Why You Were Lied To About The 2nd Amendment

The statement “well regulated” meant well trained, equipped, and ready to fight. It had nothing to do with government control or oversight….or laws limiting their actions. The militias weren’t under state control….they were independent groups of local men fighting to push the British out of the colonies.

Why on earth is the Second Amendment written so badly then? If your Founding Fathers wanted the Second Amendment to mean that you could go out and buy whatever firearms you wanted with no more concern than buying a bag of sweets, why didn't they just say so?

Maybe, just maybe it was because they wanted an largely unarmed population to be free to buy guns to serve in the Militia. After all, if you look at Clause 16 of Article 1 Section 8, it gives the purposes of the Militia as - The Government being able to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions. In other words the poppycock that you are spouting is nonsense. Well regulated means well-regulated by the President, Vice-President and the Congress to serve the purposes of the same. What you are proposing is just a bunch of untrained, uncontrolled yahoo cowboys strutting about with guns that are too big for them.

If most Americans claimed this right, why would we even need police forces?

The Constitution begins with "We the people". Which means all in individuals. Then by definition "the people to bare arms" should also mean all individuals. "A well regulated militia" to me means the right to organize and regulate armed persons as a group solely for the purpose to defend the state. The founding fathers knew what the perils of government was and so they designed the constitution as a deterrent to tyranny and oppression. The constitution was not written in any way to benefit government. It was designed to protect the people from the government. The US Politicians at present are trampling the constitution with their misuse of power.

I've been shooting since I was 12 but never felt it necessary to own a weapon capable of killing 30 people in 30 seconds. Never even occurred to me. Any single action low capacity weapon is more than capable of defending your home or hunting game. The problem is that the current gun culture is not made up of clear thinking, community minded individuals. It is now populated by those who have turned gun ownership into a death cult. Judge Scalia himself noted that the government still maintained the right to regulate the types of weapons available to the general public. No one needs a high capacity semiautomatic pistol or rifle to maintain home protection or hunting interests. End of story. If you believe otherwise, you either don't know much about guns or are a member of the death cult.

The US Constitution is CLEAR on Militias, you're not Militia, you're paramilitary
Article 1
Section 8
The Militia
Clause 15. The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.

Clause 16. The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

ZNICK FOR PRESIDENT. !!!!!!

So, back in those times, it took the Cavalry (the Army) a long time to reach settlers or small towns if there was an attack by local Native tribes or other types of danger. So it was the responsibility of the local town to defend itself in case of emergency. These weren't trained army soldiers, but were the able-bodied adult men who owned a musket. This is why the "militia" and "the people" are both used in the same sentence. Because the people ARE the militia. The National Guard, by the way, is not the militia. It is part of the reserve components of the US Army and is a professional fighting force, with firearms and uniforms and training provided by the government. The militia (ie the people) had to use their own firearms to defend the town. I hope that makes sense.

The last statement sums it up

Leftists are always on the side of idiotic n evil. This fight we are in isn’t right vs left. It’s good vs evil. There’s many on either side that are good n just as many if not more that are evil.

The right to bear arms…….OK. I wanna own nuclear arms.

The role of the militia is found in the Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 14-15, and yes the miltia is regulated and paid for by the federal government.

A well regulated militia would be under community leadership acting lawfully.
NOT acting against law enforcement or government.
We have courts & ballot boxes to sort out bad government in a civil society.
The problem ISN`T guns.
The problem IS criminal paranoia propaganda & indignant self righteousness.
You fear of gun confiscation isn`t unfounded.
It is a self fulfilling prophecy for your madness.
Criminals are legally slaves under the Constitution.
Criminals, slaves don`t get to own guns.
Mind the Rule of Law, redress government, guns are only a last resort & never against your countrymen.
Never against your neighbor or community or those you simply disagree with.
When you act out criminally you lose many Constitutional Rights & by rights shouldn`t expect any.
Is THAT the World you want?
For you? Your children? Your Nation?

The military can't be used against the AMERICAN PEOPLE. WAKE up AMERICA 🇺🇸

It's amusing how the people of the most powerful country in the world still believe that what was said and written 250 years ago, is relevant today. It was written in a time of war... the Revolution was basically all of the US history at the moment. Who is going to attack you now? The Mexicans immigrant workers? The Canadians? Because if your government decided to wipe you all out, they can do it in a heartbeat. From across the ocean. But as long as you buy weapons and fund the biggest business scheme of USA, you are safe.

So what can we do about school shootings then?

👍

There is only one U.S. services that exists by the constitution the NAVY . ALL-OTHER SERVICES EXIST BY TEMPORARY GOVERNMENT FUNDING. THE founding fathers feared a standing army for good reasons.

I used to say "abolish the DNC" but now I say "abolish the government."

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

It doesn't say the right of the militia to keep and bear arms.

It doesn't say the right of the state to keep and bear arms.

It clearly states the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed.

The subject here "The right of the citizen to keep and bare arms" and separately " A well regulated Militia" has nothing about government in it or with it.

Here is a few things you can about. Stop playing the damned Demo / Repub football game allowing public and private corporations masquerading as govt enforcing company policy as law in a contracting and commerce for profit de-facto legal system.
Secure your correct legal status, restore pre-1860 legitimate gov, Congress, etc...., suspend the legal status of those corporations until reorganization takes place, or dissolve them completely to watch all this lawless abuse evaporate with political and corporate officials personally and professionally held accountable for their actions and misdeeds.
Speaking of actions, you'll not get this done sitting on your hands and acting like a churchy type coward behind the Christ's pants leg. Repent (change your mind), dust your butt off, and get out there with whats left of your time, talent, and treasury to cease being corporately edutrained but rather educated.
A man that doesn't have an informed and ordered system of thought will always be at the mercy of a man that has one.......

The king of england granted charters to each of the colonies land grants. Virginia in 1607 to georgia in 1732. The charters required all "able bodied" white men aged 16 to 60 to form militias to defend each individual colony against invasion by (the french, spain and native tribes ect.) the militia was to regulate (train) with small arms, light cannon ect. Each militia man (16 to 60) was required to supply and keep at the ready small arms to defend the colony. "We the people" are the militia! The right of the people to Keep and Bear arms shall not be infringed! Red coats didn't occupy the colonies until the French and Indian war (1754-1763), after the war king George began to tax (to pay for the war) and restrict the colonist (rights) in the order that the bill of rights is written in!

Just as a quick public service announcement, I thought I might take a moment to pass out a little rhetorical ammunition to those of you who still have to hear from people who, if they can no longer pretend that the Second Amendment doesn't exist, then at least try to misinterpret it to the best of their ability.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States 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.”

Now, progressives read this and say that only those people in a well regulated militia have the right to keep and bear arms. Let's find out why this is total nonsense. At the Constitution Society, author J. Neil Shulman conducted a remarkable exercise. He sent that text of the Second Amendment NOT to a lawyer, but to an expert on the English language; Roy Copperund, who taught journalism at USC for 17 years and served on the Usage Panel of the American Heritage Dictionary. Merriam Webster's dictionary frequently cites him as an expert on American English usage.

This is paraphrasing the exact exchange of words leading up to the event, but basically Shulman asked Copperund the following questions:

“Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to a well regulated militia?” Copperund replied: “The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; It simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.”

“Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?” Copperund: “The right is not granted by the amendment; it's existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.”

“Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia is, in fact, necessary to the security of a free state, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed' null and void?” Copperund: “No such condition is expressed OR implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia...The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.”

Shulman concludes the exchange with an example so simple that even a Progressive can understand it. He sent Mr. Copperund a precisely grammatically identical sentence, which was: “ 'A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.' Does that mean that only a well-schooled electorate – high school gradutates, say – are the only ones with the right to keep and read books?” Copperud: “There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation.”

So, what does the Second Amendment actually say according to an expert on the American usage of the English language?

1) “A well regulated militia is one of the nice things that an armed population can provide, but it's not the only thing, and it's not the reason to arm the people.”

2) “The right to keep and bear arms is reserved to the people, not to the militia.” This makes sense when you think about it because a militia is a group of citizens who bring their own weapons with them. That's why the amendment says that the people can not only bear arms, they can keep them....at home, where they live.

3) “The right of the people to be armed is not granted by the Second Amendment. That right is inherent in the People, and the Second Amendment says that the government cannot infringe upon that preexisting right.”

Finally, you might hear Progressives say “Well, that was written back in the days of flint-lock muskets; they'd never approve of such things in the days of automatic weapons.” Why not? A flint-lock musket was the deadliest weapon available at the time. Why didn't they limit their definition of arms to “pointy sticks”? The founders placed no limitations on the numbers of the weapons, or on their lethality.

And by the way, if the Second Amendment only applies to flint-lock muskets, does that mean that your First Amendment freedom of speech only applies to what you write on parchment using quill and ink, or only as far as your voice can carry in a town square? No, of course, and you know why? Because that would be ridiculous.

Never giving up my rights to anyone!

One of the purposes of the 2nd Amendment was to allow the South to maintain slave patrols and bolster the defense of the country. This meant that an individual had an individual right but also a communal right under the auspices of the state government. Additionally, Scalia in his Heller opinion stated that although an individual has the right to protect themselves, the government still can control gun ownership, the type of weapons and where guns are allowed (not in schools, hospitals, government buildings, etc.) The Constitution doesn't provide an absolute right to anything. You can't shout out fire in a movie theater. There are limits on all of our rights, the second amendment is not an exception.

2nd Amendment “Rights”?

“RIGHTS”? Well… That’s a tricky concept…. I’m not sure anyone actually knows what that means anymore. I completely agree AND I completely DISAGREE with the concept of “RIGHTS” both at the same time… and it’s rather confusing anymore. Rights are short for “birthrights”… That, I do agree with. The 2nd just says that we are born with it and it’s supposed to guarantee that it doesn’t get taken away at some point…. Buuuuuuuut… i’m having quite the internal conflict with myself right now, because as much as I agree with that, I don’t think it’s true. I mean, I believe it, and I wanted to be true… But it’s just not.
It’s true that we are born with rights…. And the amendment is supposed to be the guarantee of that…. But that’s just it… There are so many ways to have it taken from you. In fact, any, and every “right” that you can think of is only yours if you DEMAND it, and then FIGHT TO KEEP IT forms anyone that tries to take it. So therefore, it might be a birthright, but it’s only guaranteed if you and you alone can’t hold onto it in spite of everyone trying to take it from you. You are the one that can guarantee your own rights, not the government.
Do you have the right not to be killed? Do you have the right to free speech? Do you kids that live in Texas and Arizona close to the border have a right to play in their own backyard and not worry about their safety? Did the people that have been stuck in the mountains of western North Carolina that were hit by hurricane Helene more than 2 weeks with no power, no water, and in most cases, houses are completely wiped off the face of the planet? You’d think they would have the right for the government to help them a little bit sooner than three weeks later, and after Kamala Harris had been on, call her daddy podcast, drink beer on TV with Stephen Colbert amongst a ton of other things, or since just this year, our tax dollars have gone $363 billion to migrants and $551 billion to Ukraine we did not have $1 billion left to help the United States citizens that were catastrophically decimated by one of the worst hurricanes, the United States has ever had. You would think that does US citizens have the right to that money after disaster but they didn’t. Because FEMA had given the last $5 billion of its emergency funds to make sure that the migrants that are staying in the five star hotels had iPhone 15s, brand new X boxes and washer dryer combos on top of their $6000 credit cards that are loaded with an additional $2500 each month.
The US citizens may have had those “rights”, but like I’m saying, rights are only yours if you have the ability to take them. Are stupid ass president Biden was literally sitting on the beach for four days on vacation while the hurricane is happening and when asked about the victims of the national disaster, he literally said that he “had taken care of the problem..” and that he “was on the phone for almost 2 hours working and now everyone in the Carolinas were perfectly happy and doing well.” And that is an actual quote…. But actually, the first thing he said to that reporter was “What storm? Oh, wait… that hurricane?”
My point is, we have many “rights”… In fact, we have “unalienable rights”… But there’s no guarantee. They might be birthrights, but the only guarantee that you will actually get them, is if you TAKE them by force and hold onto them with POWER…..
Which brings us back to the 2nd Amendment…
The 2nd amendment is the thing that gives you the ability to make sure that all of your other rights ARE guaranteed…
And one last thought while we’re on the subject… So, an amendment is an amendment to the United States Constitution, correct? And the Constitution is a federal document, written by The founding fathers and written into federal law when our government claimed its independence… Correct? That would make the constitution a federal doctrine? Therefore any amendment or amendments to The constitution are amendments to federal laws, correct? So… If the second amendment to the constitution has to do with guns and gun ownership, Why does each state have such different gun laws? Don’t those many different state laws about guns, that all say different rules conflict with the federal constitution and the federal amendments to that constitution? So if the second amendment says, I have the right to bear arms, but I live in a state that says I don’t have the right to bear arms, who should I listen to? Do the states overrule the country? Or should the country’s laws supersede the states? That kind of seems like one parent telling their kid they could play their video game for an hour before they have to do their homework and the other parent coming home and saying you are grounded for playing your video game before your homework was finished… Imagine how confused that kid would be. And that’s with something simple. Do we wonder why United States citizens are so confused and they fight over so many different laws…? Definitions? Meanings? Applications of law?
Wow… I just wrote that… Lol. I’m seriously gonna copy that comment and put it in my notes because I was 100% on fire with the bullshit just now for about three minutes straight… Lol. Great video by the way…. I’m a huge fan…

Geniuses of America - why do you buy guns? Because each of your purchases is preceeded by an INTENTION...
So what was the INTENTION behind "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, etc..."

Who was the militi? It was the people
So therefore, the people cannot b denied the right to own a gun or to possess a gun

If the government can take it away, it will be a privilege, not a right.

You 2A nuts just think you are right because you want to be right. The GD amendment is poorly worded, and leaves itself open to interpretation. The purpose of it was so citizen soldiers could keep weapons at home and not have to go to an armory to retrieve them, and no one could tell them they couldn't keep them at home. It's similar to the 3rd amendment about the quartering of soldiers. Those were different times with different prerogatives. And before some dipstick jumps on my case, I own firearms. But there is a historical perspective that is overlooked by those who are unaware or just don't care.

We are keeping our guns.

At no time in history has the ones that disarm the populous been the good guys with good intentions. Period.

Next let's get into how private citizens owned warships, artillery, and gatling guns.

The fact we have to explain this is concerning enough

Times change. They didn’t have any police departments to help protect the individual. We don’t need low IQ MAGA cultists to believe conspiracy theories that they need to carry arms to protect themselves against the government We don’t need a bloody Jan 6

The democrats don't care about the Constitution. They use it to wipe their feet. The only threat to democracy in the US is the democrats!

"the right ... shall not be infringed", which means that they merely recognized a pre-existing right and have agreed they would not trample over it.

Everyone around the world has been lied to. Mainly to think we need government and to give authority to government and their agents (all of whom in my opinion are criminals) and your constitution is contradicted by your bill of rights making it not worth the paper it's written on. If I'm not mistaken.

Politicians: "The Founding Fathers didnt mean for individual citizens to have them."
James Madison: "The RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

Sounds like Mr Madison was waterfall on a tropical island, crystal clear, about who is supposed to have them. As well as why. End of discussion.

And if it was to used only by the militia, then the Amendment was not necessarily needed.

Perfectly said and explained with clarity related to our construction rights. Thanks.

The second amendment was originally a state right. Madison and Mason were southern slave owning anti-federalists who saw a federal militia as a threat to state sovereignty to own slaves. They wrote the 4th amendment to protect their ownership of slaves, property, and they had the papers to prove it. The 2nd was to form militias of white men to put down slave revolts, track down runaway slaves, fight indians and enforce tax collection.
When they disbanded the militias due to their ineffectiveness during the War of 1812, they didnt bother to dump the 2nd
Theres nothing in the verbatim writing of the 2nd that points to an individual right. The term to bear arms points to service of the state, to keep meant militia members were issued muskets from the state armory and they could keep it at home to save time in an emergency
Today the 2nd is the reason we have school shootings and other mass atrocities because some disturbed individuals have easy access to military grade weapons, making them a one man army

Misinformed conspiracy nutjobs have been saying "they're coming for our guns" my whole life. It will never happen and it has nothing to do with a bunch of wannabe Charlie Bronsons playing soldier. Groups like the NRA has bought enough politicians and driven enough fear into people who used to be sane that firearms are guaranteed to stay.

At this time in history “well regulated” meant “well trained”

Until 2008 the supreme court held that the 2nd amendment was a state right. The fact that this changed is a testament to the power of the gun lobby.

The 2nd Amendment means that the government may not regulate private ownership of any arms, including for example howitzers or nuclear weapons. Thank you for clearing that up. That is helpful.

Short Essay Disclaimer: All of the following is not legal advice, nor am I responsible for anyone who interprets the following as such.

Summary: A license for any weapon is illegal. A prohibition on any weapon is illegal. Preventing some from owning a weapon is illegal; even if they are felons

*Introduction*

Any State or municipality that bans, prevents, delays, or abridges a non-incarcerated, and free, United States Citizen from protecting themselves; in a manner that is adequate and equal in effectiveness to that which is current and present on Earth: May be in direct violation of the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 8th, 9th, 10th, and 14th Amendments, respectively.

Any State or municipality that requires a free citizen give up their right to keep & bear arms, by transmuting such right into a privilege, by means of testing, permitting, and licensing, ignores the fundamental definitions of "Rights", "Freedoms" and "Liberty" that have remained unchanged for hundreds of years, and in parallel, may violate the aforementioned amendments.

*Proof:*

*2nd Amendment:* "...the right of The People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

*Violation:* Prohibiting or limiting an individual's ability to possess arms violates this amendment. Any weapon that can be kept or carried qualifies. A Test, Quiz, Course, Permit, or License, if required, transmute the individual right into a state earned privilege; also violating this amendment

*4th Amendment:* “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...."

*Violation:* Seizing a firearm without suspicion that a crime has been, is about to be, or is being committed, and without confidence that the nature of this crime requires apprehension of a weapon, is unreasonable and illegal. The 2nd Amendment necessitates the right to bear arms, making such seizures unrelated or unreasonable; unnecessary.

*5th Amendment:* "No person....nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

*Violation:* For a citizen who has been incarcerated and released, taking away their right to self-defense after serving their sentence violates the "Double Jeopardy" clause, as their punishment for their crime was the time served.

*8th Amendment:* "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

*Violation:* Seizing a firearm simply for possession is cruel and unusual, leaving a person defenseless. It is inhumane to deny someone the right to defend themselves. A Test, Quiz, Course, Permit, or License, if required, transmute the individual right into a state earned privilege; and the concept that any free person in society earn the privilege to adequately defend themselves is cruel, and unusual to say the least.

*9th Amendment:* "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

*Violation:* The right to defend ones self, in a manner that is adequate to succeed against the common dangers of a given time, and place, and within the borders of one's nation; is a common-sense human right that does not need to be explicitly stated in the Constitution to be protected.

*10th Amendment:* "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution...are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

*Violation:* States nor other cannot challenge the federal Constitution's clear rights, including the right to bear arms, or any of the other amendments or law expressed in that document.

*14th Amendment:* "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens...nor deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...."

*Violation:* Even if the 2nd Amendment were considered a privilege rather than a right, the 14th Amendment prohibits any state from abridging (shortening or minimizing) any immunities (shall not be infringed) or privileges (the "rights" our governments have transmuted). It also prohibits depriving life or property (self-defense, owned or carried weapons) without due process. Given that the rights of citizens have been ignored in the instances of the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 8th, 9th, and 10th Amendments regarding weapons and self defense, it can be reasonably said that due process wasn't even attempted, if not the entire Constitution considered. Therefore, all State and Federal laws that abridge the right to bear arms in regards to a lack of due process violate the 14th Amendment (As was the case in the Bruen decision).

*Other Considerations:* The 13th Amendment implies that those "unfree" are those actively incarcerated. The Supreme Court has ruled that "The People" refers to individual citizens. We the People, in order to form a more perfect Union, must provide for the common defense. Any Supreme Court rulings, state laws, federal rulings, or municipal rulings that have not considered the entire Constitution when making these laws violate due process, and therefore are unconstitutional.

*Rights Exceptions:*
- Actively in prison or jail
- Actively apprehended based on reasonable, articulable suspicion that a crime has, is, or is about to be committed by the individual in question

*Crime Statistics:*
- There are approximately 16,000 murders annually in the United States.
- Firearms are used for self-defense up to 2.5 million times per year.
- Defensive gun use (DGU) occurs in about 70,040 instances per year, including both violent and property crimes.
- States with higher rates of gun ownership tend to have lower rates of violent crime.

In Thomas Jeffersons letter to Peter Car In 1785, quote "As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun." Although, many people carried swords, and knives, as guns were expensive.

The Thompson (Sub)Machine gun, invented in 1918 (After WW1 and after the 1903 Militia Act) was avaliable to purchase by the general public all the way until 1934 under the unconstitutional NFA act, signed into law by 3 term president FDR, in his first term. Many machine guns other than this had already existed in civilian hands for years, including the Maxim Gun which was almost 20 years old by then, and could be legally owned by US citizens. This also applied to silencers, which apparently could be shipped through the USPS at $5 USD 1928 ($91.97 circa 2024)

At the time of the founding, "Arms" generally included body armor (like that of a soldiers helmet, to deflect Muskets, or chest plates) and before the New World was discovered, "Arms" usually referred to any item related to fighting, whether that be a shield or ammunition, as may be necessary in self defense.

Supreme Court Support:

Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016)
☆The U.S. Supreme Court vacated Jaime Caetano's conviction in regards to owning a stun gun, ruling that the Second Amendment protects the right to own more than just firearms☆

McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010)
☆The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments, striking down Chicago's handgun ban☆

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)
☆The U.S. Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to possess firearms for self-defense within the home, and is an individual right of each, free citizen☆

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (2022)

☆The U.S. Supreme Court held that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home. The Court struck down New York's "proper cause" requirement for obtaining a concealed carry license, ruling it unconstitutional as it prevented law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms☆

*Conclusion*

In regards to the security of We People in the face of such prevalent weapon ownership: One might feel exposed if a journalist peers into their buisness or home from a public way; and they merely must shut their blinds as the onus is on them to do so.

And in the same manner: One might feel un-prepared, under-equipped, and overwhelmed in a downtown where all citizens have rifles; And they merely match the situation via the same or greater means, by obtaining, bearing, carrying, keeping, and presumably training with arms the same or more powerful, efficient, and capable for the situation at hand.

We must do all we can to ensure our right to defend ourselves no matter our ideas or opinions, type, or past, as without this, we may not defend our speech, or property, or our freedom. This Constitution protects the Republican, the Democrat, the Independent, and even the neerdowells and the ignorant. We must all do our duty to protect it, or we have nothing.