I would like to thank you ahead of time for reading this rather long wall of text. Since I first posted it, many people have struck conversation with me on Facebook and other media. This is likely one of the most important documents I’ve ever written. This document isn’t some piece put out there to spread an ideology, it is to set the record straight. When lies are perpetrated to forward a political agenda based on a false narrative, you can almost always count on the fact that the agenda isn’t a good one. In order to combat an evil agenda, we have to remove the medium — the lie. And you do that, by telling the truth about our constitution and Second Amendment. I have sat down with people on the left and right and had discussions about our constitution. No matter what you might think, every word of our constitution carries significant meaning. But it is not only the words you should look toward, sometimes further meaning can be found when you understand the context. Just like “Black Lives Matter” can be seen as taken out of context, the constitution is no exception. Allow me to preface this with the actual text of the second amendment:
“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.”
I’ll admit, I typed that from memory having learned the entire constitution up to the 10th amendment, so it may contain reasonable human error. But I will not bore you any more with intrigue and get right to the point. Some people are arguing that the second amendment grants only militias the right to keep and bear arms. Others will argue that the constitution only grants the right for people to carry hunting rifles. And then, there are others that believes that the second amendment gives EVERY law abiding citizen the right to keep and bear arms. Admittedly, the latter is closer to the truth, but still not even close. Actually, they are all quite false. In fact, it is an outright lie perpetuated by some very sinister people that I will talk about later in this post. To understand the lie you have to understand politics of the late 1700’s. We have to start by learning that big names which signed our Declaration of Independence and ratified the Articles of Confederation BOYCOTTED the ratification of the Constitution in favor of keeping the Articles of Confederation place. Some of these names include, John Hancock, Samuel Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin – just to name a small fraction. Surprised? Don’t be. John Hancock said specifically:
“I smell a rat in Philadelphia, tending toward the monarchy.”
Woah! Being as they just fought off that very monarchy, that’s a really powerful accusation. Would you not agree? But what did Thomas Jefferson have to say? Thomas Jefferson called the Constitutional Convention an, “assembly of demigods.” Why were these framers so passionately against our Constitution? You must understand that at this very moment in our nations history, nothing, and I mean nothing, limited the power of government over there people. For many of our framers that just clawed their way from underneath the boot of a tyranny, they were terrified and rightfully so. But you say, “If that’s the case, why are some of their signatures on the ratification?” Good question. You see, the delegation knew they couldn’t ratify this document without at least some of the support of the origional framers and therefor they asked some of our framers, “What is it you would like to see changed?” James Madison, influenced by both Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin responded by submitting the Bill of Rights. Only after it was added to the constitution was the new Constitution ratified. Allow me to say that again because people are under the popular belief that the bill of rights were amendments add AFTER ratification — NO! The Constitution was ratified WITH the Bill of Rights INCLUDED. That makes these first ten amendments the “Amendments in Stone”. You can no more repeal these amendments as you could repeal article 1, article 2, article 3, article 4 or article 5. But my point lies inside of those amendments — or more specifically, what they do. Take the First Amendment for example, it starts with, “Congress shall make no law-” But I’ll not take that out of context and give you the entire amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Again, nothing here says we can do anything. It only tells us what congress cannot do. Telling Congress what they cannot do is not a right, that is a limitation. Strange, right? I mean, it’s called the “Bill of Rights”, yet it doesn’t really say “The people have the right to free speech.” Nope, no such statement exists anywhere in the first ten amendments. But to understand why, the smoking gun (no pun intended) lies within the second amendment.
” – the right of the people to keep and bear arms – “
Notice something odd about that? It does not say anyone has been granted a right — no. It says, very specifically, that the right already exists. And, it does already exist. The right to keep and bear arms is considered an inalienable right, a right bestowed by our creator at birth. But where is this right talked about, specifically, if anywhere? It is in our declaration of independence where our framers spoke of three inalienable rights. The right to life. The right to liberty. And the right to pursue happiness. You might ask, those rights didn’t include any rights from the Bill of Rights. You would be horribly mistaken. Now, lets go ahead and demystify a few rumors of what that might mean. The statement does not say that you cannot be killed, obviously there is nothing the founders could do to prevent death. Nor does not say that government cannot take your rights away. It most certainly does not say or suggest that you will be happy under the government. It simply declares that these rights are bestowed upon you by your creator. But they knew that a government could take these rights away. Therefor, the right to keep and bear arms was as much as an understood right as procreating with your significant other. In fact, any tool necessary to secure any of the three rights were seen as inclusive and intrinsically bound to the three inalienable rights. If you cannot speak freely, then you lack liberty. If the government intrudes upon your privacy, then you lack liberty. If you cannot defend your liberty, then you lose liberty. Nothing says it is the government’s job to protect your liberty, likewise it is very clear that it is OUR responsibility to protect our liberty. Each of the first five amendments are safeguards to protect an already existing and bound inalienable right that must exist to protect the three named inalienable rights. This is why the first ten amendments do not grant you a right at all, they already existed before the constitution was written. The bill of rights only exists to limit the government’s power to infringe upon the inalienable rights that is your sovereign birthright. So, if the government were to erase the first amendment, there would be tyranny — the antithesis of liberty. If they erased the third amendment, there would be tyranny — the antithesis of liberty. If they erased the fourth or fifth amendments, allowing the unjustified seizure of property and forcing you to testify against yourself, there would be tyranny — the antithesis of liberty. And, alas, if you have no way to secure your liberty by keeping those at bey that have the power to remove it — there is tyranny. The Bill of Rights have never given us a single right because they ALL have ALWAYS been inalienable — not granted to us by any document but bestowed by God, himself. So, when I hear that the second amendment only gives militias the right to bear arms — the willful ignorance infuriates me, especially as a United States Army Veteran. None of the amendments grant rights — it simply limits the government’s power to take an existing right away. To better understand what it is the second amendment limits, it is wise to know what the Webster Comma is. The comma can serve two purposes: to articulate a breath, and to divide a sentence into multiple statements. Well, our framers wrote the constitution with a quill, which took longer than a few hours to write (weeks, actually). Being as articulate commas are ‘optional’ it is only logical to suppose that the commas are for division. So lets break this down into two easily digestible chunks. We will start the first chunk of two statements called the “cause for action” — this means that the statements suggest the necessity for the amendment. Finding words like “necessary” within the statement itself will absolutely prove my statement is true. So lets start.
“A well-regulated militia, being NECESSARY to the security of a free state, -“
And there is the word I was looking for. Before we examine this, lets construct a similar statement using the exact grammar:
“The stadium lights, being necessary to see, -“
As you can see, the stadium lights, being the subject for the cause for action, you can identify the actual cause with the word necessary. Then after, in the third segment you can see what I did, which is called the caused action. But I want to point out one quite remarkable observation. This statement does not limit the necessity to see just to stadium lights, it simply describes the tools readily available. Suppose the sun was up, are the stadium lights still necessary to see? No. What does the cause for action then mean, exactly? Well, I could tell you what it is by describing the meaning, but I don’t want you merely learning my interpretations. To avoid sloppy a interpretation, lets examine the text of someone that influenced the Bill of Rights.
“When a people fear the government, there is tyranny. But when a government fears the people, there is liberty.” ~ Benjamin Franklin
There is that word again from the Declaration of Independence, Liberty — as in the inalienable right. But what does that mean, exactly? Mr Franklin seems to be suggesting that we need something in our possession to make the government fear us in order to maintain our liberty and avoid a tyrannical government But what did did the other that influenced the Bill of Rights have to say? Let’s examine the words of Thomas Jefferson:
“Sometimes the tree of liberty must be wet from time to time by the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
Well, there is that word again. Liberty — that inalienable right seems to be just popping up all over the place! But what does that mean, exactly? Well, the Tree of Liberty is obviously a metaphor. I know some people are laughing and asking themselves, “Mike, you really have to explain that?” I reply, “Yes. Yes I do, because some people just don’t get it.” But it is a metaphor which represents the foundations that our framers have laid for us to ensure that we remain a free nation — free from tyranny. So what is this blood stuff he speaks up? I’ll admit, that’s a little gory. Well, he’s not talking about our Army dying, that’s called soldiers. Even in Jefferson’s time, they called their standing armies, soldiers — not patriots. The term patriot was reserved for a normal citizen that had responded to his national sense of duty by taking up arms to combat tyranny and to defend liberty. So what he is saying here: In order to ensure the Tree of Liberty survives, normal people who take up arms against tyrants will have to die. Surely he didn’t mean for them to die with bows and arrows while the offending armies carried muskets and cannons. It is true, you can argue that this means a threat from abroad, but someone else makes things a little clearer, the actual author of the Bill of Rights, James Madison:
“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”
And now we have a crystal clear painting of what the cause for action is, it is to take up arms against our OWN government. So now you can walk away from this little educational piece with full understanding to what “free state” means. But what about the militia? Does the militia clause mean that the Second Amendment only protects the militia’s right to keep and bear arms? Let’s find out. Thomas Jefferson gives us a hint to what the clause defines as a militia by first of all letting us know that we already had a standing army at the time and secondly, telling us who it was that owned firearms when he writes a letter to Giovanni Fabbroni on June 8, 1778:
“This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy.”
That’s a strange term for a militia — Infancy. Obviously we’ve never had infants in our militias, so what in the hell is he talking about? George Madison tells us exactly what he is talking about in his address to congress:
“I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”
Now that’s a very direct and clear statement. The whole people seems to suggest he’s not talking about militias, an army, or government officials, but instead, everyone NOT of the government. That seems to suggest that ‘militia’ doesn’t even mean ‘militia’ any more. That happened when he carefully crafted his speech to include the word “now” suggesting the present definition carries a different meaning than a previous definition. But why? Likely because a standing army had just been hired. But what, if anything, can lend further evidence that the term, ‘militia’ had changed to mean the whole people? Well, we need to know what was going through our framer’s heads at the time of the writing of the second amendment and the hiring of our standing army. And for that, we need look no further than the famed Federalist Papers.
“If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude 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 the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788
This is the words of Alexander Hamilton, the legal father of our United States Army stating that we should NOT form a standing army unless every citizen has the power to keep that Army in check. That is exactly what he just said:
“This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.”
So, how does a people keep a military in check? Hmmm… Let me take a stab in the dark. A well-regulated militia — is me. A well-regulated militia is you. It is every citizen in this country who understands and respects the constitution and would use firearms for good, keeping our government at bey. Alas, I’ve saved the best for last, though. Nothing tells us more what the second amendment actually does than the second part where all glorious details are revealed to us in splendid clarity and without any need for explanation. Now that you know what the cause for action is, let’s now examine the caused action.
“the RIGHT of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”
Take note, once again this amendment refers to a right as if it already exists and merely limits the government’s power by saying, “shall not be infringed.” Let’s summarize with a simple few statements. Our founding fathers were absolutely terrified that our government would become a tyranny. The evidence is everywhere in our constitution, it is on every document they wrote (it seems). So what was their answer? The second amendment was the answer. It is the final check to our system of checks and balances. It is entirely possible that our second amendment has prevented such tyranny that our founding fathers feared, by means of threat alone, for over two hundred years. And we have idiots that want to see it disappear. It is hard for me to imagine why. So, I submit, a question. What part of the second amendment is it the politicians all fail to understand? What part of the second amendment is it the media fails to understand? It doesn’t really matter. No matter what happens, no matter what plans our politicians or media puts into action, no matter what great threat befalls our nation and legal system; every law abiding citizen of this nation has the right to keep and bear arms and that shall not be infringed. I’m not talking about muskets and pistols I’m talking about the kind that keeps our government in check. It is very true that our government can remove that right, but any such removal would be only superficial and temporary until the next revolution, which would likely follow as swift as the last when the first shots of the American Revolution was fired at the Old North Bridge when the crown tried to confiscate the colonists’ firearms. Oh, you thought it was started over a three-cent tea tax? Wrong again. Of course that pissed a few people off, but no shots were fired until the British Soldiers told the colonists to disarm. Imagine what would happen today with the statistics saying there are ten firearms per American. It would be the biggest war in World History. That’s enough fire-power, that if focused on one single point, would equate to energy release of nineteen atomic bombs. The part the scares me is the uncertainty that these new patriots will know where to draw the line. Will they simply overthrow the government, or will they go after all the political dissidents who supported and made it happen like we did in Germany? It wasn’t until Eisenhower saw what was going on did he stop our troops from torturing and executing Germans for their transgressions. I fear what could happen to our far left without the leadership of someone like Eisenhower. While our politicians and media colludes with each other to peel back our rights like the layers of an onion, by trying to convince the masses they are not safe while guns exist, one singular statement gives me solace. It is a simple Latin statement written by Thomas Jefferson that almost seems like a cry through time itself to to tell us very specifically that our freedom is worth the risk of death itself. “Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem”, he said. Which translates to:
“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.”
I agree, or I would not be a US Army Veteran. Remember these facts the next time the media, a politician, or a political parrot finger-wags that you shouldn’t need a military-grade weapon or tries to convince you that those kinds of weapons are solely reserved for government entities. Remember what James Madison, the author of the Second Amendment said about reminding our rulers of our intent to resist THEM, so shall we have guns! And for the love of God, the next time you hear a hand-full of children or adults have been killed in a mass shooting, God forbid — stop and ask yourself how many survived that very mass shooting because of a GUN in the right hands. But most importantly ask yourself why it is that no one ever speaks about the massive amounts of children and adults that guns save. Go on, ask the question unless you’re too afraid. You might discover the narratives are constructs to deceive the masses and affect a sinister plan of action which end-goals includes turning every man, woman, and child into the unfathomable: livestock. Those that want to to remove firearms don’t merely have an eraser on the second amendment. It’s on ALL of the amendments. The same people that are after the second amendment are the ones that use Political Correctness to control your speech. They use words like “homophobia” and “Islamophobia” to control your religious beliefs. They use words like “hate” to insure you include them in every facet of your life. They use terrorism as an excuse to spy on your phone calls with warrants from secret courts where your interests aren’t represented. And, they use the IRS to stop your petitions of grievances. These people aren’t just poised to strike at the second amendment. They want control! In order to make us livestock, they must have control. And the only thing that sits between them and what they want is the Bill of Rights. And what stands between them and the Bill of Rights? The second amendment. Your ability to fight back is what keeps control in WE, THE PEOPLE’s hands. A wolf isn’t very scary without his teeth, is he? It is black or white: if our government does not fear us, then we fear our government and according to Benjamin Franklin, THAT SPELLS TYRANNY. I have argued these points before with those that are politically galvanized against the ownership and carrying of military weapons. I’ve heard every argument fathomable and I’ve defeated every one, and as I do the argument then begins to devolve into arguing from fallacies. Just to name a few: 1) The Second Amendment means Muskets and Cannons, not assault weapons. – My response is to demonstrate the insanity of their logic: Then the First Amendment only means quill, parchment, and Christianity, not cell phones, television, and Atheism. 2) The Second Amendment is antiquated because it allows for death on a massive scale. – My response demonstrates that the legislation can’t even compare with some other legislation that is directly responsible for death on massive scales: Does that mean Roe v Wade is also antiquated because that decision has taken more life from his Earth than all modern wars, combined. – If it is really life that you want to protect, then my argument cannot be ignored and must be taken seriously. But it seldom is, because the wordsmiths of the narratives being parroted to me do not care about life or death. 3) We only want better gun control, a restriction of age, or a restriction of mental condition, or — – Oh yeah, that list keeps going on and on, but my reply again simply shows the insanity of their argument: And I only want better controls on the first amendment so you can’t trash the second. – To which they always reply, “But that violates my right to free speech.” – To which I reply, “Amazing how it does that, right?” Almost always the argument ends on one final argument:
THE CONSTITUTION IS AN OLD, ANTIQUATED DOCUMENT THAT DOES NOT APPLY TO OUR DAY AND AGE.
I give you, the lie and this is where my point really begins. To those people I have debated, they have been mere parrots, they did not know why they thought the constitution was antiquated but that was their narrative non-the-less. Just like I started by showing you who influenced the Bill of Rights, we need to go back to those who influenced those I debated. We’re led to the Political Left Elite, and at the very top is Hillary Clinton, Obama, and Senator Warren. In fact, I can cite on several accounts where they have all stated that our constitution gets in the way of progress — but I believe this is common knowledge. What progress does the constitution interfere with? Equality? A better life? More Liberty (I might tend to agree with this one — if we trimmed back regulation), or the opportunity for happiness? None, as it turns out. To understand that, you have to understand what their version of progress means. As it turns out, they want to limit your rights to free speech. Why? So you can’t exclude them in any way, so you can’t speak out against them in any way and if you do, you are evil, bigoted, racist, which they want made — illegal –. There is a reason why bigotry and racism isn’t illegal, and it’s not because it’s wrong — it is, but it is simply that the author gets to write the definition. Anyone can be accused of racism, a white male that walks through a dark night club that steps on a black woman’s foot can be called both racist and sexist, and the left would have it that the white male be arrested and jailed for stepping on the foot of someone he couldn’t even see. Now, that’s racism and sexism. To hold any person to a different standard because of their race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is bigotry, plain and simple, and when a white male is treated differently in a society because of perceived ‘white privilege’ or ‘male privilege’, there truly is a systemic problem in America. I’m a white male with Cuban heritage, I’ve never seen this ‘privilege’. I grew up in lower-middle class America on a farm where my father was a mechanic, and my mother was a programmer. We didn’t have better access to education or anything else. If anything, we had less access to help when my parents needed it because were white. For college, I enlisted into the United States Army and used the discounts colleges provided for that along with the Montgomery GI Bill which is available to all people of the military regardless of race, gender – etc. In fact of the 1.2 million service members, which is a significant portion of America, we ALL had equal access to everything. But that gave me privilege, right? Veteran status is something that really helps with getting jobs, right? Wrong. When I first got out of the US Army, I couldn’t figure out for the life of me why I could never hold a job for longer than three months. I worked at Inttek – 3 months. Then Execom – 3 months. TradeMark Media Group – 3 months. And a few other places all lasting three months. Why? Was I flawed? Did I go psycho batshit crazy on them at precisely the 3-month mark with over 9 different employers? No. I didn’t know it at the time, but the government does ‘try’ to help veterans. What they do is offer a huge tax credit to business that hire veterans for at least THREE MONTHS. After the three month mark, the tax credit is no longer beneficial. So, what really happens is these little software firms sit you down while the government gives them $20,000 and they give you $10,000 and they have you create software that is then the company’s property, which usually completes at the 2-3 month mark. They get free software and money, you hunt for a new job. You get the point. I decided to open my own business, because working for others was obviously not working. Starting with just $200.00 for the formation paperwork which I filled myself, and depositing $50.00 into a business bank account, I have built a small business that has made my life quite comfortable. I have never experienced white privilege in my entire life nor has any of the 3/4 of the 1.2 million US Armed Forces members. But I fixed it myself. I took a huge risk. I took almost an entire paycheck and instead of buying decent food for my wife and four kids, I paid government fees to start a business. For the next three weeks, my family lived on Top Ramen — I became sick of it. But little did I know, I tapped into a market that was undeserved at the time. Within my first three months, I had 270 subscribers paying between $200 and $700 per year. The next few months I had over 750 subscribers, and by the end of the year, I had over 2,000 subscribers, 4 full-time employees, and 2 contractors. I started with $250.00 and an upset stomach and wife for 3 weeks. That is the American Dream. To understand what the really means you have to understand that America is the only country that gives you a sheet of paper defined by our laws, and a pen of opportunity where you can write the pages of YOU. If you are lazy then you write no words and the page remains blank or half-asses. If you are hard working, willing to take some risks, it can be a masterpiece. Essentially, the american dream is EARNED, only the opportunity, the PURSUIT thereof is a right — or the right to pursue happiness. You have no right to ‘take’ it or have the government ‘take’ it from someone else. But regulations constantly trim the edges of that paper making it smaller over time, and social movements constantly remove ink from that pen and erase entire segments of what you have written.
“You didn’t build that, someone else made that happen.” ~ Barrack Obama “Your workers were educated by the schools that our tax dollars built. Your factories are safe from the police that our tax dollars pay. Your trucks travel down the roads that our tax dollars pay for.” ~ Elizabeth Warren
Is that really true? As it turns out, I pay about $22,000 more taxes than most Americans, which is about 212% higher than what the average american pays. Do my kids get 212% more education? Do the police arrive at my office 212% faster? Do my cars get to travel 212% faster on the roads? Of course not. In fact, if it weren’t for me and many other small business owners that pay MORE into taxes, these public services could not exist today. That is what progress wants to stop, the American Dream. Today, children aren’t taught the most important lesson of life — defeat. Without knowing defeat, you can’t hope to win. To fully know what is available to you, you must understand the bottom and the top. But that is not what our children are taught. Every child is handed trophies by merely participating. The trophies aren’t smaller, they aren’t less shiny, and they bare similar significance. Oddly enough, everyone still receives a personal grade. But imagine for a moment that wasn’t the case and you are in high-school again and your teacher runs an experiment.
“Share the wealth” ~ Barrack Obama
For the remainder of the year, all individual scores are to be averaged by the class in effort for everyone to share that grade. What would happen? I would show up and do my best, would you? Some of you would, some of you would be like, “Yes! I can sleep in class and still get a high grade!” You’re actually not wrong, at least for a while. After the first semester everyone gets their report card and everyone gets a B! Well, for some of us, that’s great, but what about those who tried extra hard for an A and should have earned that A? They don’t matter, right? They do. Because now that they understand they can no longer earn an A, they now think to themselves, “What’s the use?” So they begin to sleep in class. The next semester returns the scores and it is a C! Still, it’s not too bad of a grade, everyone is still passing, but what about those who were trying for a B? Now they too have joined the sleeping crowd. The next semester, the class average is an F and everyone fails. What lessons can we draw from this thought experiment, if any? Well, let’s supposed those scores are money which represents a nation’s GDP. If the average must be a B to pay the interest on our debt, what happens when we fall to a C? The system in which I just described is called socialism which people generally confused with communism but with good reason. Because, what happens next, IS communism. So that the teacher won’t be fired, the teacher has to do something, quick. There are only two options: Be fired or FORCE the children to do their work by means of harsh punishments. Just like a school of children, that is what would befall our nation. Our leaders would have to force the A’s and B’s to work which Francis Tocqueville said in his book, “Democracy in America”, forced labor produces poor results. This forced labor for a shared average is communism and communism is a tyranny. Progress, as it would seem is not progress at all. It is merely the name of a path that loops back upon itself to a distant past that many across the world are still trying to escape from in places like China and Russia. The name, ‘progress’, is deceitful. It is but part of many lies, such as Social Justice, which isn’t justice at all, nor is it social, it is merely a means of limiting one’s thought and speech. Just like “gun control” — nothing that has been submitted seeks to control guns — it limits a people’s right to have them. Perhaps it is a great idea that the constitution stands in the way of these ‘lies’. The political parrots that chirp the comments of progress today are perpetuating these lies – but in their defense, the culmination of these lies is a really good master lie that would make Hitler proud.
“If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.” ~ Barrack Obama
And it is difficult to stop lying, once you have started. In this document, you should have learned a few truths: 1) The primary articles of our Constitution did not serve to limit the power of government. 2) The Bill of Rights balanced the primary articles by not by granting rights, but protecting them. 3) The rights that we enjoy today are endowed by our creators, not our government. 4) The Second Amendment isn’t for mere home defense or hunting, it is the final check to our Checks and Balances. To allow the government remove it would be the same as removing the supreme court, or congress, or both. 5) Last, but certainly not least you should more than anything else take away from this document that progressive isn’t progressive by any stretch of the American imagination nor is it amiable to the basic inalienable rights. The only progress it serves is to erase the inalienable right to liberty by the systematic removal or nullification of the Bill of Rights. This is the great lie that has been fed to America. People were tricked into thinking they have been moving forward, when in reality, they have been observing ‘progress’ through a mirror and moving backward, the mirror being the fallacies and lies used to construct the lie. If you believe this wall of text can help get the word out to educate a friend, relative, or acquaintance, I would love if you shared it. My purpose is to set the record straight, so the more people we can educate through sharing, the better. From this information, you and anyone else that has read it should be able to read the second amendment and know that this statement is the modern equivalent in simple English: Being an armed population is necessary to maintain a nation of liberty, every citizen’s inalienable right to keep and bear military arms shall not be diminished by legislation, executive order, or by legislating from the bench. After all, this is the ONLY amendment that cries out to our government and says, “DO NOT TOUCH ME”. And now, you know why. Our forefathers saw how England stripped them of their rights and they knew, eventually it would happen again – and it is happening. Our second amendment has already been thoroughly molested. President Reagan once said:
“Ours, is the only nation on Earth whose national anthem ends with a question. It is every generation’s responsibility to answer that question.”
Are we the land of the free? Are we the home of the brave? It is time for an answer. What say you?