Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What The Second Amendment *REALLY* Means

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What The Second Amendment *REALLY* Means

    It has been pointed out by Pastor Lindstedt, both here on this forum and elsewhere, that the Antifederalists opposed the CONstitution because they knew that it would outlaw the various state militias and create a standing army that could, and ultimately *WOULD* be used by the government against the American people. This is true.



    Here is the actual passage from the Articles of Confederation, dealing with both state militias and the Continental army: "......No vessels of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any state, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the united states in congress assembled, for the defence of such state, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any state, in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the united states, in congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defence of such state; but every state shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutred, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage. No state shall engage in any war without the consent of the untited states in congress assembled, unless such state be actually invaded by enemies, or shall have received certain advice of a resolution being formed by some nation of Indians to invade such state, and the danger is so imminent as not to admit of a delay, till the united states in congress assembled can be consulted: nor shall any state grant commissions to any ships or vessels of war, nor letters of marque or reprisal, except it be after a declaration of war by the united states in congress assembled, and then only against the kingdom or state and the subjects thereof, against which war has been so declared, and under such regulations as shall be established by the united states in congress assembled, unless such state be infested by pirates, in which cases vessels of war may be fitted for that occasion, and kept so long as the danger shall continue, or until the united states in congress assembled shall determine otherwise." Articles Of Confederation, Article VI, paragraphs 4 and 5.



    So there you have it, folks. The Articles of Confederation not only allowed the various state militias to exist, but also to defend their states against any invasion, whether by another state, by Indians, or by foreign pirates. This provision also made it both legally and physically possible for a state militia to defend itself against the Continental army, should it choose to try to come in and force its will upon a state. While this would've been an unlikely occurence, while the war with the British was still raging, it became *MUCH* more likely after the British defeat. It's called FREEDOM, folks. All other rights flow from the right of personal self-defense, and, without it, YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS AND ARE A SLAVE. If you have neither the legal right nor the physical capability of defending yourself against the State, you have no rights whatsoever. The State is your Massa, and you may as well get used to picking cotton and shining shoes.



    And, since the Constitution was adopted, dissolving forever the right of a statestate to defend itself, the right of the individual to defend himself was lost as well.



    Now I know what you're gonna say. "Hey, wait a minute!" "What are you talking about?" "We never lost our individual right of self-defense!" "There's a Second Amendment right to bear arms!"



    This is what the masses of asses believe, and what the Powers That Be *WANT* them to believe, but, in all honesty, IT'S A CROCK OF SHIT. ;-( "How can that be?" You ask. "Isn't the wording clear enough?" "Seems pretty cut and dried to me." Well, that's just it, dear reader: It seems pretty cut and dried. That's the key word, "seems". :-/



    Here is what the Second Amendment to the CONstitution says: "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."



    Sounds like plain and simple English, right? Wrong. First of all, note the fact that the words, "Militia", "State", and "Arms" are all capitalized. Doesn't that seem a little unusual to you? Why is that, do you think? Well, first of all, any well-educated American knows that when the word, "state", is capitalized, it is *NOT* referring to one of the individual states, but, rather, to the Federal government. Now, does that honestly make any sense to you, in this context that it is written? :-/ THINK ABOUT IT!!! What sense does it make to say that the security of a GOVERNMENT is actually enhanced, somehow, by the PEOPLE being able to bear arms against it? IT MAKES NO SENSE WHATSOEVER.



    Now let's look at the word, "militia". Was the word capitalized when used in the Articles of Confederation? IT MOST CERTAINLY WAS NOT. Check the text for yourself. Why not? Well, quite clearly because, in the Articles of Confederation, what was referred to was the various state militias, which had never been capitalized before. The "Militia" referred to, here in the Second Amendment, must be a different entity altogether. What it refers to, in fact, is a STANDING ARMY, raised and controlled by the Congress of the United States. This standing army, in the aftermath of the Civil War, became the National Guard, which we all know is nothing but the Praetorian Guard of the Ruling Elite: A PRIVATE ARMY, TAKING ITS ORDERS FROM THE FEDERAL GOVENRNMENT. :-(



    Don't believe me? CHECK IT OUT FOR YOURSELF. Here are the relevant passages from the CONstitution: "The Congress shall have power......To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; 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" Article I, Section 8, paragraphs 12-16. "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." Article II, Section 2, paragraph 1:a.



    So there you have it. Right there in black and white. Nothing to do with government corruption. Nothing to do with ignorance of the CONstitution, or that convenient modern bugaboo of so-called "Progressivism". Everything from the forcible integration of the South to the disarming of White citizens of Louisiana in the aftermath of Katrina was ACTUALLY AUTHORIZED AND SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED FOR IN THE CONSTITUTION. IT IS LEGALIZED TYRANNY, PLAIN AND SIMPLE.



    So, now that we have examined the words, "State" and "Militia", and determined that they mean something very different than the simple English words, "state" and "militia", let's examine the word, "Arms". Now you will notice that the word, "Arms", is capitalized in the so-called "Second Amendment", (referred to in the text of the volume I'm reading from simply as "Article II") as are the words, "Army" and "Armies" in the text quoted above. This is hardly a coincidence. Clearly, something was meant by that word besides simple, common, ordinary guns. It is referring to a MONOPOLY OF FORCE.



    The Founding Felons, and all their contemporaries, knew EXACTLY what "the right to bear arms" meant, and they knew that it didn't have *FUCK ALL* to do with mere gun ownership, an issue which, in fact, all were agreed upon, even the most conspiratorial and aristocratic of the lot. No one had ever sought to deny the right of gun ownership to citizens in the first place. The fact of the matter is that, in those days, practically *EVERY* free man and boy owned a gun, whether they owned any land or not, and, in those days, only land-owners could be citizens. All others were simply resident aliens, except Negro slaves, who were, for the purpose of representation, considered to be equal to 3/5ths of a human being. The only people forbidden to own guns were Negro slaves and White "indentured servants".



    The Second Amendment neither grants nor denies anyone the right to own a gun. The Second Amendment deals with the question of PHYSICAL FORCE, and who has the right to either impose it on his fellow citizens, or resist it when imposed upon him. That is the issue at hand: THE QUESTION OF SELF-DEFENSE.



    And what the Second Amendment says is that, while neither the state militias nor the individual citizen have the right to defend themselves against Federal force, the Federal government *DOES* in fact, have the authority to impose that force against its citizens, whenever the Congress deems it proper, or whenever any state or local official requests that it do so. :-/ Hardly something to celebrate, huh? ;-(



    Therefore, when Barack Hussein O'Whiny, mutton-headed little mackeral-snapper though he may be, asserts that those baby-kiling Jewps who disarmed those White New Orleanians, in the wake of Katrina, were acting under Constiutional authority, he's not just pulling that out of his ass. Sad as it may be to admit, his analysis is legally correct. :-/ :-(



    Finally, let's examine a word that I hadn't mentioned before. A word that wasn't capitalized. A word that, probably more than any other word in the Second Amendment, seems quite obvious in its meaning. The word is "people". "What could be more clear than that?" you may ask. "It simply means the PEOPLE, the citizenry." Well, not so fast. As I have already shown, what words seem to mean, and what they actually mean are often two different things. ;-(



    Now, let us look at the Preamble to the CONstitution, shall we? Here is the text: "We the people of the United States , in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and Secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."



    Catch that? A small group of wealthy landowners, chosen by their respective State legislatures to attend the Constitutional Convention, and vote the document up or down, as they saw fit, are here referring to THEMSELVES as "the people of the United States"!!! Why? WELL, BASICALLY, FOR THE SAME REASON THAT A DOG LICKS ITSELF. Because they COULD. ;-( All the representatives who had voted against the document had already left, so there was nobody left but them to claim such a dubious honor. Like the saying goes, "To the victor belongs the spoils." And the spoils, in this case, are the hearts and minds, the very [B]souls[/B of the American people.



    What we have here is an ASSERTION OF OWNERSHIP. The Federalists and the Anti-Federalists rolled the dice, and *YOU* lost. You were the prize. You see, your ancestors lacked either the common sense or the courage to pick up their guns and shoot down every last one of these Antichrist Freemasonic vermin, conspiring to take their freedoms away, so now you're nothing but a slave on Massa Sam's Plantation, with no choice except to either do your best Nat Turner imitation, or, otherwise, "jump down, turn around, pick a bale of cotton". :-(



    What they did was to assert, in writing, once and for all, that, for all legal purposes, THE GOVERNMENT *IS* THE PEOPLE, *NOT* THE OTHER WAY AROUND. It is essentially the same as what Louis XIV meant when he said: "The State, it is I!" Therefore, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms", in reality, means the right of the GOVERNMENT to keep and bear arms. Just the opposite of what they have led you to belive.



    Now, I will grant you, that, on the surface, it would seem like the analogy wouldn't hold. After all, isn't it kind of convoluted logic to argue that the government both owns the slave and is the slave? "The State, it is I!", repulsive as the sentiment may be to our libertarian souls, at least makes LOGICAL SENSE. "The nigger, it is I!", on the other hand, does not.



    But what we have to consider is the MOTIVE of the one making the assertion. We have to find out the reason for it, if there is one. Since we already know the answer to the question, "Qui bono?", the question we have to ask is "Quo bono?" "Why," we must ask, "would one wish to be a nigger?" Well, let's look at that. First of all, what does a nigger do? A nigger, theoretically, anyway, does whatever you tell him to do. Why? Well, because, if he doesn't, you can beat him. Ay, there's the rub!!! So, if the "Massa" and the "nigger" are one and the same, or, if you will, if the "Massa" *IS* the "nigger", then, if the nigger gets beaten, WHO DID THE BEATING? :-/ :-0 ;-( :-( Understand?



    If the "Massa" is just chomping at the bit, waiting for a chance to beat his "nigger", but he knows that, if he does, there might be consequences, since certain powerful people might frown on it, what does he do? Well, he simply buys those people off, so that they'll look the other way, right? Well, maybe, yes. But let's say that this man lives in a district that is just rabidly abolitionist, and doesn't even think the man should be allowed to own the slave in the first place, let alone beat him, then it becomes a rather thorny issue, indeed, does it not? So what does the man do then? Well, then he really has no choice but to convince the powers that be, by giving them a generous bribe, no doubt, that, in fact, he is the slave, and the nigger is the master, ridiculous as it may sound on the surface. Therefore, if the White "slave" beats the black "master", the abolitions can't lift a finger to stop it, can they?



    Now, grant it, that isn't exactly the same as convincing a local magistrate that the White is the Negro, and, therefore, the White doeesn't exist, but, let's face it, REAL PEOPLE, at the local level, whose power is limited, and, if need be, can be taken out and lynched by an enraged populace, are not going to be persuaded to such ridiculous arguments. But Supreme Court justices, however, are another matter, as "Brutus" so eloquently pointed out in his writings. Since they are motivated simply by wanting to increase their already broad powers and extensive privileges, they will, essentially, rule however the Federal government, ---the "Massa" in our scenario,---wants them to rule. Therefore, if the Massa tells them he's really the nigger, and, therefore, no Massa exists, that is exactly what they will find. And, if a crazy, masochistic nigger just can't stop beating himself, well, that's certainly none of their concern. After all, he's just "exercising his rights of free expression". Mustn't be judgemental. Why, that would be "intolerant". ;-(



    So, when Gaybraham Rothschild Lincoln decides to invade the State Of Maryland, confiscate private property, suspend habeas corpus, consript the railroads, censor the telegraph lines, imprison at least 30,000 Northern citizens, shut down hundreds of Northern newspapers, and even deport a United States Congressman, oh well. It's just that crazy nigger beating himself. When National Guard troops are called up to integrate the South at the point of a bayonet, or murder student demonstators in cold blood, just like their British predecessors had done to demonstrators 200 years before, oh well. Just that crazy nigger again



    Hell, by their logic, the Branch Davidian children crushed themselves under the treads of those Sherman tanks, and Randy Weaver shot his own son and wife. That Lady America sho' is one masochistic little bee-yotch, ain't she? Just can't seem to stop hitting herself.



    Man, I tell you what, "we" must be crazy as a loon, to keep on hurting ourselves like that!!! "We" are a danger to ourselves and others. (Although what others I know not, since dey don't seem to be nobody else in dis' yeah chicken-house, 'cept'n "we the people". ) Don't worry though. "We" will soon be sending ourselves, armed to the teeth, and in full combat gear, to kick in "our" door, lovingly grab "us" by the scruff of the neck, and drag "us", kicking and screaming at ourselves, off to the Ministry Of Love, for Big Brother, ---er, I mean, "us" of course, to perform a little mercy killing on "our" addled little brains, so that "we" no longer harbor such nasty, self-destructive little thoughts against ourselves. From that moment on, "we" will just stare vacantly out of "our" lifeless eyes, at nothing in particular, not thinking, not acting, just loving Big Brother, er, "ourselves". Won't that be lovely?



    And, when "we" do, with "our" last muffled breath, just before "we" throw ourselves down onto the cold prison floor, "we" should curse the following Freemason faggot fops for making "us" so "insane" in the first place: George Washington, the Julius Caesar of his age, who, in return for the office of President/Emperor, drove a stake through the heart of his country and his people, George Read, Gunning Bedford Jr., John Dickinson, Richard Bassett, and Jacob Broom of Delaware, John Langdon and Nicholas Gilman of New Hampshire, James McHenry, Dan of St. Thomas Jenifer, and Daniel Carroll of Maryland, Nathaniel Gorham and Rufus King of Massachusetts, William Samuel Johnson and Roger Sherman or Connecticut, John Blair and James Madison Jr. of Virginia, Alexander Hamilton, the crypto-kike, of New York, William Blount, Richard Dobbs Spaight, and Hugh Williamson of North Carolina, William Livingston, David Brearley, William Paterson, and Jonah Dayton of New Jersey, J. Rutledge, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Charles Pinckney, and Pierce Butler of South Carolina, Ben Franklin, Thomas Mifflin, Robert Morris, George Clymer, Thomas Fitzsimmons, Jared Ingersoll, James Wilson, and Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania, and William Few and Abraham Baldwin of Georgia.



    Never in human history was a more DIABOLICAL form of tyranny ever conceived. We went straight from George III to George I, without passing "Go" or collecting $200. And George III, in fact, allowed his "subjects" far greater freedom than George I and his successors would ever allow their "citizens", since George III only demanded their tribute, not their near-worship.



    The notion of the Divine Right Of Kings had already fallen into disfavor, and had, for all intents and purposes, disappeared, as the powers of Parliament had increased. But, nonetheless, even under an absolute monarchy, when it was at least clear that you were not the King, and the King was not you, the King's power was limited by a sense of noblesse oblige, which prevented him from abusing his power over his subjects beyond a certain point. But when the terms "citizens" and "government" become confused, there is absolutely *NO* limit to what the legally non-existent State can do to its citizens. Even mass murder is, not only TOLERATED, but, in fact, CELEBRATED. After all, it's just a bunch of crazy people killing themselves. Good riddance, right?



    It is just such JEW-LIKE, Pharisaical, so-called "logic" as the "We The People" scam that "Brutus" warned us about in his excellent article, "The Dangers Of A Standing Army". He tells us: "This reasoning supposes, that the general government is to be exercised by the people of America themselves---But such an idea is groundless and absurd. There is surely a distinction between the people and their rulers, even when the latter are representatives of the former.---They certainly are *NOT* (emphasis mine) identically the same, and it cannot be disputed, but it may and often does happen, that they do not possess the same sentiments or pursue the same interests. I think I have shewn, that as this government is constituted, there is little reason to expect, that the interest of the people and their rulers will be the same." ---from an article in The New York Journal, January 17, 1788.



    But, just like the ancient spawn of Satan Jews, who cried out that His blood should be upon their heads, and upon the heads of their descendants, the murderers of America's liberty, likewise, sought to implicate future generations of their counterparts in their crime, by stating that they wanted to: "secure the blessings of liberty" to themselves and their posterity, much like a slavemaster would bequeath his slaves to his children. Of course, they didn't mean their actual posterity, ---that is to say, their own lineal descendants,--- since the Freemasonic Conspiracy, despite what Fritz Springmeier and others would lead us to believe, is of an ideological rather than genealogical nature, but, rather, to their future counterparts: all of the Congresses and Presidents to come. Well, don't worry, guys. We'll be sure to give the bastards what's coming to them. We can't hardly skin your spawn alive, or feed you your testicles, since you're all dead, but we can sure as hell do it to them, and will, when we get the opportunity.



    But, anyway, now that we've established the evil, Pharisaical, Jew-like minds of the Freemasonic Founding Felons, and how those minds work, let us re-translate that sacred cow of a Second Amendment from bullshit into plain English, shall we?



    Since we have established that the term, "Militia", refers, in fact, to a standing army, namely the National Guard, that the term, "State", refers to the Federal government, and, due to the lawyerly, Pharisaical weasel-wording of the Founding Felons, the term, "people", also refers to the Federal government, and that bearing "Arms" refers not to the mere act of gun ownership, but, rather, the ability to either impose or resist PHYSICAL FORCE, the only term left to be defined is "free", as the word appears before "State". Since we know that those vermin defined the government and the people as being one and the same, even though they knew damn good and well that they were not, we can assume that, by "free" they simply meant a government whose leaders were popularly elected, rather than military leaders, directly imposing their rule upon the people at the point of a bayonet.



    Therefore, the Second Amendment, in plain English, would be rendered as follos: "A well-trained Militia being necessary to the preservation of civilian government, the right of said government to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Clear enough?



    Now, let's dissect the smug, self-serving language of the Preamble, and translate it into plain, simple, English, shall we? Here goes: "We, the Sons of God, clad in the Masonic aprons we have worn since our father, Lucifer, first taught Adam and Eve how to make them, in order to preserve our age-old dominion over the inferior human race, establish Jewstice, here in this Western Hemisphere, insure that no uppity little peasant shall, in this or any future age, put a bullet through our widdle perfumed, wig-crowned heads, provide for the defence of the government that we usurped, fair and square, and secure the blessings of the unpaid labor and idiotic adulation of the moronic masses, to ourselves and our infernal spawn, unconditionally, and for all eternity, do ordain (since we *ARE* God, after all) and establish the CONstitution for the perpetual enslavement of the hapless citizenry of the United States of America."



    So, there you have it, folks. America's liberty was sold down the river the moment the people were conned into accepting the CONstituion, rather than doing their Christian duty and taking up arms to annihilate every last one of those vile, conspiratorial little Satan-spawns.



    So, as much as I despise those vermin who imposed this tyranny on us, I don't despise them HALF as much as I despise those cowardly little CUNTS who wrote and spoke against it, yet never had the spine to pick up their guns and overthrow it, once established. I CURSE THEIR WORTHLESS, WITHERED SOULS TO THE BLACKEST PITS OF HELL.
    IF YOU STILL LOVE AMERIKA, YOU'RE A NIGGER-LOVER!!! ---CGO. 1/20/'09.



    "Lay down your silver and your gold
    I am a man who won't be sold
    And even when my heart grows cold
    I'll curse your evil stranglehold."---Horslips, from "Trouble With A Capital 'T'", 1977.
Working...
X