Donald Trump made reference to “Second Amendment people” in a speech and the mainstream media suffered a complete meltdown. Since the media seems unable to explain the term, we will attempt to do so.
Delegates to the Constitutional convention signed the Constitution of the United States on July 4, 1776, creating the Constitutional Republic of the United States of America. The Constitution’s first three articles established three branches of government, executive, legislative and judicial, and defined the powers of each. Article Five established a process to amend the Constitution.
Members of Congress realized the Constitution should also define the rights of the people, especially protection from a tyrannical government. Employing provisions established in Article Five, the House and Senate unanimously approved the first ten amendments to the Constitution, The Bill of Rights, on December 15, 1791. The Second and Fourth Amendment provided protection against a tyrannical government. Since that time seventeen more amendments have been added to our Constitution. The eighteenth amendment, Prohibition, was ratified on January 16, 1919 and repealed by the twenty-first amendment on December 5, 1933.
Once an amendment has been ratified according to provisions of Article Five, it is part of the Constitution.
The president, vice president, members of Congress, our military, and senior government officials swear an oath, “To protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” They do not swear an oath to defend and protect the Congress, the Supreme Court, or the President.
The basis for all law in these United States and territories is the Constitution of the Unites States, and it can only be amended or repealed by employing provisions of Article Five.
Our Constitutional Republic will only exist as long as our Constitution is upheld by men and women who are willing, like our forefathers of old, to risk their lives and even make the ultimate sacrifice to protect this sacred document. Such citizens are identified as patriots.
Progressives say that the Constitution is a living document subject to interpretation. If this is true we have no Constitution, no Constitutional Republic. If this is not true, then we are faced with an unconstitutional attempt, an illegal attempt, to amend the Constitution.
The liberal media is in a frenzy over Donald Trump’s reference to “Second Amendment people.” What is all the fuss about? What does the Second Amendment say?
“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.”
This is a straight-forward statement: A well regulated Militia is comprised of citizens; “being necessary to the security of a free State,” means that free nations must be able to protect themselves. The Swiss, for example, take this concept seriously and all Swiss citizens must have weapons in their homes and be prepared to fight invaders. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, means U.S. citizens have the right to own and carry firearms; and the final independent clause reads, shall not be infringed, the meaning of which is crystal clear.
Neither the Congress, the President, nor the Supreme Court can prevent nor regulate private gun ownership, nor the carrying of guns. Of course rules can be established to maintain order (i.e. no guns in a courtroom), but these rules cannot conflict with nor restrict the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Today laws and regulations are being employed to ban or regulate gun ownership, and these laws and regulations violate citizen’s Second Amendment rights.
If progressive-liberal Democrats wish to eliminate guns, they must employ the amendment process specified in Article Five of the Constitution. Employing any other mechanism must be considered unconstitutional—illegal—and thus by definition classifies those individuals or organizations making such an attempt domestic enemies. Any order to the military or police to enforce such an unconstitutional law or order is in itself an illegal order, and our military is forbidden to follow an illegal order.
Donald Trump was not suggesting an assassination of Hillary Clinton when he mentioned Second Amendment people. No, he was alluding to the possibility of a citizen revolt or even a civil war. Second Amendment people are PATRIOTS, men and women adhering to an oath many have taken to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
If Democrats win in November and then attempt to “legally” eliminate gun ownership through laws and regulations, which several states are already doing in the name of “reducing crime”, there will be unintended consequences. Australian progressives rationalized that using gun seizure to eliminate gun ownership would and the result less crime and murder. When in the final analysis the opposite was true, crime and murder has increased. Since gun seizures in Australia produced such abysmal results, what can we expect if we elect Hillary Clinton and Progressive Congresspersons and Senators? Haven’t they publically declared a propensity toward the same faulty logic? Won’t they enact similar gun control legislation?
What will be the unintended consequences? In 2013 we published a political satire Revolution 2016: Take Back America, predicting a number of plots involving the unintended consequences of Progressive candidates’ victories. Of course there are many other possible scenarios: the union could splinter; a second civil war could occur—Patriots against Progressives; or, guns being confiscated and our Constitutional Republic becoming a socialist state.
Thomas Jefferson said, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” The Second Amendment was drafted to guarantee citizens’ right to water the tree. Trump was only reminding the media of this Jeffersonian warning. Obviously, the media is either incapable, or perhaps deliberately unwilling, to recognize the significance of Jefferson’s warning.
The bottom line is this: Progressive-liberal desires to control or eliminate gun ownership can only be peacefully achieved through the Constitutional amendment process—by repealing or amending the Second Amendment. Any other course of action is unconstitutional and may result in the tree of liberty being watered.
Governments that disarm their people always say it’s for the greater good.