Summarizing the Second Amendment

A mere 27 words, the Second Amendment’s clear meaning and the original intent of its authors and adopters have held up to decades of leftist efforts to eviscerate it, and to eviscerate the U.S. Citizens it protects.

But I guess 27 words was a bit much to publish in a 1,360 page United States history textbook, so the authors and editors felt compelled to cut it down to 15 words. Maybe that would be okay, if only they hadn’t made the lying leftist decision to blatantly disregard the true interpretation of the Second Amendment. [ref, ref]

This is full 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.” [United States Constitution, Amendment II]

And this is what the textbook says it means: “grant[s] citizens the right to bear arms as members of a militia of citizen-soldiers.”

Their interpretation wasn’t even close. They conveniently left out the core fundamental natural guaranteed right that leftists hate the most: “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Why’d they do that? An innocent oversight in an effort to save ink and paper?

Heck no.

They did it to intentionally deceive children, who they hope will grow up to be oblivious of the true meaning of the Second Amendment, willing to accept increasing gun control, and to ignorantly submit to eventual gun bans and confiscation.

Unfortunately, this textbook isn’t the only one that tries to perpetuate the “militia” lie. The textbook United States History: Preparing for the Advanced Placement Examination summarizes the Second Amendment like this: “The people have the right to keep and bear arms in a state militia” [ref].

Idiotic hogwash.

First of all, why summarize the Second Amendment, or any of the Amendments to the Constitution? They aren’t very long. They’re easy to read and understand. If society wasn’t doing such a dismal job educating our children, all elementary aged children would be able to comprehend them.

But if you do have to summarize the Second Amendment, and if you have any integrity at all, this is how you summarize it: “Grants citizens a permanent and inviolate right to own and carry firearms and other weapons.”

That’s the true meaning and intent of the Second Amendment — and in a mere 15 words! No ink or paper wasted!

I absolutely scoff at any attempt to interpret the Second Amendment differently. To do so is to blatantly twist and distort what is written, and to willfully ignore history.

Eighteenth century Americans owned firearms. They kept them in their homes. They carried them with them into the fields and forests when farming and hunting. They used them for recreation. They used them for self defense. A few drilled with them in their local militia. Most important of all, they used them to overthrow tyrannical British rule.

With this historical background, it’s clearly a lunatic leftist fantasy to limit the Second Amendment authors’, signers’ and adopters’ intent to merely militia munitions. Not only does the Second Amendment clearly proclaim “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”, but for decades after its passage the people kept and bore their Arms, unhindered and unmolested by their new government.

Unfortunately, contrary to the crystal-clear language in the Second Amendment, over the last several decades our government has increasingly infringed on our Second Amendment rights.

Why? Many will claim it has been for public safety. To that assertion I have three responses:

First, in the words of Benjamin Franklin: “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety” [ref, emphasis added].

Second, the idea that fewer firearms equates to greater safety is a fable. I won’t bother to provide details in this article, since I’ve already written extensively on this topic:

Third, I don’t believe that restriction of our Second Amendment liberties has been entirely motivated by altruistic concern for the safety of the average citizen.

Those in power who willfully distort and hide the historical context of the Second Amendment are not ignorant of history.

They know that it was armed citizens that liberated the American colonies from Great Britain, and established the greatest Constitutional Republic ever.

They know that it was disarmed citizens and Jews that were subjugated and slaughtered by Hitler. They know that it was disarmed citizens that were purged by Lenin and Stalin. Disarmed citizens that were herded and buried by Mao. Disarmed citizens that were eliminated by Pol Pot. Disarmed citizens that suffer in Cuba and Venezuela. Disarmed citizens that are slaves in North Korea.

They know that it is an armed citizenry that is the biggest threat and deterrent to the regimes and false utopian schemes hatched by elitist nascent tyrants and despots to gain privilege and power over the masses.

They know — as Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Castro knew — that the surest way to prepare people to succumb to oppressive political schemes, and to keep the masses conquered thereafter, is to disarm them, and to propagate lies and publish propaganda, particularly targeted at youth.

What is gun control? At its myopic optimistic best it may in rare instances offer a minuscule measure of “temporary” safety.

What is the right to keep and bear Arms? How else could it be summarized? It is the first freedom to fall before the dictates of despots.