The Second Amendment and College Protests
What is its purpose except to kill kids?
One of the more stupid bits of the US Constitution and its inevitable interpretation in a land run by libertarians and neoliberals is that of the Second Amendment, known worldwide as the ‘right to bear arms’. This means that the US has more guns than people and mass shootings are a cultural phenomenon. Rather than take the whole meaning of the Amendment - the whole sentence in its entirety - subsequent court cases have narrowed it down to individualistic ‘self-defence’, which it actually does not say at all. As a result, the US has invented its very own culture of mass school shootings and it can own it entirely. Let’s be honest folks, from its very inception, it has been Land of the Free™ to KILL.
‘Self-defence’ is, of course, in the eye of the beholder these days. If you starve, maim, murder, sexually abuse, kill, rape, terrorise, stalk, harras, imprison, beat, kidnap, batter, shoot, bomb, skin, sniper, brutalise, sodomise, chemically assault and assassinate a child, woman or man - and then they throw a stone at you in response - you have the right to self-defence. That is the only right of self-defence in this situation, there is no other.
The US courts agree with this definition of ‘self-defence’. They found that Geroge Zimmerman, a racist who decided a black boy, Trayvon Martin, minding his own business looked ‘suspicious,’ so stalked him, harassed him, fought with him and then shot him in the fight, was acting in ‘self-defence’. So mortified was Mr Zimmerman at the events, and that he took the life of a 17-year old child, that he got rid of the gun he used to shoot him. Sold it online for $250,000. I mean, the remorse must’ve been soul-crushing.
(Just gotta pause for a second - why the f*ck did he even get that gun back? Two bites from a dog are enough for the State to end its life, but killing an actual child means you get the tool of murder back??)
Ergo ‘self-defence’ = shoot up coloured people, especially kids. Hence the school shootings and cops hanging around letting it happen. And remember, THERE ARE NO INNOCENT KIDS IN GAZA!!!!!!!
I was confused, to be honest, why Trump supporters who stormed the Capitol on 6 Jan 2021 with guns did not use their Second Amendment right as a defence. I mean, a few did but it didn’t make MSM (mainstream media) headlines. In any event, I barely kept up with it all as I was not interested in watching racist gun totes on TV being wrist-slapped while the US continued murdering all over the globe. It was a stupid circus for a country run on Hollywood fumes - a continuous propaganda whirring machine creating the fantasy of their moral and cultural supremacy - the whole place just a giant circus tent with the biggest clowns running the show.
Let’s actually look at the Second Amendment:
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 mean, if one of these insurrectionists really believed the election was unfair and that Biden had fiddled with the votes, and democracy™ and freedom™ were on the precipice of a cliff, then surely they would claim that their actions were necessary to the security of a free state.
I take the fact that they did not run with this to be evidence that all these violent mob-heads always knew they were talking absolute b***cks and had their knickers in a twist because ‘you’ve been tangoed’ didn’t win.
“The Second Amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms, emphasising the importance of a well-regulated militia for the security of a free state.”
One would think that a ‘free state’ meant one without foreign interference or dictating by a foreign Head of State, giving orders to the President of the US. One would think that a ‘free state’ would mean a state that did not accede to said orders without hesitation, who would go through the proper legal channels of the US to provide US money and US weapons to said foreign state - and not bypass the US government. One would think a ‘free state’ would mean one that allows the freedom of speech, the freedom of protest, the freedom of expression, and not one that takes orders from a foreign state to clamp down and illegally assault peaceful American protestors in their own colleges.
One would think a ‘free state’ was one where the freedom of its population was the priority, and not the eye-watering financial support of citizens of a foreign state, who get free healthcare on the ‘free state’s’ dime, while the ‘free state’s’ citizens instead die from the cost of medical bills; medical bills billed to them by said foreign state.
Hey, I’m no constitutional lawyer, but it seems like that the US is not a free state and that it may be necessary for the citizens of America to secure a free State. Their own constitution demands it, didn’t you know? It’s in the Second Amendment:
“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.”
But what do I know? I’m not in the US and I never want to be. Maybe the Constitution really is there to let citizens kill those they don’t like, bomb countries that they’re jealous of, and stalk and murder kids who look ‘suspicious’ because they are black and dared to walk on a street.
Whatever the case, my dear Americans, your free state is fiction, a fallacy, a fairytale.
It always has been. It always was.
Nicely said
The second amendment in no way, shape or form applies to the Zimmermann case. It should have never even been considered let alone applied. It was murder, premeditated and should have ended there with Zimmerman being found guilty. The same twisted logic is being applied to suppress protests on college campuses by one person feeling "unsafe" to suppress a majority.
The second amendment only applies to foreign invaders or the government at the federal or state level becoming tyrannical. It does not even allude to individual rights to commit murder or self defense. The "justice system" is not a "justice system" any longer. It is a system being used to justify criminal activity for the political economic and corporate system.
The first amendment gives the people the right to protest for a redress of grievances which has been taken away as can clearly be seen by the current actions of the government at the state and federal level. The people's "grievances" are being completely ignored by our elected officials. Our rights to protest and freedom of speech have been taken away. The right to declare bankruptcy has been taken away. The right to an attorney has been taken away. If declared a terrorist which has no clear definition ALL rights are taken away. Murder of an unarmed teenager however is considered self defense.
A true militia does not currently exist in the US. A militia is comprised of non military citizens in an individual state. The national guard is a part of the federal armed forces and not a true militia. This was something that was impossible to foreee when the constitution was written 250 years ago as are many other things in todays society.
If one reads the declaration of independence the majority of reasons for separation from England are present today and many are far worse. The problem is not in the constitution, it's in the failure of the government to update the constitution as well as the bogus reinterpretation of the constitution with the Zimmermann case being a prime example. Nowhere does it say in the constitution that a permit is needed to protest. It is a gauranteed right under the Bill of Rights. Yet universities are suppressing that constitutional right by saying that protestors must abide by university rules to protest. If the university puts a sign up "Keep off the grass" one can be arrested for criminal trespassing. Our "rights" have been taken away by reinterpretation of the constitution.
When the constitution was written it was never envisioned that a federal id would be instituted and yet even in that era one could have been issued. Yet today we have one called The RealID and it is required to obtain a job, vote, drivers license etc.
If we were to say "It's a sad day for democracy in America." what day would that be? Today? Yesterday? A century ago? It has been slowly eroded by the passage of time. My opinion is that the death blow came with the implementation of the Patriot Act. Something that Obama, a constitutional scholar failed to repeal and in fact supported and used against Edward Snowden. Now, today is a sad day for the world at large because of America. Either Americans are going to have to implement the changes internally or the changes will come externally from other countries. It would be far better from within for all.