The Bill of Rights (including The 2nd Amendment) was written to 'Protect The People' from their own government, not from each other. Which explains WHY 'career politicians' WANT your gun.

in life •  7 months ago

America's Founders clearly defined the 'fourth and dominant branch' of government when they wrote the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution.

4of2a.jpg

What does it mean when your politicians [reps of the New World “international” Order] come for your 2nd Amendment and gun?

It means they don't want to hear any loud 'objections' about what they intend to do next.

“Democrats and liberals in Congress want to disarm law-abiding Americans at the same time they are releasing dangerous criminal aliens and savage gang members onto our streets. Politicians who put criminal aliens before American Citizens should be voted out of office!” - President Donald Trump

The first thing a small group, trying to enslave a much larger group (100,000x), has to do.. is disarm the larger group. Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin.. all knew legislavers would try to grab your gun some day, hence they provided you with 'The Right to Bear Arms' (2nd Amendment), the fourth (and most powerful) branch of government.

And why did the Authors of the Constitution want you armed. To protect yourselves from each other is a valid reason, but it was not their reason. We know this because 'The Bill of Rights' was written to protect 'The People from government' (not 'The People from The People') Why would the 2nd Amendment be an exception.

“In the United States, the Bill of Rights is the term for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. These Amendments explicitly limit the Federal government's powers, protecting the rights of the people by preventing Congress from abridging freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of religious worship, and the right to bear arms, preventing unreasonable search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishment, and self-incrimination, and guaranteeing due process of law and a speedy public trial with an impartial jury. - Wikipedia

The Constitution grants the final 'vote and [veto]' power to We The People. The 2nd Amendment is the ultimate 'check and balance' against inevitable government graft, and worse [“leaders” gone mad].

Americans are the largest armed group in history (by 100x w/400mil weapons). The 2nd Amendment IS the 4th branch of government.. the greatest in the Liberty Tree. Never allow any politicians to cut it down, it was created to protect you from them.

Outlaw guns??
but.. All outlaws will STILL have guns.
ALL now knowing..
you have NONE!

---begin Q quotes---

MONEY.
POWER.
CONTROL.
People are simply in the way.
SLAVES.
SHEEP.
PAWNS.
MASS EXT EVENTS DESIGNED TO DECREASE THREAT LEVEL OF POPULATION.
GUN CONTROL.

WHY school shootings?
What is more precious than our children?
Emotional pull.
Distraction event.
Gun grab event.

Why do D's push for gun control ‘directly' after every tragic incident?
Why is this so very important to their agenda?
We, the people, are who they are afraid of.
We, the people, are who they fear will one day awake.

They think you are stupid. Puppets w/o power. They want your guns. Why? No power left.
Q

---end Q quotes---

Complete Quotes of Q-anon here.

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

How do guns help when the people are not organized among themselves and the government has armored vehicles, aircrafts, far better guns and trained, organized, disciplined, paid, professional personnel to employ their use?

Even adoption of heavy weaponry by local militias and a revival of the confederation will most probably fail against the Federal forces.

·

I agree with this exactly. I actually support the idea of the people having enough power to potentially, if we all band together, violently overthrow a government if it becomes tyrannical. However, that is just not realistic any more. I'm not big on gun control, but what is some dude's AR-15 gonna do against a nuke? Or a battleship? Or a drone? Or a heavy bomber? Or a tank even?

Unless we start giving civilians nukes we will never be able to match the power of a government's military again (at least in the 1st world). Obviously we can't just give people nukes, so this idea of a balance of power between the people and government in terms of armament is unfortunately a relic.

·
·

This is the spirit of what I meant.
I am not completely convinced against or in favor of gun control.
Some governments which prohibit gun control are not more tyrannical than the US'.
Gun allowance are a good reason/excuse for the militarization of the police.
Guns can help the people against the government if the are smart (reminds me one of my old threads which was about tyranny)
Guns do ease on mass murderers, but are not necessary for them.
I may post about gun control in my blog.
Guns in the hand of common people increase the chances of shootouts between civilians and between them and the police by a lot.

·
·
·

Yeah, I am also moderate / have mixed feelings about this issue as a whole. When I look at countries where guns have been banned in recent years, they don't seem like they suffer from much tyranny to me. When I think authoritarian governments I don't tend to think of the UK, Australia, and France for example. Then again, I hate the idea of the police being heavily armed and citizens being basically unarmed.

HOWEVER, I think it is much more important that we fight the existing authoritarian policies of our government in the US before we act like we care about freedom. When people are getting locked up over having marijuana and then forced to work for basically no money in for-profit prisons for a decade, we have serious issues in this country. I wish that everybody who cared about freedom for gun rights cared about those issues as well.

·
·
·

You got a 14.81% upvote from @sleeplesswhale courtesy of @stimialiti!

·
·
·

You got a 16.67% upvote from @luckyvotes courtesy of @stimialiti!

·
·
·

You got a 80.00% upvote from @voteme courtesy of @stimialiti! For next round, send minimum 0.01 SBD to bid for upvote.

Do you know, you can also earn daily passive income simply by delegating your Steem Power to voteme by clicking following links: 10SP, 25SP, 50SP, 100SP, 250SP, 500SP, 1000SP, 5000SP.

·
·
·

@youtake pulls you up ! This vote was sent to you by @stimialiti!

·

The ratio is thousands vs hundreds of millions, moreover; if a member of US armed forces is giving 'what he believes' is an illegal order, say 'to fire on civilians', his sworn duty is to disobey and arrest whoever gave that order.

·
·

The ratio is thousands vs hundreds of millions,

No.
The US combined forces are over a million big in personnel.
I believe that it is without counting reserves.

You also exaggerated the size of relevant US population by counting hoes, children, disabled and sick and elderly.

moreover; if a member of US armed forces is giving 'what he believes' is an illegal order, say 'to fire on civilians', his sworn duty is to disobey and arrest whoever gave that order.

This is your only hope, and I doubt that you can rely on it.

·
·
·

The US military is dwarfed by the armed civilian population, but that doesn't matter cause there's not one chance in hell they would fire on their own mothers and brothers.

And if you think that American "hoes, children, disabled and sick and elderly" would let a bunch of child-eating ghouls take over this Country, then you haven't spent much time in the States. They'd go after 'em in pantyhose, wheelchairs and crutches with pepper-spray, shovels and rakes.. so welcome to America.

·
·
·
·

The US military is dwarfed by the armed civilian population

By the same ratio (near 1/280) that an infantry platoon is dwarfed by a village, except that an infantry platoon is not as equipped as the army.
It lacks air, naval, electronic, armored and other elements that the "army" has.

but that doesn't matter cause there's not one chance in hell they would fire on their own mothers and brothers.

This is the only hope for the civilians, and they will probably not even need to face their brothers, and much less their mothers.

And if you think that American "hoes, children, disabled and sick and elderly" would let a bunch of child-eating ghouls take over this Country, then you haven't spent much time in the States. They'd go after 'em in pantyhose, wheelchairs and crutches with pepper-spray, shovels and rakes.. so welcome to America.

Only a small minority of them might do so in a few remote villages, and less few ghettos.
The vast majority care only for their day to day survival.

·
·
·
·
·

You got a 11.90% upvote from @luckyvotes courtesy of @stimialiti!

·
·
·
·
·

You got a 18.18% upvote from @sleeplesswhale courtesy of @stimialiti!

·
·
·
·
·

@youtake pulls you up ! This vote was sent to you by @stimialiti!

·
·
·

You got a 23.53% upvote from @luckyvotes courtesy of @stimialiti!

·
·
·

You got a 18.96% upvote from @sleeplesswhale courtesy of @stimialiti!

Seems to me that rights are a thing of the past now. People used to enjoy their "inalienable" rights. To me a "Right" is anything that isn't a wrong!!! ;) Keep up the good posts matey & keep fighting the good fight!!

·

"It's a club. And you ain't in it! .. They don't care about you.. AT ALL! AT ALL!! AT ALL!!!" - George Carlin

What the hell is this? This article doesn't even try to be unbiased. No mention at all of the needless death from rampant gun use. I'm pretty disappointed. :(

·

20 million die of poverty a year and guns are the only way to stop it...

·
·

Lol wut? BTW, you can't DIE from poverty. Hunger seems more likely. Or sickness... Poverty is just a state of finance.

·
·
·

there is no difference between indirect violence and direct violence.

Let's setup a scenario with two people. One person and had food and a gun, and another person was is starving. If the person with the gun does not allow the other to gain access to food, and uses the gun as a means to do this, what will the eventual cause of death be? You could point your finger at the lack of food, you could also blame the man with a gun, or more specifically in my instance blame the reasoning of the man with the monopoly on violence used when they did not allow the other to access food.

You can complain about starvation all you want, but its the man with the gun that's the problem any way you slice it. The food is there, its the actions that cause the starvation.

·
·
·
·

so to some it up, poverty is the reason we sit by and watch each other die (or worse). Its the excuse we give ourselves as a group, so when i say death of poverty i mean deaths due to that excuse. In reality we are killing each other, poverty is just a word that conveys how exactly we are doing so.

·
·
·
·
·

What I meant was that money isn't really needed for survival. Food is, shelter is, companionship is. Money's a construct, that most of the time gets in the way of cooperation.

·
·
·
·
·
·

...

that was the entire point of my comment lmao

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

You were making it sound like violence would change things. I agree it would change things... but it wouldn't magically turn for the best.

·
·
·
·

There are actually differences between direct and indirect forms of violence. A society would be much more unstable if direct forms of violence was encouraged. Think of the term out of sight out of mind. If a part of the society was encouraged to be violent it would lead to destabilizing effects in the future.

Although violence might be an answer. It should never be encouraged. Same with suicide. Its a personal choice which reflect more on the failure of society than on the actual individual. Often times we only look at the individual when someone does wrong, we never question the people they grew up with, or interacted with on a daily bases. And we almost never question ourselves.

·
·
·
·
·

the difference is peoples perception of the violence, which leads to the sustainability differences

·
·
·
·
·

every action is based on violence on some form, and I was talking about what exists today not any of the possible answers

·
·
·
·

The world is not (yet) overpopulated, but intentionally ill-managed. The cities are overpopulated, which is all about captivating and consolidating slave labor [slavery being in total opposition to human thriving].

The overpop myth serves the owners, as does starvation, war, and poverty.. elevating the status of world banks (counterfiaters) to gods with power over life and death.

·
·
·
·
·

the problem is capitalism. Capitalism needs poverty to function, so its not even ill-managed its working as well as possible lmao

·
·
·
·
·
·

Poverty is their tribute to the god of money.

We haven't practiced capitalism in this Country since lbj, the dullest brothers, the clowns, and the mob murdered JFK. Been pure cronyism since. US gov was totally corrupt before Trump won the 'driver's seat' back from the cabal.

·

Without exception the big cities with the toughest gun laws have the highest crime. Why? Because outlaws prefer their victims unarmed. No use in pretending that because you pass a gun law.. guns will suddenly disappear. They wouldn't.. government/outlaws (and Patriots btw) would still be armed.

·
·

I'm not even arguing about the stats or the specs, I'm talking about the plain fact that its so easy to get a gun. So many times you hear how even the mentally unstable got a gun by simply walking into a store and buying it. That for me is plain wrong. If you want to shoot someone it shouldn't be through a state supported route.

At least making it a little bit more difficult for illegitimate gun ownership would change the whole dynamic on gun laws. The reason for owning a gun as a citizen should NEVER be "cause I want to shoot/kill people."

·
·
·

I'm not even arguing about the stats or the specs,

Here you are saying, 'Let's not bring any 'facts' into this discussion, stick with blind speculation.'

Guns don't kill people, murderers do. If there were no guns on the planet, do you imagine halos would suddenly appear over the heads of the 'violent takers' in this world. Your grandmother's only chance against even an unarmed maniac [which we have no shortage of] would be a gun.

Moreover, bipedal predators won't give up their weapons because of a law, yet [unfortunately] the sheep will. Guns are all that keep the sheep equalized with the wolves. How will they protect themselves from a stronger assailant without a weapon? Do you think such assaults will end because of a gun law?

Your position is 'cartoon idealism' compared to the real world.

·
·
·
·

Killing with your hands is much more visceral, there's no way someone of sound mind and raised in a peaceful environment would be able to do it without at least hesitating. Guns on the other hand, even an amateur can kill tens of people.

·
·
·
·
·

So tell your grandmother she can't protect herself [has to be at the mercy of intruders, rapist, robbers, and psychopaths] because some gun-owners might get trigger happy. An end to your naive confusion can be found in this sentence.. 'If you OUTLAW guns, only OUTLAWS will have guns.' - This one impeccable equation Trumps all gungrabbing arguments.

·
·
·
·
·
·

You aren't listening to me are you?

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

You aren't learning anything are you.

·
·
·
·

And let me reiterate, my point was making it more difficult for crazy people to get a hold of guns.

Very nice work. Good Job!

Written by the masons, so what's all the fuss?

·

If the Founders were masons, this would merely prove that some masons in the 18th century were decent empathy-enabled freedom-seeking men.

·
·

You are delusional m8 sry. Yes they were masons, its a given fact at this point. It also of the general public's knowledge that masons are not empathy-enabled freedom-seeking men. Although they like to define themselves as such. You must be one lol

·
·
·

You must be one lol

'I would never join any group that would accept me as a member.'

The Founders were, by their deeds, rare good men battling a world of evil, same as Trump and the Whites Hats of these DAYS. Nothing you [or anyone] might claim can change these self-evident facts.

·
·
·
·

it is a little more complicated than that...

·
·
·
·
·

It's the plain and simple truth, which these 'complications' are designed to eclipse.

Buen video amigo, saludos.

One would think that after the Columbine shooting our schools by now will be more secure than our airports, but this will remove their excuse to remove all guns from the American Citizens.

·

Yes, ever notice how after every school shooting they had a gun-grab campaign ready to saturate the MSMatrix.