The Real Reason for the Second Amendment: It Keeps You AliveSubmitted by Revolution News... on Tue, 02/05/2013 - 11:34
The Real Reason for the Second Amendment: It Keeps You Alive
by Revolution News Network on Facebook
The Second Amendment already provides deep and even prescient insight about hunting.
It’s there to prevent a madman, or a mob, or any government from hunting you.
Visiting crime, massacre or genocide memorials anywhere in the world will tell you that millions of names wind up carved in marble not because guns were banned, but because they were banned for just them, or out of their reach, or were simply not enough.
The Second Amendment is not there so that you can have no choice but hold a candle at a vigil; it’s there so that all can choose to hold and use the means by which they will save their lives and the lives of others, and avoid the carving of their names into cold marble that will be streaked with melted wax and with the dried tears of those who will remember them.
To understand the real purpose of the Second Amendment is to learn, know, and lament the circumstances of the “defenseless”, the “unarmed”, or the “disarmed” that could not use it, or something like it, regardless of their nationality, sex, race, creed, or ethnicity-- anywhere in the world, and at any time in history.
The madman, and madmen, have always been with us, and will always be with us forever, as well as should also be, the means by which to stop them, whether they be evil, mistaken, or just following orders.
You for example should gladly trade all the marble monuments, and all the wax candles and all the dried tears across the surface of the earth to go back in time to protect them yourselves and, or, to provide them the means by which to fulfill their natural right to act on their paternal, maternal, or their simply human and noble self preservation instincts.
The human dignity found in being able to protect self and family against, and by stopping those, that are evil, mistaken, or just following orders is what the Second Amendment actually means.
History painfully reminds us of those who could not defend themselves and also reminds us of those that could and did.
The world finds regret and sadness in the former, but dignity, respect and even formal admiration in the latter.
Note how some memorials also bear witness to so many people being disarmed -often overlooked- before they were murdered, while other monuments bear witness to and commemorate the successful defense of life because they were armed.
One slab of marble speaks to being without arms. The other, of being with.
And so it is, that just as justifying the circumstances of anyone’s defenselessness in the past should meet with opprobrium, so should the denial of the time, place and method they should have, by natural right, to choose and use the means by which to defend themselves now.
Any kind of justification or denial should receive that opprobrium, and moreover, the condemnation by the human race itself, for siding with those that would justify the past, and for those that actually made effective that defenselessness, daring to justify it from the chronological safety of time and location.
The world itself should agree, by now, that being defenseless, or being made defenseless, will not be tolerated, but in fact should be made a crime at least equal to the loss of the life caused by the denial to that right of self defense.
For they have not only committed a crime, or intend to commit a crime against nature itself, of decapitating the instinct of self preservation before it can act, but against the entire body of evidence found in the history of the human race that rightfully and conclusively shifts the entire burden against those who stand accused or have been guilty of disarming or plan to disarm any population.
A burden assumed, that, nevertheless, recklessly and arrogantly ignores and even ridicules the warnings (the testimonies ) that the towering monuments themselves (!) provide, and that ignores or ridicules the tomes of evidence, trial transcripts, photographs, depositions, and films looming over them.
An arrogance and recklessness that defies this tower of proof that promises to crush their oral or written arguments even before they begin to open their mouths or pick up a pen.
If any of you listening are of Chinese, Russian, German, Ukrainian, Polish, Bosnian, Sudanese, African-American or Native American (where laws prohibiting both American groups from keeping or bearing arms during much of US history is a fact), or are from India ,South Africa, Cambodia, Vietnam, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Albania or even of Irish descent, regardless of your religion, race, sex, or color-- you only need speak to your parents, your grand-parents or great grand parents to know your personal part in this history that we refer to.
And let’s not forget the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII and their memorial.
Now while we’re on the subject of personal experience, consider that some of you may have paused (hesitated) when imagining any of these mentioned groups would have been armed at all and that some of you might be harboring even the slightest reservation about their right to protect themselves, proves unexpectedly, but conclusively because you’re the one thinking and feeling it at the moment, the point that no-one should ever disarm anyone, or allow themselves to be disarmed.
And that pause in your thinking is not unique to you.
That kind of pause is the reason names get chiseled into marble by the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, in the first place, around the world and throughout history. You’re not unique.
If you grasp that, you grasp the deepest reason for the Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms, as the last line of defense against the most egregious flaws in humans, whether alone or in groups, that pause to arm you, or act to disarm you.
Don’t you find it odd that the same American Revolution that had just removed the threat to their liberty, in fact their oppressor by force of arms, the British Empire, that they didn’t declare that we’re all safe now and that it could never again happen on US soil?
Because the victors believed in and fought for liberty? And that we’re all on the same side now, so there’s no more need for anyone to have arms.
No they did the opposite. They secured the pre-existing right for the people to keep and bear arms that had just won them their freedom as a FUTURE and PERMANENT guard against it ever happening again.
The one’s closest to the government, that ratified into existence, saying without mincing words, don’t you dare trust us or anyone after us. That you really can’t have faith in your fellow man after all.
Evidently they knew something about history and human flaws that this document and audio broadcast is trying to remind you of 224 years later.
So, which day or ceremony of remembrance do you believe is more fitting for any people on the face of the earth to be alive to experience?
The dignity of raising their families alive, because they could be defended? Even against famine or slave labor?
Or the "dignity" of a memorial where others can remember that they could not defend themselves?
The kinds of memorials that arise out of faith in our fellow man, instead of the facts about his history and even your inclinations as you’re listening to this.
A faith rooted in "just following orders" to collect arms" or interfere with their free access.
A faith that has proven more adept at building memorials, selling candles, and handing out tissue than arriving earlier, much earlier, to ensure no one winds up on them, or needing any of them in the first place, because those people could defend themselves with force of arms.
The kinds of faith that leads the so disarmed themselves to realize their own error, but only after it’s too late.
Either all or most of the victims at almost any memorial, even the smallest victims among them, had no means, or had no one there at the critical moment to protect them from not just from the lone madman, or the madmen in groups, but also from starvation, exposure, or being marched to death... or all four.
We must therefore avoid the mistake of confusing the instruments of our self defense as being responsible for massacres and genocides, when it is their absence, not their presence in the hands of those who perished, that caused them to wind up on memorials instead of with their loved ones to celebrate their lives, or celebrating having been victorious against their captors or aggressors. Of celebrating the other side of being able to defend life: Of celebrating the heroic and the courageous.
Vigils at certain memorials or services around the world for the defenseless, whether here, or abroad, generally share one painful thing in common that must become the intersection where all who are defenseless against murder, and their survivors must agree:
That being defenseless, or being made defenseless, will not be tolerated, but in fact will be made a crime at least equal to the loss of life caused by the denial of that self defense.
This means that whether the murder of the unarmed takes place in air conditioned malls or schools by a madman, or in a public square, a lonely ditch, or an open plain, by so called security forces, on the orders of a different madman, or madmen, we are all, as families and friends united by same kind of crimes and common enemies:
First, that of being defenseless at the moment of truth, and then spending time weeping in front of candle lit memorials as if that is somehow an acceptable norm preferable to fighting back, or having provided the means to fight back.
Second, that of personal biases against or in favor of this or that person, or this or that group of people being armed and being able to protect their lives and their way of life, even from you.
Third, the proclivity of the one person, or populations believing they have some right or justification to snuff out the life of another, particularly after arming themselves, and making sure the other can’t fight back.
History is littered with all three.
Remember your pause (your hesitation)?
But we can still hear it now. Even before some of you finish reading this sentence.
"Disarm" and "Take it on faith", some will say?
Your response should go something like this:
"Your casual, elaborate dismissal of history proves our point”
"We warned you that you are choosing the burden of disproving all of human history to make your case."
“A case that impeaches you as you speak.”
"While we, in contrast, the American people, have no such burden...except perhaps, to remain armed, because there is no burden of proof on us, in fact the birth of our Constitution stands in contrast to that burden.”
"We don’t like being on, or visiting monuments, because of a lone madman, or madmen in groups (the individually motivated criminals), either acting on so called authority, or not, who can be evil, can be mistaken or are just following orders (the politically motivated state criminals)"
In peace, humility, and love, and above all, respect for law and order under the US Constitution,
I am, an ordinary citizen.