroy the Constitution!

Many point to the nations that have almost totally disarmed their people. They like to show that those nations have less murders by firearms. But do those nations have less murders overall. Usually they do not. Another case in point is Switzerland. Every man from 16 to 60 is part of their national forces. They have very low numbers of murders by firearms and lower crime rates.

Guns do not kill people, people kill people. Disarming people makes it easier for people to be killed, not the opposite. Our media focuses on “gun crimes”. The fact is that thousands of people are killed per year. And thousands of those are not by firearms. The same media states there should be zero tolerance for gun crimes almost ignores the fact that drunk drivers kill more Americans every year than guns do. They state that guns are the tool for mass murders. But families are wiped out in one fell swoop by a drunk driver. Their premise is that drunk drivers do not intentionally kill. That is not true. Every person knows that drunk driving kills people, yet they continue to drive drunk. If we are going to have no tolerance for murder then it should be applied throughout the spectrum of tools that are used to commit the murder.

It is funny that our (American) Liberals would not have to be heard if it were not for the First Amendment. Those same Liberals are willing to roll under the second amendment. How long do they think the First Amendment will last if an assault on any of the other amendments is allowed to happen? This is especially true of the Second amendment! We are already seeing what the electronic age has done to our rights. When a intelligence agency like NSA has denied us and most of the rest of the world its rights, to privacy, to face its accuser, to unreasonable searches and seizures, We have all lost just a little more of our “Rights”. Our very own Government that has sworn to uphold our “Constitutional Rights”.

So did our Forefathers mean for us to take up arms against our own Government? I do not believe they did, but they allowed for the possibility that in the future it may become necessary to do just that!

Our present leaders need to re-read our Constitution and see that our forefathers were wiser men than they, our leaders, tend to believe they were. Our press needs to allow the people to speak freely, some believe it does now, but when you as an independent person cannot get “airtime” but every crackpot can! The closest we can come is a letter to the editor of the newspapers. Unfortunately those newspapers are dying out and leaving the populace with less and less of a free voice. It seems that your ability to pay for airtime is the measure of your freedom to speak!


Leave a Reply