This video bothers the shit outta me. 2A advocates are arguing its efficacy from the wrong perspective, that the 2A is about something it never was written to protect... an individuals right to keep and bear arms. This is where anti-2A folk have framed the argument, and we should be countering with it's real intent, not bullshit leftist perspective. I responded with this:
My guess is they go this route because it sounds less threatening to the US government which, of course, is the entity that is more dangerous to us than the criminal. Maybe they think they can get more traction using this argument. Dunno. It can serve both reasons just as well and frankly I don't care because in my mind no reason is needed. It is a pillar in our Constitution, and I should not have to give ANY damn reason why I need or want my 2A. Furthermore, they don't give me the 2A, it's mine. God given.
ALL of our GOD given rights listed in the Bill of Rights are rights of the People, and the People are made up of Individuals. If you restrict the 2A rights to only the People, then only members of the Militias or the National Guard can have weapons. The 2A was NEVER about hunting, target shooting, collecting, ect., it was about giving the People (and the Individual), the ability, as a last resort, to stand up to totalitarian governments (local, state, or national) in defense of their rights. It matters not if you stand with an army of the People or if you stand alone, as an Individual!
Madison literally states "the People" are the "Militia" in Federalist 46. (excerpt from Federalist 46) This is why the 2A 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. The use of both words in the article is to show there is no ambiguity between the two. Madison did this intentionally. This is why this pisses me off. The intent of the 2A is clear as the day after the 4th of July, and it not about an individual right. That comes as a benefit, but it was never the intent of the article, and Madison's explanation in Federalist 46 regarding what he meant the 2A for is simply being overlooked... or worse, is not known. Making it about the "individual" is how Anti-2A folk get to make the argument that individuals should not have the right. Madison omits hunting as a reason (the most prevalent use of arms back then) in Federalist 46. Had he stated it as a reason in Federalist 46, then the Anti-2A folk could, and would correctly argue that Madison's own explanation reflected his belief that it was an individual right... Logic would dictated that Federalist 46 has likely never been read by most 2A advocates...
"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." It cuts BOTH ways! The 2nd served as BOTH an Individual right, AND the Peoples right! The text and meaning of the 2nd have been discussed endlessly since it was written, and it is widely understood as to what it says and what is doesn't. There has always been challenges to the text, even the comma was a major point of argument during the Klinton years! Simply stated: "A Well Regulated Militia" being you and I trained and equipped and ready to answer the call of service, which can include an individuals need to protect oneself along with the state, the word State here is used to define the entirety of this nation, as in Nation-State! The next part reinforces the first; "Being Necessary to the Security of a free State" clearly defines the scope of what is being protected, both the SELF and the STATE which means everyone, AND it serves as a means to maintain the Peace! "The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms" is pretty self-explanatory, however, the Bear Arms part always gets skewed, it actually means ALL BEARABLE ARMS, and it clearly spells it out as a Right, which covers ALL citizens when it says "People" "Shall Not be Infringed" is as clear as it gets, Cannot be legislated, voted upon, challenged, or changed at ANY level
Yes, we the People are the militia, but the People means a group or organization with leaders, membership rolls, etc., etc., etc. That's what killed off the modern militia movement, because a modern tyrannical, totalitarian government would have names, contact information, equipment lists, photos, etc., and any revolution would be over before it began. Individuals, on the other hand, can form militias of one or a cell, if the need arose, cause there are no stinking lists. The FBI infiltrated the KKK back in the 1960s and was able to destroy them from within because they knew who the members were and set them up. The FBI informers were the good old boys that attended every meeting, paid their dues and incited the most violence. In the USSR, the government asked everyone with a gun to register it with the government, so that they could form militias to protect the revolution and then confiscated the firearms. Heaven only knows what the NKVD did to the gun owners. I trust me, myself and I more than anyone!
In my opinion, it is quite simple, quite unambiguous. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" means exactly what it says, that a militia is necessary in order to have a free state. In order to have a militia, it must have members. Those members can only be people, but those people must be able to keep and bear arms, as the immediacy of when they will be needed cannot be foretold. "shall not be infringed" means the government cannot negate this right. Therefore, people can have arms, can carry them about whenever and wherever they like, and the government can't legally do a damn thing about it.
Prior to the founding of this nation, the only sovereigns were the monarchs, who proclaimed time and again that they were fit to rule, ordained by God alone. The Magna Carta proved to limit the Monarchy in England for a time, but what our founders provided in these United States sent tremors throughout the world. We, the People are meant to be sovereign -a King or Queen of our own making, and it all relies upon property ownership, which is how all rights can be freely exercised. This is why the Communists made every effort to eliminate property ownership in this country. Whenever we ask "who is in the right", or "who has the right", the very first item to be checked is who owns the property in which any act is committed. If it is public land, the People obey public policy, but for everything else, the property owner sets the rules. We essentially are our own boss, we are sovereign, we do not have to acquiesce to "government", not now, not ever. Well, that is if we own the property we think we own...which we don't. But, if we still did actually own property, there is no force on this planet that supersedes the rights of the sovereign people in America. PERIOD. If you aren't harming another or their property, then there can be no crime. We were once held to account by common law, our practices cemented firmly within American Jurisprudence, and legalities versus lawful activities were never confused. Today, we have a criminal corporate enterprise masquerading as "government", neatly confined within their own codified legalese network of control. We do not operate under common law and Constitutional practice. Over the years I have spent many hours explaining the many codes in full force, from State codes to Federal and what it all means. It's not difficult to grasp. An excellent course I always recommend is provided by Michael Badnarik, his book "It's Good To Be King" as well as his Constitution Class are necessary components for any who do not grasp this concept. In the movies, we often see fringe groups being classified as domestic terrorists, and they are always claiming to be "sovereign". The mind virus is real, and people have been led down this path for a reason. We own nothing. Do not be surprised when they try to pick apart the fabric of the Bill of Rights incrementally. We are now at the point in which the remaining patriots in this country are only fighting to maintain the apparition of liberty, as the vast majority still believe in the illusion of choice every election cycle. We have become slaves to a broken system. Face it, it's the truth.
"the people" literally means what it means... all of us.... regardless of one's position as "a group or organization with leaders, membership rolls, etc.,"..... it is the very parsing of that definition by the left that gives them license to re-interpret Madison's words and context... E pluribus unum literally means "out of many, one".....
Patriotic Americans shouldn't give a tinker's damn about how the left wants to re-interpret Madison's words and context, they just buy guns and ammo, don't give them up, and are prepared to use them. Debating societies fall apart as soon as the bullets start flying!
