web analytics
Browse > Home / America the beautiful, B Hussein, Libtards, Pass the ammo / The right to keep and bear arms

| Subcribe via RSS

The right to keep and bear arms

March 26th, 2009 Posted in America the beautiful, B Hussein, Libtards, Pass the ammo

I found this over on the White House website

second-what

According to the Obama White House the Second Amendment GIVES us the right to bear arms.  Gives us the right?  Funny, I always thought it read “The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”  That’s a hell of a lot different of a meaning than give.

The Obama version says that the government has control over our right to bear arms because they ‘gave’ it to us to begin with.  The original (and correct) version says nothing of the sort, in fact what it does say is that the government can’t TAKE AWAY our right to bear arms, meaning it’s not the governments AT ALL.

See, if the government gives us the right to bear arms, then they can take it away.  But if the right is inherent to us as an individual that has nothing to do with governmental authority  and everything to do with our divine right as the founding fathers viewed it, then the government can do nothing that takes it away, and that is what this is all about – redefining what the Constitution is really saying.

Now, there are a few who are saying “Instinct, you’re an idiot.  They aren’t trying to take away your guns.”  Really?  They have already been very successful at stripping religion out of our government offices even though our country was founded on the premise of GOD GIVEN RIGHTS!  Not HUMAN rights,  GOD given rights.  One only has to look at the Declaration of Independence to understand that the founders of our country believed that God himself gave us our rights, directly to the people and not to just the ruling faction.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.  — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers consent of the governed,”

Read that part carefully.  Our government gets its RIGHT to rule from our consent to their rule.  That means that WE are the ones who are supposed to tell the government what WE want, not the government telling us what we will do.  It also points out, very directly that these rights are given to us by God.  Not exactly a government that wanted religion to be totally separate from the government now is it?

So, why do we keep hearing the battle cry of “Separation of church and state”?  Because those same individuals who want to redefine the second amendment were allowed to redefine the first.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Note, there is nothing in there that says that religion should be separate from government.  What it says is that we will not favor one religion over another nor will we establish a state religion.

What happed then?  Thomas Jefferson, that’s what.  In a letter to the Danbury Baptists he, referencing government and religion said this:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.

See, he never said that he wanted a wall of separation between church and state, but through careful manipulation we now have court rulings that ban the display of the Ten Commandments based on the rule of ‘separation of church and state’ – which doesn’t exist.  All he was saying was that the government should not determine what religions were acceptable, nor should they prohibit them – just like it says in the Constitution.  Now, with religion removed, our government doesn’t have to pay attention to the fact that our rights come from God.   Instead, they can pretend that the government is what grants them to us.

Next up for them is the Second Amendment, by attempting to redefine it so that it says “gives us the right” instead of “prohibits the government from infringing on our right” they have turned in from being an individual right – granted by God to the person – into a government gift that can be removed as they see fit.  So, if the government decides that guns are bad, well then they’ll just have to take all that away ‘for our own good.’

But here’s the funny part (if you like gallows humor like the Teleprompter in Chief) 80% of crime is gang related and 70% of murders happen in three percent of the counties in the US.  50% of the counties in the United States have no murders in any given year and 25% only have one murder.  So, would taking guns away reduce the murder rates?  Not significantly since most of them are being done by gangs, who are not known to be law abiding citizens anyway.

But it would keep us from being a threat to the government’s power, which is what this is all about anyway.

Leave a Reply