Amendment II:

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.

There were two reasons for the Second Amendment. The first addressed concerns regarding the ability of the populace to defend itself against foreign invasion in the event that the military would be unavailable to come to its aid:

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe,which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes ...

- James Madison, The Federalist No.46

How about that idea? What if somehow the jihadists were able to get around the US military or even destroy it? Who would defend America's freedom and the rights of its citizens? The French? Cut me a fucking break. An armed populace solves many problems regarding the defense of American rights and freedoms. What if a jihadist, or even some common criminal, somehow made his way into my neighborhood unnoticed by the police or the Army? Who would defend my children against his heinous acts, once his presence was discovered by the locals, especially if police assistance were too far away to stop his shenanigans?

This amendment is as necessary today as it was in the 18th century, when it was penned by the Founding Fathers, if for this reason alone. The idea of breaking into a home knowing the occupants may be armed is a huge deterrent to crime.

The second reason dealt with the right of Americans to defend themselves against oppression from within:

Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion,that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors ...

Either the mode in which the federal government is to be constructed will render it sufficiently dependent on the people, or it will not.

- James Madison, The Federalist No.46

So, in other words, the citizens of America might have to use their arms to defend their rights against an oppressive US government. Hmm ... It could easily come to that the way things are today. Can anyone think of a time prior to the 20th Century where the rights of the American citizen were more in jeopardy than since the "New Deal"? The Second Amendment guarantees the right of every American to stand on his own to defeat such oppression.

Hmm ... standing on one's own ... What a novel concept.

Every limitation on gun ownership is therefore ILLEGAL under the Second Amendment, and should be. Such arms are the people's last defense against oppressive invaders as well as criminals and oppressors within. Every major oppressive government in history has started out by taking the guns from its citizens. People who stand in the way of the Second Amendment should be looked upon as a warning to all Americans of the real danger that lies within our borders. We are a free people, charged with the responsibility of defending our own rights against those who would take them away. This is largely what America is all about, and anyone who would stand in the way deserves to die by civilian American arms.


RWR