I don't find it unreasonable to presume that liberal intellectuals are knowledgeable about the history of governments, economics, and religions, and of the rise and fall of nations. I also think it not unreasonable to presume these intellectuals are very familiar with the history of American government, and its constitutional jurisprudence. Presuming I am correct in presuming these intellectuals are intelligent, knowledgeable and wise in these matters, how can I avoid concluding that when it comes to the Second Amendment, these individuals are choosing to be dangerously, disingenuously obtuse. The only other conclusion I can deduce is that the purported knowledge and wisdom these individuals tout is merely the result of institutional programming through hypnosis, and that these liberal champions are therefore nothing more than government tools, duped into promoting the corruption they should most fear.
Lord Acton is credited with saying that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Because history distinguishes no reason to impeach this conclusion, the necessity of the Second Amendment should be clear: to insure that when the federal government becomes absolutely corrupt, the People, in their Sovereign capacity as a Militia, reserve to themselves the power to eliminate it. Note that 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."
Please note no mention of a well regulated DHS, FBI, CIA, TSA, NSA, Federal Martial, National Guard, or Army, or any government agency being necessary to the security of a free state. Because government agencies, once corrupted, are the most likely enemy to a free state, it should be obvious that these instrumentalities are the last place the people should look as a means of securing a free state.
The Second Amendment is one among the initial ten Articles amending the federal constitution. The preamble of the Bill to the Articles distinguishes that these amendments are not grants of rights, but declaratory and restrictive clauses limiting the power delegated to the federal government by the federal constitution, to wit
"THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."This knowledge is not difficult for a grade school student to understand, particularly in light of the politically charged context in which the federal constitution was ratified, and on the heels of the Declaration of Independence.
The Declaration of Independence explicitly distinguishes that the American People are Sovereign and that the government is servant. In their Sovereign capacity the Declaration of Independence provides that the People have a duty to throw off corrupt government when, not if, that time becomes necessary. This is their Sovereign Right, their Duty, of Revolution. The maxim of law distinguishing that the greater power includes the lesser, provides that inherent in the People's sovereign capacity is the Militia, the revolutionary right to keep and bear arms, which the Second Amendment specifically enumerates, and if there is any doubt to the contrary, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments make it perfectly clear:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the People." Ninth AmendmentHow can sincere Americans trust liberal intellectuals who betray fundamental constitutional principles by obfuscating the truth about the Second Amendment when they insist that government move in a direction infringing on, even usurping, a Sovereign duty off limits to politicians.
"“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People.” Tenth Amendment
The rhetoric of protecting the children is at best disingenuous, and at worst Neo-Marxist treason against the de jure American ideology and jurisprudence.