Cultural Impact Of 2nd Amendment

Grithin’s rough draft audio


## Cultural Impact Of 2nd Amendment
There is a reason that the 2nd amendment is so vigorously opposed by globalists in America; why public schools will never identify its purpose; and why globalist organizations across the world fight against gun ownership.  It is not just the apparent ability of people with guns to fight against instances of oppression.  And, for those who think an armed populace would stand no chance against the US military, apart from looking at examples like Vietnam where the US military struggled to put down an armed populace, the US military is composed of this armed populace, and, as such, would encounter significant attrition during a revolution.  Further, with guerrilla warfare, it is unnecessary to match the force of an army, it is only necessary to provide sufficient opposition over time as to deplete the resources of the army.

Beyond the force capacity of the populace to fight against tyranny, the right to bear arms provides an impact on the culture and mental disposition of the people.  

Gun ownership and gun carrying puts people in the mind of "I am responsible for my own wellbeing".  Whereas, gun outlawing and relying on government police puts people in the mindset of "I rely on government for my protection, and I must avoid becoming a victim of violence by avoiding situations".  When people are in the mindset of relying on government for their own personal safety, they tend to then want to further empower government.  If you were dependent on some army for your protection, you would want to ensure that army has the best arms and technology.  Similarly, without the right to bear arms, people tend to want powerful and omnipresent police forces.  Powerful and omnipresent police forces are the tools of tyrants and the bane of liberty.

This mindset of wanting a more powerful police force entirely changes the dynamic of power between government and the populace.  When you have gun rights, people, in asserting their right to defend themselves, inherently push for the balance between the force of government and the force of the populace.  When you have no gun rights, people push for a larger government, creating an even bigger disparity between the power of the populace and the power of government.  This situation eventually results in a hopeless case of tyranny.

Even beyond the effect of mindset leading to tyranny, the right to bear arms has another cultural impact.  If we look at scenarios where violent crime occurs, the criminal will often look for the easiest target.  And, easy targets are ones without the ability to defend themselves.  Consider a mugger in a town that has outlawed all arms.  The mugger's worst case scenario for a mugging is that the victim successfully fights off the mugger, and the mugger might get bruised.  Now, consider a town with a high prevalence of gun carrying.  The mugger now must consider that during the mugging there is a high probability he will be shot, if not by the victim, by an onlooker witnessing the crime.  You can take this simple concept and apply it generally.  Violent crime is disincentivized by the capacity of victims to defend themselves.

What type of people would commit violent crime in the scenario of wide gun carrying?  Very desperate or stupid people.  And, as a consequence, they will likely be taken out of the gene pool, and society will be better for it.  

Even beyond this disincentivization towards crime, wide gun carrying would create a respect in interactions, disposing people away from being absurdly offensive.  Just as a criminal is disincentivized against violent crime by the chance he will be shot, less offensive, but still very offensive actions, such as spitting into another’s face, would be similarly disincentivized.  

Although it is probably an inappropriate escalation of force, if someone spat in another’s face, there is a chance the victim would escalate to shooting or threatening to shoot the spitter.  And, if there were  wide gun carrying, those who commit these offensive actions would be forced to consider these more dire consequences.  As such, two things would occur:

1.  there would be less people committing absurdly offensive acts for fear of dire consequences
2.  both the people that committed absurdly offensive acts and the people that inappropriately escalated the situation would be taken out of society - either by death or jail.  And, in either case, the society would probably be better for it.

In a sense, the initial impact of wider gun carrying might be inconvenient.  But, just like in the progression towards a fit body, the initial efforts of cardio may also be inconvenient, though they are necessary towards achieving the goal.   
Globalists, as slave masters, want to ensure the slaves keep a slave mentality. Upholding the 2nd amendment, which still stands as the supreme law of the land, is the most practical way for combating this slave mentality and re-asserting the American Ideal of individual liberty.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *