In a historical, he said they said moment, let us take a look at how Obama interprets the Second Amendment as compared to how the Founding Fathers meant it when it was written.
Firstly, President Obama claims to believe in the Second Amendment. That’s all well and good, but if he doesn’t understand the Second Amendment then what good is his belief in it. Let’s take a look at what his belief holds if we take him at his word:
“I, like most Americans, believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms. And we recognize the traditions of gun ownership that passed on from generation to generation -– that hunting and shooting are part of a cherished national heritage.” – Obama 7/25/12
Hunting and sport. That is what Obama believes the Second Amendment is about. Now let’s take a look at what the Founding Fathers, the ones who fought to free themselves from the tyranny of a King, the ones who enumerated our rights in the Bill of Rights, who set up our Government to be a Representational Republic and who intrinsically gave the people the power to decide how they will be governed.
We’ll start with the guy who is considered the Father of the Bill of Rights. Let’s see what George Mason has to say on the issue:
“To disarm the people – that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” -George Mason
I do not believe the the Father of the Bill of Rights was about deer rising up and enslaving the citizenry. Mason wasn’t the only one.
“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” -Richard Henry Lee
“No free man shall ever be denied the use of Arms” – Thomas Jefferson
I don’t think Lee meant that we had to preserve our liberty from wildlife. And since not every one was a hunter so if it only applied to hunters why wouldn’t he say “no hunter shall…”.
I know a lot of people want to try and use the wording of the Second Amendment to deny the individual the right to keep and bear arms so what does the Father of American Scholarship and Education have to say on the matter.
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.” -Noah Webster
That pretty much encapsulates the entirety of what the Second Amendment means and as it was written to mean. Webster wrote the above passage while examining the leading principles of a federal constitution back in 1787. This wasn’t an interpretation of what the Amendment meant, it was a basis of which the Amendment would be written a year or so later.
So, the Second Amendment wasn’t written with hunting in mind but rather the defense of liberty against a tyrannical government. One might think that President Obama just didn’t expand his definition well enough to include that. One might think that…until the President starts talking like this:
“But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers and not in the hands of crooks. They belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities,” -Obama
He uttered this phrase right after he finished with his first definition of the Second Amendment as pertaining to hunting. He also tried to paint the argument that such weapons are only used by criminals or soldiers. But the people should have the same access to such weapons legally. Why should they? Because that is who makes up a militia. And not some modern nonsense about the National Guard but the true and timeless definition that a citizen has the right to protect their life and defend their liberty.
A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves” -Richard Henry Lee
Properly formed you ask? All that means is that the group is not a roving mob but rather armed with purpose to defend liberty. That is the truest sense of the term militia. It doesn’t need government regulation or control because as it stands, it is the government that the militia will most likely need to defend themselves from.
“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” -Alexander Hamilton
Why is that the best we can hope for? Because it is by the use of arms that freedom and liberty can ever exist. Not necessarily by using them, but by simply having them to deter those who would usurp our liberties.
But of course, Obama at best thinks it only means hunting. And if we continue to take him at his word then we must also accept that he believes in disarming the populace from any means of defense against a tyrannical despot.
“What I’m trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced.” -Obama 10/16/12
The only violence that could possibly reduce is the violence done in defense of liberty against tyranny. Because, as any gardener of liberty and freedom knows:
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. -Thomas Jefferson
While Webster phrases the reasons, Jefferson states the action.
That is the reason of the Second Amendment, and that is why Obama is so wrong on it.
Send this to friend