Pro Second Amendment Argument For Bearing Any Arm

 by Barry Ferguson
7/15/21

Those who would like to disarm America argue against the second amendment and use the same assertion their cult tells them to use. That is, the amendment was not intended to allow citizens to own weapons of war. We are not supposed to have powerful weapons. The anti-2A people say we little people were never supposed to have AR-15s or ‘assault rifles’ or nuclear bombs. The government should confiscate such weaponry and greatly restrict ownership rights.

As usual, as a proponent of individual liberty, I disagree.   

Reading the document and applying perspective might lead one to an interpretation overlooked by debaters on both sides of the 2A. It may be that the genius of James Madison implied that we should all be secure in whatever weaponry we choose to own.

One could make the argument, therefore, that we citizens have the right to any weaponry we choose from a pistol to a nuclear warhead.

So what exactly did James Madison have in mind when he penned the second amendment to the US Constitution?

The Second Amendment to the Constitution reads: “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.

The ‘well regulated militia’ consists of ‘we the people’. We, the people, should therefore be a military deterrent to the government’s military in order to ensure a ‘free state’. How can we be a deterrent if we don’t have equal weaponry? Let’s apply the democrat term, ‘equity’.  

‘Necessary to the security of a free state’ means our freedom is dependent upon our ability to defend ourselves with lethal force against any foreign government intrusion and that includes US government intrusion. The amendment’s writer, James Madison, believed citizens had the right to defend themselves against a tyrannical US government. God bless James Madison! If we have learned anything from the last 75 years of US dominance over the world, it is the US never invades another country or person that has equivalent weaponry. Madison was a genius.

‘The right of the people to keep and bear arms’ is the crux of the 2A argument.

What is meant by ‘keep and bear arms’?

‘Keep’ is to own and ‘bear’ means or implies to display in a forceful posture. This let’s our enemies know we are locked and loaded.

‘Arms’ of Madison’s day were single shot musket rifles or swords or big sticks. Citizens and soldiers both used the same exact weapons. The intention of the second amendment, so it seems, is to give citizens the right to own the same weapons as the military. Again, to quote the democrats, this is ‘equity’.  

The most advanced military weapons of the day were perhaps canons or mortars. Members of the military carried single shot musket rifles or swords. The second amendment does not differentiate types of weaponry citizens were allowed to possess. The degree of weaponry we the people ‘keep and bear’ is commensurate with the enemy’s degree of weaponry of which we are threatened.

Isn’t it interesting that Madison articulated the right of free people to have equivalent weaponry for their militias so they could adequately defend themselves against any tyrannical government seeking domination over them? Look what has happened to the countries of Canada and Australia after they allowed their weapons to be seized. These countries are now nothing more than perpetual penal colonies as their citizens are pathetic subjects to their rulers. Citizens are kept in pens because their governments keep them locked down and terrified of the bioweapon Covid. Did I mention that Madison was a genius? If we ignore Madison, we Americans will find ourselves wearing the shackles of slavery that will probably be made in Canada or Australia since they have become experts in the Massah’s domination. Tyrannical countries are incapable of producing a James Madison or anything else worthwhile to the human species.

No one in the late 1700’s could fathom an automatic weapon much less a missile, a bomb, or a nuclear warhead. These weapons were yet to be invented. Nevertheless, it seems that the second amendment’s real purpose was to put the average citizen on equivalent footing with the average military member in terms of weapons. The second amendment is like the Queen to a chess player. If one player can capture the opponents Queen, that player now has a huge advantage and can dominate the chess board with power. Every tyrant plays the same strategy. Capture the guns. Then exert domination.  

Warfare has always evolved with the evolution of weapons. What if Madison had lived in the early 1900’s and the Constitution was written then. Automatic weapons were becoming commonplace. Airplanes were beginning to drop bombs. Biologic and chemical weapons were being produced. Would Madison have used the same language?

What if Roger Stone had mounted a 50-caliber machine gun on his roof and parked an Apache attack helicopter in his back yard? I’ll bet that FBI raid of Mr. Stone’s residence featuring 17 agents in full military gear with CNN in tow would have gone down differently.

So, with perspective, it seems that indeed the second amendment gives each of us the right to own automatic weapons, rockets, tanks, F-16s, or even nuclear bombs. Perhaps now we should equip ourselves with biologic weapons like the US uses on us in case a swarm of government gestapo agents descend upon our home?  

Lastly, we might should all revisit the meaning of ‘infringed’, as in ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed’!

Of course there is another argument as a condition in which none of us would need to own such weapons. That would be if were permitted to live in peace and liberty and were not constantly threatened by government tyranny.

How do we know when we are experiencing government tyranny?

Thomas Jefferson defined it well when he said the following: “When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”   

 



Copyright BMF Investments, Inc. 2021