## Legitimate Restrictions On The Right To Bear Arms There is much confusion about the 2nd amendment, mostly due to government public schooling and globalists’ attempts to deprive people of that right through propaganda and ignorance. In the recorded meetings of the writers of the Amendment, the writers make it apparent that the purpose of the 2nd amendment was to fight tyrannies - both invading tyrannies, and tyrannies forming from the government itself. You can read the full discourse of these meetings by looking up "Document 6, House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution". In their discussion, not only is it apparent they wanted to allow citizens to bear arms to prevent the government from becoming tyrannical, they were afraid that any restriction or elaboration on that right would be used by the government to deny that right. One confusion people have is what defines a militia. First, we must identify that a militia is something separate from the army – something not controlled by government. In the transcript, a proposed addition to the amendment was: "A standing army of regular troops in time of peace is dangerous to public liberty, and such shall not be raised or kept up in time of peace but from necessity, and for the security of the people, nor then without the consent of two-thirds of the members present of both Houses; and in all cases the military shall be subordinate to the civil authority." Further, from one of the earlier version of the amendment, in the transcript, we have "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms" From this, we should understand two things. The first is that the militia is the armed populace. The second is that, the point of the preface is to explain how important the amendment is, not to limit the right to bear arms to militias. It would not make sense to restrict the right to bear arms to militias since militias are the populace and such a restriction would be meaningless. Instead, having just fought a tyrannical government, the preface is there to say, militias are necessary to fight against tyrannies. This should not be taken to mean the only reason for the right to bear arms is so that there can be militias. These writers of the constitution lived in an era that was the pinnacle of the dissemination of the ideas of Natural Law - as seen by the reference in the US Constitution to the book The Law Of Nations. The amendment does not mention the use of the right to bear arms for self defense because it is obvious. It only mentions the need for militias because, for people who are not concerned with government, the fact that militias are necessary to prevent tyrannies may not be obvious. Let's consider the context of this right to bear arms. At the time the amendment was written, arms included cannons, bomb shooting cannons, and vessels that had such cannons, and yet, there were no restrictions against these. At the time the amendment was written, there existed weapons which might be deemed useless to a militia fighting tyranny, such as flails and brass knuckles. Yet, these un-useful weapons were not provided as exceptions to the right to bear arms. At the time the amendment was written, concealment of weapons was possible. And, again, no exception to the right to bear arms specifying against concealment was provided. So, if the right to bear arms presents no exception against the type of arm or against concealment, what is the legitimate restriction on the right to bear arms? To understand this, we must understand the two fundamental purposes of the right. The first is the obvious right of self defense. Just as the militia has the right to fight against tyrannies to protect freedom, so to does the individual, on a smaller scale, have the right to protect himself for his own freedom. It is through the ability of the individual to protect his own freedom that a militia can form to protect the freedom of the group. The second and presented purpose of the right is to allow militias to fight against tyrannies. We must have a better understanding of how this fighting works to understand the legitimate restriction on the right to bear arms. As a government becomes tyrannical, more and more people may rebel against the government. A judge of whether a government should be overthrown is the number of people that are rebelling against the government. By understanding this, you can see that the intent of the amendment is the empower people in numbers as a check against tyranny. It is a way of amplifying the desperate will of the people. 100 people without guns fighting against 20 armed agents of tyranny may stand no chance, but 100 people with guns in that same fight would likely win. We can see there are weapons which are not power-in-populace type weapons. A nuke, for instance. Regardless of whether the group is 10 people or 100 people, the power of the nuke is the same. And, since this power is not an amplification of the number of people, it is not a power-in-populace type of weapon. and it thereby has no merit under the intent of the amendment. There are many arguments against enforcing the 2nd amendment as it stands. And, although some of them _seem_ good, like preventing a madmen from getting a tank, these arguments are designed by globalists to evoke emotion and irrationality against what is currently the supreme law of the land.
Grithin’s rough draft audio