The Second Amendment has nothing to do with why the ATF cannot ban armor piercing 223 ammo. Nothing.

It's a good look, don't you think?Sent to us by the author.

The Truth About the Law – by Legalman

ONWARD! The  incremental march to expand the Peoples’ freedoms by taking the rights away from the people continues everyday!  Rejoice Komrad and thank the Peoples’ great leaders!  Lol  

They have taken your “automatic” weapons. They have taken your right to own “military equipment”. They license and control virtually every type of weapon. Now they are going after the ammo. Obviously without ammo, a gun doesn’t do much good. Specifically they are thinking about banning the public from purchasing what are supposedly “dangerous” military “armor piercing” rounds of 223. Of course the government itself will still be able to buy it to use AGAINST the people if it “needs to”.  

It really is laughable to me the way the people continue to fall for the same plays over and over by those in charge. Dive left, Dive right. Trust me, they will keep running those same plays until the people stop them. And the people never stop them.

What do I mean “run the same plays”? Simple. They have fooled everyone using game theory once again. They have everyone arguing about a bunch of stuff that is irrelevant. What does militia mean? Is the weapon or ammo used for hunting? Is it a “military” weapon” and on and on. They have put everyone in a box from which there is NO exit.

What is the box they have everyone in? Simple, the analysis of this 223 ammo issue does not BEGIN by looking at the SECOND amendment. It does not begin by looking at the Gun Control Acts. It does not begin by looking to Supreme Court opinions about the second amendment or the gun control acts.  The analysis doesn’t ever get that far.

The feds lose at the first step, which is for them to identify where the people, in the constitution, gave them the power to take the PEOPLES guns or ammo. Do you see? THE FEDS HAVE SKIPPED INTENTIONALLY OVER the most fundamental step.

The first step to determine whether ANYTHING the feds are EVER doing is LEGITIMATE is to POINT to a provision in the constitution where the PEOPLE gave the FEDS the power to do whatever it is they are trying to do. That is always always always step one.

So where is the provision IN THE CONSTITUTION that empowers the feds to take your guns and ammo? Please show it to me. It should be in Art. 1 Sect. 8 which ENUMERATES the powers they have been given.  Here is all it says.

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;

There is nothing there about ANY right to regulate what the PEOPLE CHOOSE TO OWN OR POSSESS.  It only discusses Congress’ role in the MILITIA.  What they are doing has nothing to do with ARMING, ORGANIZING OR DISCIPLINING the MILITIA. NOTHING. IN fact NONE OF THEIR “gun control” LAWS HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE MILITIA.  They have to do with limiting THE PEOPLE’S RIGHTS.  So where is the “authority to limit the peoples’ rights?  NO WHERE.  SO THEY DON’T HAVE IT.  It is that simple. 

Remember the EXPRESS provisions set out in Art 1 Sect. 8 are so detailed that they not only gave the feds the power to create a post office. The framers then ADDED the fact that they could also create postal roads.

The framers gave the feds the power to create a post office but they didn’t think that clearly gave them the power to create postal roads. Think about that. Now think about how many ridiculous “implied” powers the supreme court in collaboration with their “partners” in the legislative and executive branches have “discovered” over the years. It is absurd. They can do any and everything. I have already showed you, if you don’t know go read about it. But none of it is ACTUALLY constitutional. None of it is actually authorized.

Do you understand now? Do you see how high the standard is for whether the FEDS were IN FACT given A power?

That is the same analysis that is SUPPOSED to be used regarding their right to take away THE PEOPLE’S guns and ammo. They have to find a provision that ALLOWS them to.

But there is nothing IN the constitution that even vaguely mentions a power to take away or “regulate away” the guns, arms or ammunition OF THE PEOPLE.The words do not appear in the text. And nothing in Art. 1 Sect 8, which is the enumerated powers even HINTS at such a power it simply says Congress is in charge of arming the militia. So?  The “proposed ban” has nothing to do with ARMING the militia. Congress is well within its right to “not arm” THE MILITIA with that ammo.  Get it?  But they have no right to infringe on the PEOPLE’S RIGHTS to ARM THEMSELVES.  Nothing. So end of discussion. They can’t do it.

But but but Legalman, what about the 2nd amendment and the militia and self protection and criminals and the hunting and the “dangerous to law enforcement” issues? Aren’t those complex constitutional issues that only brilliant government approved and licensed “experts” can untangle??

All a distraction. They have to be able to FIRST point to a provision that empowers the feds to ACT in the manner they propose.  Remember, it is not MY OBLIGATION to show WHAT THEY CAN NOT DO. They have to show where they get the power to DO IT.

And that is how they have reset the game. They have gotten everyone to “agree” that the answer is determined by “allowing the supreme court” to “interpret” the second amendment, instead of making sure the FEDS have the power to do it at all in the first place. Do you see?



RE-read what I just wrote in the last two paragraphs. Do you see how fundamentally DIFFERENT the two ideas are? It is CRITICAL to understand the distinction.

I think the postal roads argument obliterates any legitimate question about their having the authority to regulate THE PEOPLE’S RIGHT to keep and bear arms. But let me show you one more critical piece that demonstrates that the 2nd amendment is EXACTLY what I said.Remember back to your indoctrination class on American History during your mandatory brainwashing? Do you remember what argument was made by the “founding fathers” who were against “adding the bill of rights”?

Come on, you can remember can’t you or has the fluoride fried your brain? lol The opponents argued that THE BILL OF RIGHTS WERE REDUNDANT!! There was NO NEED to reassert what the feds CAN’T do BECAUSE the feds were only authorized to do the limited things that were specifically set out IN the constitution? Do you SEE? Perfectly consistent with what I showed you about the postal roads.

The great con the feds have collaborated to create over time is that the analysis should somehow START by looking at the language of the second amendment and what the Supreme court has said about THAT. As soon as you do that, we the people are screwed.

The government has set the parameters and created a FALSE PARADIGM from which to do the analysis. Game theory my friend. It now gets to have its own agent, the court, interpret things like are you in a militia? What’s a militia? Who runs it? Is there only one? If so what’s it look like. What does it entail etc. etc. GET IT?

Once you see the distinction I just made for you, then you see the absurdity of all the arguments that the anti-gun people and the feds make. Because they all focus on the wording of the 2nd amendment, which is a straw man.

The feds can’t stop THE PEOPLE from having tanks or RPG’s or fighter jets or ANYTHING ELSE because they were not given the authority to regulate those items. That was left to the states.And even the crooked “reconstruction” era supreme court knew that.

Here is a small bit of what the Supreme court said in the case. U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875).

The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of “bearing arms for a lawful purpose.” This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called…”internal police.” — U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

Look at that language FROM THE SUPREME COURT. Notice how they get a lot right, but then they opened the door to all the confusion by stating that the amendment “restricts” the powers of the national government. I have just showed you how that is not really completely accurate. In this context it is actually MISleading.  It doesn’t so much limit the government as it simply restates and clarifies that the government NEVER HAD the power over the PEOPLE’S RIGHTS. Those are very different concepts.  If the people want to GIVE A GOVERNMENT the right to “infringe” the peoples’ right to bear arms they are welcome to do that. But it is clear, EVEN TO THE SUPREME COURT, that they didn’t give that power to the feds. So the FEDS can’t regulate ammo. It is that simple.

The people genuinely believe that the issues about the militia and the dangerousness and whether it is for hunting or protections etc. are legitimate because they have been intentionally misled and told they are by the very party, the federal government, at which the amendment is directed!  The brainwashing is so complete nobody even sees that the emperor has no clothes! lol

Finally on this point.  The very idea that a group of people, living in the 18th century in a predominantly agrarian world, who just fought a revolution would then create a centralized government so powerful that it MIGHT be able to take their right away to hunt or protect themselves against criminals, is absurd.  That is NOT what the 2nd amendment is about.  Next time I will show you what the 2nd amendment is REALLY about and why nobody dares even SAY it.

 My friend it isn’t complicated. They want you to believe you have to be some kind of “expert” in the constitution and all of the contradictory Non-linear propaganda that has poured out of the supreme court and appellate courts in order to be able to “understand the constitutional argument”. You don’t. Just think for yourself and look at the facts.

The truth is too radical for most people after a lifetime of “captivity”.  Like a house cat, they just aren’t equipped to live in the world outside the fantasy of “freedom” that the state has created for them. lol.

Okay, enough. I could continue, but the reality is that if what I have said so far is not sufficient to open your eyes to the utter fraud that the  “2nd amendment arguments” are, then NOTHING can.  And if you’re one of those who are still unconvinced, then best of luck to you. Perhaps someday on your quest you will “meet the Wizard” and he will grant your wish for a brain. lol

That’s all for now my brainwashed Brethren. Take care, live in the light and tell someone about the truth about the law.

2 thoughts on “The Second Amendment has nothing to do with why the ATF cannot ban armor piercing 223 ammo. Nothing.

  1. 10th amd is my fav.

    The Constitution afford the Fed some powers, those not listed w/in said doc are reserved to the states.

    Really basic.

    The Constitution is just fine, the pols are the problem.

  2. So where is the provision IN THE CONSTITUTION that empowers the feds to take your guns and ammo? Please show it to me. It should be in Art. 1 Sect. 8 which ENUMERATES the powers they have been given.

    exactly.. so suck on that beotches
    done with you, so irrelevant , such an irrelevant group of politicians if i have ever seen in my life

Join the Conversation

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *