Why You Were Lied To About The 2nd Amendment

Why is there such a huge debate over the 2nd Amendment, and why do politicians keep trying to disarm the people they’re supposed to serve?
~

[mikemaresca]

Whenever they argue that the "well regulated militia" is the military, I always ask, "why would a government guarantee the right of itself to have firearms?".

[OneHitWonder]

If the 1st Amendment applies to radio, TV, and the internet, and if the 4th Amendment applies to electronic surveillance and video surveillance, then the 2nd Amendment applies to modern weapons.

[jimsmith]

The 2nd Amendment DOES NOT give the people the right to keep and bear arms. "The right of the people" means that we already have this right. We are born with the right to defend ourselves, and the 2nd Amendment says the government shall not infringe on this right.

[BilisiFunfun]

“Where governments fear the people, there is liberty. Where the people fear governments, there is tyranny!” - Thomas Jefferson

[jmcrae]

I wish more people would realize that the constitution doesn’t give us “rights”, it gives the government rules on how they must behave towards the people they serve.

[robertbaker]

The government has gone way beyond infringement.

[artgordon]

The biggest problem with the government is politicians that want to rule, not serve, the people.

[lwmarti]

The mental gymnastics of people trying to interpret the 2A in ways that let them take away your guns can be truly impressive.

[bluer]

All these guys were smart enough to write everything down and preserve it. Thank God they all had the foresight to do that

[psychologymajorptsd]

It is not only your Right, it is your responsibility.

[Gottaculat]

A militia by its very definition is a civilian fighting force outside of the government run armed forces.
The moment the government is given jurisdiction over a militia, it ceases to be a militia, and is now a conscripted government fighting force.

Also the 2nd Amendment has more than one clause. The first part is a statement that a militia that is competent and able to fight effectively (what well regulated means) is necessary to a free state, as in to ensure a state of freedom, that freedom must be able to defend itself.

The next part elaborates, addressing the fact a militia is indeed comprised of the people, not government soldiers. Ergo, their equipment and armaments do not come from the government, but by the people. The people must of course be capable of being ready at a moment's notice to defend against threats both foreign and domestic. Thus, the people's right to keep (own and retain) and bear (retain at all times) arms (shorthand for "armaments, " which includes ALL tools of warfare/combat), is so dang important that no laws that would infringe upon (hinder, make less useful, weaken) that right are null and void. The people must be able to be as well armed or even more well armed than the force(s) that would seek to strip them of their human rights.

We have the 1st Amendment to try to resolve problems diplomatically without bloodshed. We have the 2nd Amendment for when diplomacy fails, and we must defend ourselves from those who would skirt or outright flaunt the law, as we see every anti-gun politician doing, as well as the media.

Finally, the tiresome claim that the 2nd Amendment only applies to muskets is as absurd a claim that the 1st Amendment only applies to quill and ink, so please, anyone making that argument, kindly go ram a cactus up your arse.

[ol_gunnerb]

There are four, not three branches of government. The executive, the legislative, the judicial AND AN ARMED POPULACE.

[chuckcartwright]

What anti-gun proponents forget, or more likely ignore, is that the people who organized (regulated) a militia expected the recruited individuals to bring their own arms, so the leaders didn’t have to equip them. That was only possible if the people already had arms, which they already had a right to keep and bear.

[teg]

You know, all you have to do is view history. American people had guns and could fight the English because of it. They were not a government at that time. Now, in this day, we have seen the federal govt grow to what our founding fathers fought not to have.

[ajax]

I weary of the constant assault on my liberties not only by my government, but also from my ignorant, ill-informed countrymen.

[JimEagle.]

The Bill of Rights limits the government NOT the people.

[frankclarke]

The 2nd amendment "conveyed" nothing. It was a straight-up prohibition on government interfering with a right that had been "endowed to us by the Creator".

[ellenmiller]

Nick, you NEED to be in congress. Immediately! Please get there. 🙏

[GregoryAlanGaskill]

Refusing to become a victim is not evil, it is evil to create victims by not enforcing laws.

[mycents]

the US Supreme Court weighed in on this a few years back and declared the 2A is about individual rights. so why is this still being discussed?