Extreme BS Alert: Stop Hiding Behind the Second Amendment

Huffington Post – by Samantha Paige Rosen

The Second Amendment does not protect an individual’s right to own a firearm. This narrative was developed by the National Rifle Association in the late 1970s, out of fear that further gun control laws would eliminate private ownership of firearms altogether.

For 200 years following the ratification of the Second Amendment, federal judgesunderstood that the Second Amendment safeguarded the right to keep and bear arms when serving in a state militia. This view was widely held until the 1980s when pro-gun organizations began claiming that federal regulation of the individual use of firearms violated Americans’ Second Amendment rights.  

Initially, the National Rifle Association dealt more with sport than politics. “I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns,” said Former NRA President Karl Frederick in 1934. “I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.”

In response to increasing crime, a 1968 federal law prohibited interstate firearms transfers except among licensed manufacturers, dealers, and importers. The NRA became scared that more restrictions would ultimately result in government seizure of all personal guns. That’s when, in 1977, the group reorganized to launch an aggressive anti-gun control movement based on a fabricated understanding of the Second Amendment. Those who invoke the Second Amendment as an absolute reason why the United States can’t act like Great Britain, Australia, Japan and other countries to reduce staggering gun violence don’t understand the amendment at all.

When the thirteen colonies broke away from tyrannical Great Britain to form the United States of America, the concern that this new government would become corrupt was very real. The ultimate check on a tyrannical government, the Framers of the Constitution believed, was an armed population.

The Second Amendment 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.” Since militias are made up of citizens bearing arms, gun proponents argue that the right to keep and bear arms naturally extends to each citizen, who may use a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

For the first time in history, this perspective was supported in the 2008 Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller. A civilian, the Court ruled, has a constitutional right to keep a handgun in his or her home for purposes of self-defense.

Nowhere in the text, however, is it stated that an individual right to keep and bear arms is preserved. More overtly, the text refers to the collection of people who wouldmake up a militia if the federal government were to abuse its power.

For Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, the Second Amendment defends only the right to possess and carry a firearm in connection with military activities. Individuals do not have the right to keep and bear arms or to use weapons outside the context of service in a well-regulated militia.

“Different language surely would have been used to protect nonmilitary use and possession of weapons from regulation if such an intent had played any role in the drafting of the Amendment,” Stevens wrote in the dissenting opinion to the case.

What’s more, the Framers’ primary motivation, he clarified, was not to reinforce the already common-law right of self-defense. A common-law right is established either by previous legal cases or by custom. Thus, defendants in criminal proceedings in each state already have the right to self-defense.

When Stevens joined the Supreme Court in 1975, there was no doubt among the Court of the Second Amendment’s connotation being military, rather than personal. “Emotional claims that the right to possess deadly weapons is so important that it is protected by the federal Constitution distort intelligent debate about the wisdom of particular aspects of proposed legislation designed to minimize the slaughter caused by the prevalence of guns in private hands,” he observed.

Five years after his retirement in 1986, former Chief Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger, a conservative, explained that “The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires.” The notion that the Second Amendment preserves an individual right to own a gun, he added, is “one of the greatest pieces of fraud… on the American public by special interest groups that I’ve ever seen in my lifetime.”

If the Second Amendment doesn’t protect an individual right to own a gun, we don’t need to repeal or amend it in order to establish major gun control laws. We must remember that this tale is the NRA’s doing, not the Founders of the Constitution, and that it is rooted in fear. This fear is why the NRA staunchly opposes even minor firearms regulations today. We can and should move forward in enacting exactly what the pro-gun lobby is afraid of. We can’t hide behind the Second Amendment anymore.


26 thoughts on “Extreme BS Alert: Stop Hiding Behind the Second Amendment

  1. Samantha is living proof that abortion is truly a terrible thing. If she had any grasp of Colonial history, General Sir Thomas Gage and the confiscation of the firearms of the inhabitants of Boston, MA, would come quickly to mind. Especially since every male citizen of the USA between the ages of 16 and 45 are inherently understood to be members in the un-official militias of their respective states. It is ironic that Boston, and Massachusetts, should have been a conspicuous example of the needs of the citizenry to possess arms to repel Tyranny and yet they have some of the most onerous ANTI-gun laws in the country. Also, remember that Legality does not equal Morality.

  2. Samantha ROSEN. Need I keep repeating who is at the helm of gun confiscation. Not only is the 2nd amendment clear that the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms is guaranteed but numerous explanations by the founders themselves on this subject make it absolutely clear that NO FREE MAN SHALL BE BARRED THE USE OF ARMS. Of course ROSEN and her ilk would rather not elaborate on such inconvenient truths. Oh, and there’s also the fact that it is an inherent RIGHT, which no one can take and do with as they will from anyone else, not a privelege.

    1. Yup, Rosen is obviously a Muslim. She must be one of those horrible Islamofacists who “hate us for our freedom” and want to impose Sharia law on us. /sarc

      It infuriates me that so many “conservative” gun owners have their lips firmly attached to Jewish buttocks, even though Jews have long been leading the charge for gun control (among other leftist causes). Even if this latter fact weren’t obvious enough, Jews themselves admit it in their own publications! Here’s an example:



      *** Jewish organizations pride themselves on gun control stances that date back to the early days of the debate, following the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. and of President Kennedy. Most played a supportive role in passing legislation then limiting access to weapons, and have since reaffirmed their commitment to reducing the availability of guns.

      One reason for broad Jewish support of gun control, Mariaschin said, has to do with the community’s sense of security, “which perhaps leads us to feel that the possession of assault weapons is completely unneeded.” ***

      Obviously there are exceptions to the rule. Yet the rule is there nonetheless, and it beggars belief to see how most “conservative” gun owners are willfully blind to it. And this is to say nothing of Jewish involvement in so many other crimes against America, the people of the Middle East, and humanity as a whole.


        1. Koyote…

          Yes agreed…but that’s just 1/2 of it…the hidden remaining 1/2 is their “drooling lust” to initiate “Holodomor (rev 2.0)…here in North America.

          Call it Ⓤ approved “Blood Libel”…21st century style.

          Salute sir…good post.

  3. What can you expect from a government school “educated” propagandist? Until the various schools of socialisim wormed their way into society, it was normal for everyone that wanted to, to keep and bear arms. The NFA act of 1934, passed by the Democrats, was the first major law to restrict that freedom. Until that point, a normal everyday “people” could buy, MAIL ORDER, a fully automatic weapon. Prior to the GCA of 1968, Passed by the democrats, there was no such thing as an FFL, and “we the people” could still buy weapons, through the mail. Every restriction, every infringement has been brought to you by a single party… And it has all happened in the last 100 years.

  4. *** For Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, the Second Amendment defends only the right to possess and carry a firearm in connection with military activities. Individuals do not have the right to keep and bear arms or to use weapons outside the context of service in a well-regulated militia. ***

    The above argument is retarded. It goes without saying that someone involved in a military force is going to bear arms, does it not? So why would anyone see a need to declare such a right at all? That would be like inserting into the Bill of Rights an amendment stating that “the right of the Navy to maintain a fleet of ships shall not be infringed.”

    Also, if the Second Amendment wasn’t intended to declare an individual right, then what is it doing right smack in the middle of a list of individual rights?

    *** “Different language surely would have been used to protect nonmilitary use and possession of weapons from regulation if such an intent had played any role in the drafting of the Amendment,” Stevens wrote in the dissenting opinion to the case. ***

    No, you idiot, different language would have been used if the intent were as you claim. The Constitution already gives Congress the power to raise armies. Why would the Second Amendment be needed for that purpose? And again, what sort of moron would ever think that an army, once raised, wouldn’t be able to legally bear arms unless its personnel were granted the right to do so by a constitutional amendment?

    The amendment makes perfect sense as written when it’s understood that the Founders intended for “the Militia” to be most of the general population.

    Finally, even if the Second Amendment hadn’t been intended to protect our individual right to bear arms, we would have that right anyway. What mortal man has the right to say otherwise, and to keep weapons denied to the rest of us?

  5. And where in the Constitution and Bill of Rights does one see the “right to abortion, the right for homosexual marriage, the right to publish pornography, etc” or rather where in the Constitution and Bill of Rights does “evil” have any rights at all – and who defines evil – Christianity, Islam, Atheism, Marxism, Hinduism, Paganism; or the DHS, Obama, the Jewish Lobby/SPLC/ADL, on what basis or moral foundation do we or should we assert and make our laws? It seems to me that Virtue is now evil and evil has become virtue, in other words, man has lost his moral compass, has abandoned God (and whose God).

    1. Good statement, we are under attack from all the above no matter what your alignment, they are all in it for themselves.

      George Orwell already told us (and I was called an idiot once for bringing this up): War is peace and peace is war.

      We not only hit the bottom of the bucket we tore through it and are pounding at the earth.

  6. Samantha is seriously delusional. The words in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are pretty clear. In the same way that some like to interpret holy scriptures to suit their own point of view, this psycho should just go ahead and head up the attempt to seize the guns of American Nationals. After all, just like JD says on the show, if we give up our firearms, the good, benevolent “government” will gladly stop all their Communist indoctrination and respect the will of we the people! 😉

  7. Rosen bloom , blaum….. whatever…. name says it all. So don’t get your panties twisted. Controlled opposition. …troll etc. Now smoke a bowl etc…. and go clean your weapons.

  8. “The Second Amendment does not protect an individual’s right to own a firearm”.

    What the Second Amendment says is obvious enough, but you can always rely on a Jew to twist the truth, the history, and the logic behind anything.

    It looks like the big Jews are calling upon all their influential little Jews to help with the genocide of Americans. They’re crawling out of the woodwork now to insist that no one should have guns except the goons who work for Jews, and they’ll say anything necessary to accomplish this.

    It’s times like this when it becomes easy to identify the Zionist moles in the “alternative Zionist news”

  9. The jews should be added to Trumps list of deportees.. Oh wait he is pro jewish.. never mind. Deport them anyway.

  10. Redefining words again, as others have pointed out now that “the people” no longer means you and me… That automatically makes the ENTIRE Bill of Rights… VOID… Keep that in mind, by redefining words they are saying you HAVE NO RIGHTS WHAT SO EVER! NONE! As the jew stated: you have PRIVILEGES! Not rights! This is why we need to keep arming up and hang onto our guns!

  11. A piece of paper with promises is not going to stop the Elite in governments from sending enforcers to take your stuff. If there were no willing enforcers/coproaches enforcing every arbitrary rule, governments could not exist.

  12. I don’t know about the rest of you, but that constitution didn’t give me permission to buy my guns, and surely don’t need its permission powers to defend myself, all I can say is piss on that propaganda bitch, that constitution never applied to the people of America to begin with, it applied to government.

  13. Let me guess… You are a relative of Stallin? No? Then may Mao or Hitler. Surely you are left wing (Democrat). Maybe you could stop using excuses for your obvious lack of understanding (i.e. Intelligence).

    History is replete with examples for the need of personal weapons. But of course, one has to understand this first.

    Example: Why didn’t Hitler invade Switzerland but “annexed” Austria? (Tick, tick, tick …) [BRANNNGGG!] TIME’S UP!

    1) Switzerland was not invaded because everyone (males) were required by law to have a weapon (rifle), ammunition and be proficient in the use of said weapon.

    2) Austria did not have the same laws (and apparently the foresight) to deal with the same problem as Switzerland at that time.

    What would be your choice?
    Oh wait, I believe I already know …

    God bless (help) us, everyone …


Join the Conversation

Your email address will not be published.