We know the leftist caricature of gun-rights advocates as stupid, poor, right-wing rednecks just isn’t true.
With socialists like Bernie Sanders insisting we shouldn’t be free to protect ourselves and supporting laws meant to prohibit citizens being armed in public, our right to defend ourselves and those we love is under attack.
When two white supremacists tried to take out their hatred by attacking a black man in a For Myers, Florida Waffle House restaurant they got what they deserved.
Bay Area Intifada shared some of the security camera footage that captured the action, as well as a local newscast with further information on the altercation.
Given the nature of the video, it’s appropriately age-restricted on YouTube and you can view it here on Truth And Action on the next page.
WATCH WHAT HAPPENED ON THE NEXT PAGE:
If you never had the 2nd amendment like most of the rest of the world, thousands of law abiding citizens would still be alive today, and European countries who have much tighter gun controls, have a way lower percentage of gun fatalities. In the U.S.A. children get shot by their parents firearms almost every week, this very rarely happens in Europe.
Well it’s a good thing I don’t live in any of those countries. If someone doesn’t like the 2nd amendment than they can go live in another country. If someone from another country doesn’t like the 2A…who cares?
hurrr ray some intelligence
this man has the right to protect himself, he has a legal right to carry, he showed the man the gun and he continued to assault this guy…i have a hard time feeling sorry for the guy that got shot…
Of course it isn’t. Notice how they want to ban assault rifles even though they are used in less than 3% of gun crimes? it’s bc the government is afraid of us having weapons to resist them. If they truly cared about civilian deaths, they would be more concerned about hand guns. The fact they are not is very telling.
No, it’s so that we can resist the government. My guess is this will be lost on you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2ebudnWlh4
These guys got exactly what they were begging for. Respect usually gets respect.
The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to prevent the government from disarming the people. So that they may be armed to defend their own liberty, or the liberty and security of the free state.
EVERY OTHER right in the Constitution defends and protects the PEOPLE, especially the individual rights to free speech, religious belief, assembly, protest, due process, from unlawful searches or seizures, or unequal treatment under the law.
So why all of a sudden, when it comes to guns, the right is some sort of collective thing meant just for “militiamen”?
It’s because you’re wrong, it’s meant for the people, for the individual, for each one of us.
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/89vand.pdf
Furthermore, and I quote myself yet again:
“So that a well regulated militia, composed from the body of the people, could be called upon to defend liberty, or secure a free state, the INDIVIDUAL right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Being a member of the militia, organized and regulated or not, is NOT a prerequisite for the individual right to keep and bear.
It is BECAUSE the people have a right to keep and bear, that a militia composed of those people is possible.
We have an individual right to keep and bear arms for our defense, and the defense of our state and country.
*
“§ 1889. The next amendment is: “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.”
§ 1890. The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.2 And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid ”
http://www.constitution.org/js/js_344.htm
*
“The corollary, from the first position, is, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment”
~William Rawle
http://www.constitution.org/wr/rawle_10.htm
*
“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
~Tench Coxe, ‘Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution’ under the Pseudonym ‘A Pennsylvanian’ in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1
*
“U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (2007): The Amendment does not protect “the right of militiamen to keep and bear arms,” but rather “the right of the people.” The operative clause, properly read, protects the ownership and use of weaponry beyond that needed to preserve the state militias.”
“We start by considering the competing claims about the
meaning of the Second Amendment’s operative clause: “the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be
infringed.” Appellants contend that “the right of the people”
clearly contemplates an individual right and that “keep and bear
Arms” necessarily implies private use and ownership. The
District’s primary argument is that “keep and bear Arms” is best
read in a military sense, and, as a consequence, the entire
operative clause should be understood as granting only a
collective right. The District also argues that “the right of the
people” is ambiguous as to whether the right protects civic or
private ownership and use of weapons.
In determining whether the Second Amendment’s guarantee
is an individual one, or some sort of collective right, the most
important word is the one the drafters chose to describe the
holders of the right—“the people.” That term is found in the
First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments. It has
never been doubted that these provisions were designed to
protect the interests of individuals against government intrusion,
interference, or usurpation”
http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/parkerdc030907.pdf
Without getting into gun rights, the language of the Second Amendment makes clear that this is not why it exists. One could extrapolate and argument, and clearly the document changes with the times, but this is not why the framers wrote the Second Amendment.
The right of self defense actually originates with English Common Law and was seen as a natural right. The 2nd Ammendment’s express purpose is for the People to retain the means to ensure the security of the state against tyrannical powers be they foreign invaders or domestic usurpers of power.
Wrong this is NOT why the second amendment exists. The right to defend one’s self, using anything – a knife, club, sword, or gun, – was established under British common law over 500 years ago.