This post is actually tied to the push for ‘Net Neutrality.’ Both are lawless actions, but one demonstrates why the other is being pushed. First, let’s look at something. Here is a link to a search I did for “Obama outlaw AR ammo.’ Click on it and look at the sources for the story:
Now look at the results page when I typed the same search into Google:
What do you notice about the different sources for this story in both search results? What I noticed is that the ‘main stream media’ sources are missing! Now ask yourself why that is? The story is real: Obama is trying to destroy the Second Amendment through executive orders on ammunition. In a free and self-governing society, this is a story that should be in all the headlines, but it isn’t. The only place you will really hear this story is on the Internet — and that is why the government is moving to seize control of the Internet. It has nothing to do with ‘fairness,’ it is all about control. Now, let’s look at Obama’s attempt to destroy the Second Amendment.
First, we need to understand that Obama is perverting the law when he says that the Second Amendment protects firearms but not ammunition. 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.
Setting aside the fact that ‘The People’ means the individual citizens, and that the ‘militia’ is defined as every able-bodied male over the age of eighteen, let’s look at the definition of ‘arms’ as it applied in the time of our founding. From “The Barnhart Concise Dictionary of Etymology: The Origins of American English Words:”
arm n. weapon (in the singular side arm, short arm, and firearm), more usual as arms, n. pl. derived from the Latin arma meaning tools, weapons.
As we can see, this definition is not exclusive to handguns and rifles. It meant swords, firearms and any other type of tool that could be employed as a weapon. We know this because, at the time of our founding, private citizens were allowed to own cannons and even armed ships. These ships were called privateers and were even sanctioned by the American government. In fact, there were nearly 800 such privately owned, armed ships involved in the American Revolution. So let us dismiss with this fallacious argument that the Second Amendment was only intended to allow ownership of small arms. It was not. It was intended to allow the militia to be armed sufficiently well enough to defend the States from invasion — both foreign and domestic (as in, attack by a tyrannical government — State or federal). What’s more, the founders were clear and forceful in their explanation of the intentions behind the Second Amendment:
So we have established — beyond reasonable argument to the contrary — that the Second Amendment encompassed any weapon of war, and was not intended for sporting purposes, but to allow the people to retain the ability to defend themselves, both from individuals as well as tyrannical government. So now, let us deal with Obama’s claim that the Second Amendment does not protect ammunition.
First, Obama’s assertion is an absurdity just on face value. Ammunition meets the definition of ‘arms’ — as the founders understood and used the term, anyway. But there is also this:
“The right to use a thing comprehends a right to the means necessary to its use, and without which it would be useless.”
Since a rifle is useless without ammunition, and since the founders said the people have the right to own and carry a rifle, then it is clear they also intended the right to the ammunition necessary to use that rifle is inherent in the wording of the Second Amendment. Otherwise, if we accept Obama’s argument, we can claim that you have a right to your life — but not to your body. Now, before you dismiss this example as absurd, understand that the principle is identical: your body is to your life as the ammunition is to a weapon. One is useless without the other.
So here we are: living in a nation where the Constitution is no longer upheld or enforced. A nation where the laws are made by appointed individuals entirely outside the legislative body and who answer to no one. In a world that understands and acknowledges Natural Law, where words still have and hold their meaning, such a society as ours would be called lawless. But alas, we do not live in a world that recognizes or acknowledges Natural Law. In fact, we live in a society that openly denies Natural Law even exists. This is why we will be destroyed — it is a principle of Natural Law.