THE REAL PURPOSE OF THE 2ND AMENDMENT HOW THOSE ON THE LEFT DISTORT THE CONSTITUTION

The Left-Wing Socialists would have you believe that the Second Amendment, which guarantees the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, pertains only to militias and not to individuals, and erroneously and deliberately, misinterpret what the Founders had in mind when establishing the Bill of Rights.

The left-wing liberals would have you believe that the only reason for people to keep and bear arms is for hunting and target shooting. Nothing could be farther from the truth. While they claim that they do not want to make it illegal to own guns, that is exactly what they are striving for. Anti-gun lawyer Dennis Henigan is quoted as saying: "The gun violence problem is more than a problem of guns in the hands of bad people. It is also a problem of guns in the hands of good people."

If you think that these people on the left do not understand the implications of their push for gun control and eventual confiscation listen to what Columnist Charles Krauthammer said in a column titled "Disarm The Citizenry" in the Washington Post on April 16, 1996:

"Ultimately, a civilized society must disarm its citizenry if it is to have a modicum of domestic tranquillity of the kind enjoyed by sister democracies such as Canada and Britain. Given the frontier history and individualist ideology of the United States, however, this will not come easily. It certainly cannot be done radically. It will probably take one, maybe two generations. It may be 50 years before the United States gets to where Britain is today. Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic - purely symbolic - move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation."

When Al Gore was on the Larry King show on Sept. 16, 1999 (not so long ago), he expressed himself as follows: "I think that we should ban so-called junk guns. I think we should ban assault weapons used here, yes. I think that the kinds of weapons that have no legitimate use for hunting or the kind of weapon that a homeowner would use, I think they should be banned, yes, those kind of weapons . . . These semi-automatic handguns . . . they really have no place in our society."

Of course Al is rather incoherent as usual but his meaning is clear. It seems obvious that his real aim is to ban all guns. In that little response he was referring to the 9mm and .380 caliber handguns which are the most popular in the country.

If any of you have the mistaken notion that these anti-gun folks are not working toward complete disarmament of the people, pay a bit of attention to their own words. And don't be fooled by their contention that the Second Amendment refers only to militias. It states that the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The word infringe means to violate a law. In regard to the PEOPLE having the right to keep and bear arms, there can be little doubt what the phrase means and limiting the right to keep and bear arms to militias is certainly an infringement of the law.

What the Founders had in mind is quite clear and there is no doubt about what they were thinking. The following quotations make this abundantly clear. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton all clearly expressed their reasons for the establishing the Second Amendment. Here are some of the things they had to say on the subject: Washington stated that "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s teeth and keystone under independence." Jefferson had similar thoughts stating: "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms . . ." Hamilton said: "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is no recourse left but in the exertion of the original right of self-defense which is paramount to all forms of positive government." James Madison in Federalist No. 46 predicted that encroachments by the federal government would provoke "plans of resistance" and an "appeal to the trial of force.

As Benjamin Franklin said long ago, "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety." Don’t be fooled by those who pretend to want to decrease crime by firearms regulation. Their real aim is to disarm us, with the intent of promoting their agenda of a socialist dictatorship and making sure there is no effective opposition.

Later, Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice from 1811 to 1845, again explained why the right to keep and bear arms was so important and explains how obvious it once was that possession of guns by individuals was put into the Bill of Rights for the protection of the citizens.

He is quoted as follows:"One of the ordinary modes by which tyrants accomplish their purpose without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms . . ." And: "The friends of a free government cannot be too watchful to overcome the dangerous tendency of the public mind to sacrifice, for the sake of mere private convenience, this powerful check upon the designs of ambitious men." He continues: "The importance of this article will be scarcely doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected on the subject." And: "There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our National Bill of Rights."

These wise men knew from personal experience that governments can, and usually do, become tyrannical and the Second Amendment was an attempt to keep the government in check. They were not advocating another revolution but providing the people the means of discouraging government from becoming too dictatorial, by the possible threat of insurrection, thinking that the right to keep and bear arms would be a deterrent and cause the leaders to behave.

If the left-wing promoters of gun control have any brains they certainly realize the implications of taking away our guns and the only motive one can attribute to them is the desire to make our democratic socialist state even more dictatorial and to prevent any serious challenge on the part of the citizens of the nation. Taking away the guns is always the first step in the creation of a dictatorship as with Adolph Hitler and other dictators.

Ultimately, a civilized society must disarm its citizenry if it is to have a modicum of domestic tranquillity of the kind enjoyed by sister democracies such as Canada and Britain.

What a joke. I guess these leftists don't know that since Britain banned almost all guns the violent crime rate has skyrocketed, and is now much higher than the USA, whose crime rates have plunged as more and more states allow concealed carry.

I think that we should ban so-called junk guns. I think we should ban assault weapons used here, yes. I think that the kinds of weapons that have no legitimate use for hunting or the kind of weapon that a homeowner would use, I think they should be banned, yes, those kind of weapons . . . These semi-automatic handguns . . . they really have no place in our society."

An "economicaly challenged homehowner wouldn't use use a cheap (aka junk) gun?". Then there are those Korean shop owners, who made good use of ugly black guns, both the semi-auto centerfire rifle variety and the short barreled high magazine capacity (perhaps pistol gripped) shotguns. Al Gore needs to get his head back into the trees, and shut up, since he clearly knows nothing of which he speaks.

At one time even the socialists/leftists understood the concecpt properly:

“Certainly, one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, and one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.” --Humphrey, Hubert, “Know Your Lawmakers,” Guns, February 1960, p.4.

At one time even the socialists/leftists understood the concecpt properly:

“Certainly, one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, and one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.” --Humphrey, Hubert, “Know Your Lawmakers,” Guns, February 1960, p.4.

There is some dispute about that quote and its source. The current US Senate Republican Policy Committee has it without the "safety" term:

"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of the citizen to bear arms is just one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible." Taken from "A Liberal Democrat's Lament," by Robert Cottrol, American Enterprise Institute. Statement made in 1960. Senate GOP Site.

Also, the NRA-ILA has it the same way, without the "safety" term here.

In any event, it is difficult to reconcile almost all gun control legislation with the limited allowance of "rules" that may be "taught."

Can anyone come up with the original source on this to verify the accurate quote?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.