Liberal Site The Nation Accidentlly Reveals Real Intent Of The Anti-Gun Movement In Their 2A Hit Piece
By RedFlag News Desk
On September 23, 2015, The Nation posted a piece titled The Second Amendment Was Never Meant to Protect an Individual’s Right to a Gun. I’ll save you the pain of rehashing the uninformed nonsense the article lays out as an argument for the original intent of The Second Amendment and how according to them, it was not until the Heller decision that individuals had the right to individual firearm ownership, despite the fact that individuals had been owning firearms since the birth of this nation and The Second Amendment clearly states “the right of the people”… and get straight to the point.
Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of The Constitution knows and understands that the purpose and intent of The Second Amendment, in addition to preserving the right of the people to maintain a militia for the security of the state, was to ensure that the people had a means to rise up and remove the government and institute a new one, should it become tyrannical. A fact often ignored by the progressive anti-gunner who seems to think the founding fathers wanted to make sure we could still hunt, when and where the government tells us we can, because after all, when has a government ever oppressed and killed its own people? (Sarcasm)
However, The Nation was kind enough to remind us of that fact, sort of:
To grasp the audacity of what Scalia & Co. pulled off, turn to the Second Amendment’s text: “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.” To find in that wording an individual right to possess a firearm untethered to any militia purpose, the majority performed an epic feat of jurisprudential magic: It made the pesky initial clause about the necessity of a “well regulated Militia” disappear. Poof! Gone. Scalia treated the clause as merely “prefatory” and having no real operative effect—a view at odds with history, the fundamental rules of constitutional interpretation, and the settled legal consensus for many decades.
“The Second Amendment was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several states,” then-Justice John Paul Stevens correctly noted in his minority opinion, joined by Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer. “Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms.”
Did you catch that? According to them, the purpose of The Second Amendment was to prevent the government from disarming the militias and creating a standing army that would impose an “intolerable threat” to the sovereignty of the several states. Well guess what, we currently have a standing army, and disarming us is EXACTLY what liberal progressives like Obama and Hillary want to do! It stands to reason then, that the only reason they want to disarm us, the people, which the militia is made up of, is so they can use the standing army to pose an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the states!
Of course, they will not tell you that. They will argue that no, they don’t want to disarm us, they just want guns restricted to service in the militia. The kicker is that they are unaware that according to 10 U.S. Code § 311, any able bodied citizen between the ages of 17 and 45 are already, along with the National Guard, part of the militia.
Make no mistake, despite the empty rhetoric of Barack Hussein Obama and his followers about reducing gun violence, or the naive wishful thinking of hippie liberals who think if we outlawed guns suddenly America would be a safe and peaceful utopia, all they want to do is leave you and I defenseless so their will can be imposed upon us unfettered. Some may call that governance, I call it tyranny.