ABOLISH THE SECOND AMENDMENT. WE DON'T NEED IT

PART 2

By Servando Gonzalez

January 3, 2015

NewsWithViews.com

[Despite his critics, Servando still thinks that the Second Amendment most be abolished.]

In his famous 1929 painting The Treachery of Images, Belgian Surrealist painter Rene Magritte depicted a very realistic pipe, but added the paradoxical caption, “This is not a pipe.” Magritte’s point was very simple: a picture of a pipe is not a pipe. If you don’t agree with Magritte, just imagine an army equipped with pictures of rifles, machine guns, cannons, mortars and tanks.

It seems, however, that most of the people who misunderstood my article “Abolish the Second Amendment. We Don’t Need It,” are fully convinced that the Second Amendment is a gun, because they accused me of being anti-gun, when I am just anti-Second Amendment. One of them wrote, “How dare you want to abolish our dearest amendment?” [1]

Nevertheless, I have to emphasize that, as a picture of a pipe is not a pipe, the Second Amendment is not a gun. So, I advise my critics to never bring the Second Amendment to a gunfight. Further proof that the Second Amendment is not a gun is that I am sure that none of my detractors and critics has tried to get permits authorizing them to carry concealed copies of the Second Amendment — which still in some states is perfectly legal.

Nevertheless, there are some things that became evident in the e-mails I received from some of my angry critics.

First, they are not careful readers, because, in contrast, I have received many e-mails praising me for my article — and I guess that none of them were from anti-gun hoplophobes. [2] It seems that most of my critics never went beyond the title of the article and, like angry bulls attacking a red cloth, just jumped to conclusions and assumed that I was an anti-gun lefty. But, as they say in the military, “assumption is the mother of all f**k-ups.”

Second, most of my critics don’t have a sense of humor. Just reading the text of the fictitious bumper sticker I quoted at the beginning of the article, “The right of the people to keep and arm bears shall not be infringed,” was a strong indication that the article was in part ironic and satirical. That’s why they didn’t realize that when I wrote, “Nevertheless, though this article may be construed as proof that I am a gun nut, I assure you that I am not. Actually I am fully for the banning of firearms,” I was being facetious. [3]

And I was being even more facetious when I wrote that, after disarming first the free-lance criminals on the streets and then the criminals in the government, most people would not feel the need to carry guns. Now, as everybody knows, disarming the common criminals is very difficult and disarming the criminals in the government is totally impossible. But, if due to a divine miracle this may happen, I think that then, and only then, most people would not feel the need to carry guns for their protection — unless they live in bear country and some of them want to keep and arm the bears.

Third, the fact that some of my critics attacked me personally, not the points on my article, and suggested that I should move back to Cuba to enjoy Castroism, evidences their lack of solid arguments against my points of view. Arguments ad hominem are the last resort of people who lack logical arguments.

Fourth, despite opinions to the contrary, the inclusion of the initial phrase of the Second Amendment, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” adds to the confusion. Does it means that only members of a well-regulated militia have the right to keep and bear arms? What about the members of a poorly regulated militia? What about the members of a non-regulated militia? Even more important, who will have the right to tell when a militia is well regulated or not: the Government?

Finally, and this is something worrying, some of them have shown a streak of totalitarian mind-set, evidenced in the fact that they not only criticized me, but also were very angry at the editor of the site because he published my article. Well, even if my article was anti-gun — which it was not — I had the right to express my points of view on the matter. The love for censorship and lack of diversity of opinion is something currently associated with the Left and totalitarian regimes. So, it seems that some of my critics love the Second Amendment, but hate the First. [4]

The essential point of my article was that the Second Amendment is unnecessary. Proof of it is that though the natural the right to Life is more important than the natural right to own guns — you can live without guns, but you cannot have guns without being alive — there is no specific Amendment stating that the right of the people to Life shall not be infringed.

So, can any of my critics explain to me why the natural rights to Life, Liberty and Property are not included in the Bill of Rights?

It is because the Founding Fathers knew that natural rights don’t need to be put to paper, because once put to paper somebody is going to try to cancel the paper. The best place for natural rights, a place where these rights will never be erased, is the people’s minds. Currently, however, in the U.S. we are experiencing an interesting phenomenon: while these rights still exist in paper, most Americans have been brainwashed to a point where these rights do not exist in their minds anymore.

Moreover, putting the natural right to own guns to paper was a dangerous mistake, because it gave people a false sense of security. Proof of it is that some people —my critics among them — are convinced that the Second Amendment protects their natural right to keep and bear arms. Big mistake.

I foresee a Confiscation Day when the government thugs are going to knock at their doors and:

— Knock, knock. Door opens. Government thug: “We’re from the Government. We’re here to . . . ” Second Amendment Lover: “NEVER!” “You can take my Second Amendment only when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.” Government thug: “Hi, Buddy, no reason to be upset. You can keep your Second Amendment, we’re here only to take your guns.” Second Amendment Lover: “Oh, well, no problem. Here they are.”

If you think that the above exchange will never take place, I would remind you that this is exactly what happened in New Orleans in the Katrina aftermath.

People apparently forget that the Bill of Rights is actually a list of amendments to the U.S. Constitution and, to all practical effects, the only use of the Constitution for most government officials is to violate it. Currently, one of the few government officials who has never violated his Oath of Office is Barry Soetoro (a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama), for the simple reason that he is an impostor who never took it properly. [5]

Most people ignore, because it was suppressed many years ago, that the Preamble to the Amendments clearly specifies that the amendments are solely provided for “declaratory and restrictive clauses,” as a way to “extending the ground of public confidence in the Government,” to “best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.” In other words, the Bill of Rights is only a restriction on government. It guarantees you no rights whatsoever, except an argument to legally fight back against government abuses.

Currently, however, there is a big problem with this. The Constitution is nothing but an agreement, a contract between two parties: the people and the government. Now, given the fact that the U.S. government has gone rogue and refuses to play its part in this agreement, for all practical purposes the contract is void. Not only the Second, but also the Constitution itself and all its amendments, have become a dead letter.

The Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights is the equivalent to paper bills. On the contrary, natural rights are like gold — real money. If you believe more in paper than in gold, you are out for a nasty surprise. Just wait and see how the U.S. government, based on the Bill of Rights, is going to protect your natural right to own guns, and your natural rights to Life, Liberty and Property — but don’t hold your breath while you wait.

Some anthropologists have mentioned that natives of certain primitive cultures fear being photographed because they think the photo can steal their souls. To these natives, the photo, an iconic sign, is more important than the thing itself. It seems that most of the readers who took exception to my article have a similar primitive way of thinking. They firmly believe that they can use the Second Amendment, a symbol, to protect their guns, the real thing, instead of using their guns to protect their natural right to keep and use them.

They cannot be more wrong.

Fortunately, however, not all American gun owners share that primitive way of thinking. Just recently, the citizens of Olympia, the capital of Washington State, did it right: more than a thousand peacefully went to the streets not carrying copies of the Second Amendment but their locked and loaded guns to assert their natural right to carry them as they wish. No wonder the event was mostly ignored by the mainstream prostitutes. By the way, the government thugs didn’t even try to stop them. [6]

Just recently, an article in NRA’s America’s First Freedom [7] magazine mentioned how New Yorkers went to sleep one evening and woke up to find their Second Amendment rights had been bruised and battered overnight. However, the author failed to notice that the only ones affected were the true believers in the Second Amendment.

It seems, however, that I am not the only one aware of the perils of trusting the Second Amendment. The gun grabbers have discovered that some gun owners believe that only the Second Amendment gives then the right to own guns, and are desperately trying to eliminate it to grab their guns. [[See, i.e., Kit Daniels, “College Professor: Repeal the “Stupid Second Amendment,” Infowars.com, December 30, 2014,]] The whole point of my previous article was very simple: if there is no Second Amendment, the gun grabbers cannot cancel it as a pre-requisite to ban and confiscate all privately-owned guns.

Obviously, we cannot abolish the Second Amendment from the Bill of Rights, but we can do something much more effective: we can erase it from our minds.

How? Very simple.

Just stop thinking about the Second Amendment. Don’t mention it anymore, particularly to an official of a government that has stopped defending and protecting the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Once you have erased the Second Amendment from your mind, the gun grabbers would not affect you if they managed to have it erased from the Bill of Rights — which, most likely, they eventually will accomplish — or even erasing the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which is their ultimate goal. [8]

President Kennedy put it magisterially when he said:

“The rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.” No wonder the CFR conspirators decided to terminate him with extreme prejudice.

So, if any government thug ever asks you why are you carrying a gun, the right answer is not because the Second Amendment protects you. Tell him that you are carrying a gun because you have a natural right to Life, Liberty and Property as well as the means to defend those rights.

The bottom line is that your inalienable right to keep and bear arms is only protected by the loaded and locked guns you are holding in your hands and your mental commitment to molon labe. [9]

Anything else is pure, undiluted, unadulterated bovine manure.

I would like to thank some of my readers who sent me important information, which I have included in this article, backing my point of view about the Second Amendment. For part one click below.

Click here for part -----> 1,

Footnotes:

1. I think I found the main source of passionate love for the Second Amendment: the NRA. Reading past issues of its America’s First Freedom magazine, I found out that most of its articles and editorial pieces are devoted to begging the government to respect the Second Amendment. In one article, the author begs the government thugs to respect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens who own guns for legitimate uses such as hunting and self-defense. It seems that the author thinks that owning a gun for the sole purpose of defending himself from a tyrannical government is not a legitimate use.

2. Hoplophobia, a term coined by the great Jeff Cooper to designate people who have an irrational fear of firearms.

3. On the other hand, quoting Jeff Cooper again, “Men fight with their minds; the tools they use are irrelevant,” I don’t need to carry a gun because my lethal weapon is my mind.

4. I don’t agree with some of the articles published in NewsWithViews. Actually, there is a particular author with whom I strongly disagree, and I have the feeling that the editor of NWV shares this disagreement. But I respect and admire the editor for his commitment to freedom of expression by continuing publishing that author’s articles.

5. See, Servando Gonzalez, “Why The House Can’t Impeach Obama,” NewsWithViews, December 10, 2013.

6. David Whitney, “The Christmas Murders,” NewsWithViews, December 28, 2014.

7. Frank Miniter, “In The Blink Of An Eye,” America’s First Freedom, February 2014, p. 32.

8. I foresee that the final push for the total disarming of the American people will be launched by a Republican puppet president after a devastating “terrorist” attack on American soil which immediately will be blamed on “right wing militias,” “white supremacists,” and Tea Partiers. Then, the President will sign an executive order making the U.S. part of the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty, which quietly entered into force on November 24, 2014. After that, forced confiscation of guns in the hands of Americans will follow (being a “persecuted” minority, gays will be exempted), and most “conservative” Republicans will be very happy surrendering their guns to a Republican president. Some weeks later somebody will discover that the law banning guns had been copied in toto from a document produced many months before by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

9. Molon Labe, Greek for “Come and take them!”