Anyone Recognize This?

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.

I realize that education in our government controlled public school system today fails miserably in teaching everything but government dependence.  Therefore reading comprehension is not exactly a strong suit anymore, but the one sentence above is fairly simple and straightforward.  There is absolutely nothing, not a single word, about hunting deer.  In fact, I do believe the only animal mentioned in the Second Amendment is a bear.  Upon further inspection, the word "bear" in the Amendment is not the noun, but rather a verb meaning to hold, own or possess.  There is nothing in the single sentence comprising the Second Amendment that protects citizens' right to own a firearm in order to hunt deer, ducks, elk, moose, or even bears.  There is not a single word about owning a handgun or any type of firearm in order to protect yourself or your family from a meth-crazed maniac or a post-Apocalypse zombie.  

Break the single sentence down into its two components; "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." is the first key.  A well-regulated militia is a well-equipped, i.e. well-armed, population of civilians, not federal troops, civilians.  Why do we need a well-armed population?  It's necessary to the security of a free state.  That's pretty easy to understand, right?  The founding fathers believed that having a well-armed civilian population was necessary not only for hunting or protecting individuals, their homes, their property.  A well-armed civilian population was necessary for the security of a free state.  Why did our founders believe that it was necessary?   

First of all, an armed population was necessary to protect itself against attack from Native Americans and other aggressors trying to take property from citizens of the newly created nation.  If you think that personal private property is no longer susceptible to attack from forces hostile to the United States, do an internet search for stories about citizens of the United States protecting their property and lives and begging the federal government for assistance in protecting their property and their lives along the southern border.  Citizens along the southern border are under attack daily by invaders from a foreign country.  If you really want an eye opener do a little research about terrorists from overseas and their ability to invade our borders, northern and southern.  

Most importantly our founders included the Second Amendment as a counterbalance to the power they were granting the federal government.  They had just fought a bloody and costly war to win their independence from a central government that they considered tyrannical and power hungry.  When our government today passes healthcare legislation that will impact the lives of 100% of the population and is supported by approximately 45% of that population; when our government sues a state for enforcing federal immigration laws that the federal government refuses to enforce; when our government takes, through threat of force,  more and more of the money its citizens work for and earn, then passes that money on to organizations like Planned Parenthood and whatever name ACORN is operating under today; when our government is racking up annual deficits of over $1,000,000,000,000 a year, money that will somehow have to be paid by our children and grandchildren; it's pretty easy to see the dangers of a power hungry federal government.  When our newly re-elected president proposes 23 executive actions in direct violation of the Constitution, specifically the Second Amendment, specifically because these actions would never survive the process required to change the Constitution, it's easy to see the seeds of tyranny.  Exactly the reasons the founders included the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights.  

Another common argument against the Second Amendment is that, even with the evil assault weapons in the hands of otherwise law-abiding citizens, an army of civilians, a "well-regulated Militia," would stand no chance against the most powerful military in history.  In general those who favor this argument would also point out the failure of that same most powerful military in Korea, Vietnam, and today in Afghanistan against an army of civilians.  So it should be obvious that a well-regulated militia, a well-armed civilian army, is as necessary today as it was in 1789.

The second component of the single sentence Second Amendment is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  First of all, keeping and bearing arms is a right.  In the view of the founders, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, a right is granted by God or Nature's god.  The right to protect yourself, your property, and your State, your country, your beliefs is granted by God or Nature's god.  It is not a power granted to the federal government to limit the citizen's ability to protect these things.  The founders, in the Supreme law of our country, the very foundation of our country, stated that the right to "keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  I don't know how much more clear the founders could be short of using the phrase popularized by Moses Charlton Heston, "you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands."  I recognize the Second Amendment.  I recognize the wisdom of our founding fathers in including it in the Constitution.  I recognize the necessity of the Second Amendment, today and in 1789.  When well-educated, I'm assuming well-intentioned, people do not recognize the absolute lunacy of our modern power hungry, borderline tyrannical federal government attempting to illegally circumvent the supreme law of our nation, I'm not sure I recognize "us" anymore.  

Hobgoblins and Community Organizers

For some reason, I don't remember a lot of quotable lines from my college literature classes.  One I do remember is from Ralph Waldo Emerson's essay, Self Reliance.  "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."  Today, I think Emerson would add community organizers who become president to his list of those with hobgoblins. 

President Obama has shown a tendency to react from his gut.  From his first month in office when he made his off-teleprompter "it is apparent the police acted stupidly" remark, the president has to use his own words, acted stupidly and then stubbornly stood by those actions.  In the case of this remark, Obama was barely a month into office, and most of us were still giving him the benefit of the doubt.  He had no experience in a position where his every word and action was being watched and scrutinized.  So most of us gave him the chance to retract, or at least soften his remarks, especially since he admitted that he did not have "all the facts."  But, Emerson's hobgoblins got to the president.  He never backed off his comments.

Then we had Arizona passing state legislation making illegal immigration illegal in their state.  When asked for a reaction, President Obama called the legislation "misguided."  Without reading the legislation.  After learning that the law mirrored already existing federal law, the president stuck to his comments and went even further by ordering an investigation of the civil rights ramifications of the law.  A little reflection should lead "the smartest man in the room" to the conclusion that civil rights are applicable to citizens, and illegal immigrants by definition are not citizens, but the hobgoblins have struck again.  The federal government has decided to pursue legal action against the state.  Again, the president has had ample time to adjust his stance as he has learned the facts and learned the opinion of the voters.  But once again, he is remaining "foolishly consistent."

Last week Senator Jon Kyl told a town hall meeting that the president, in a private meeting, told Kyl that he had no reason to close the American borders, as citizens of border states and citizens in general, are begging him to do.  President Obama told Senator Kyl that if he closed the borders and enforced federal immigration laws, Congress would have no motivation to compromise on immigration reform, or amnesty.  Think this is a case of Kyl making up the president's quotes to advance Arizona's view?  Well once again, President Obama's got that hobgoblin issue.
 

More recently, in reaction to the British Petroleum leak in the Gulf of Mexico, the president announced a moratorium on drilling in the gulf.  Upon further review, the moratorium would do nothing but cost the region jobs, not only for the six months announced, but probably forever.  Some estimates of the loss of payroll, and tax revenue, reach the billions.  Those estimates do not include the loss caused by the leak itself.  So when a federal judge suspended the moratorium, the president had the perfect opportunity to adjust his stance and in essence, save both face and jobs.  He could have said something along the lines of "we tried, but a judge overturned our action.  That's the way checks and balances works."  He could then let the drilling continue, especially since this is the first spill in more than 4,000 wells drilled in the Gulf.  Instead of letting the judge's decision stand and moving on, within minutes of the announcement of the judge's decision, the Obama administration announced their decision to appeal the decision.  Not only is the government appealing the decision, but today Secretary of Interior Salazar announced a new moratorium!

Three days after the accident and resulting leak, the Dutch, Norwegians, and British offered to help with the clean up effort with tankers, skimmers, and booms.  The federal government declined the offers, citing the Jones Act.  The Jones Act requires all ships working between U.S. ports be American built, American flagged, and consist of American crews, all to protect unions.  While the Act has been suspended many times, the Obama administration refused to do so.  After more than two months of massive amounts of oil moving to beaches along the Gulf coast, commentators started questioning the application of the Jones Act.  The British and Dutch again offered their help with the clean up.  The president had the opportunity to exorcise his hobgoblins and suspend the Jones Act, but, once again, has acted foolishly consistently and refused the help.

We have been told that President Obama is one of most intelligent people ever to hold the office of president.  So, while is he repeatedly the victim of the hobgoblins of a little mind?  It could be that he knows all the facts, but is working to advance his agenda.  It's either part of his plan, or we were lied to all along and the president's not as intelligent as we were led to believe.  And if that's the case, what is the agenda of those who led us to believe we were electing "the smartest man in the room?"  I think we have more than hobgoblins to worry about.