Ladies and Gentleman: The Second Amendment

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | DECEMBER 24, 2012

Before any serious discussion about the Second Amendment can begin, it is necessary to make sure those discussing its validity, definition and application really understand why it was written and how it applies to modern society.

Today, most politicians do not understand the Second Amendment or refuse to award it its real meaning. They refuse to recognized what the Founding Fathers intended to achieve and instead attach all kinds of connotations originated from their twisted and purposely wrong understanding of the this sacred right.

Two grave mistakes are commonly made when defining, validating and applying the Second Amendment. First, people attempt to interpret what it means, as opposed to simply reading and abiding by it. Second, it is defined, validated and applied according to ‘modern’ precepts issued by government.

Perhaps the best attempt to understand what the Second Amendment means in its raw form was recently presented by journalist Ben Swann, who limited himself to reading the text and, upon consulting constitutional experts and proper dictionary definitions, made a very good case for the correct understanding of what the Second Amendment really means.

The definition held by those who believe in the right of the people to keep and bear arms and what it intends to guard against — the very same definition now being diluted by government enforcing illegal laws and the media pushing for gun control — is simpler than what many pundits and talking heads want to make it look.

The Second Amendment was not created to be conditioned to the kind of weapons that people may have available to buy or whatever the federal government thinks are ideal social situations for people to own a gun. It is also not limited by the mental health of a society or the vote of a group of people who are so afraid of armed lunatics, that they prefer to be killed rather than protect themselves and their families.

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.”

After being victims of foreign aggressors, the Founding Fathers and the United States as a whole understood very well that an armed population, not only a standing army, was the best instrument to keep the country safe from both domestic and foreign attacks. That is why the responsibility to defend oneself was put in the hands of The People.

A number of countries whose armies were swept by oppressors and whose populations fell into the hands of local and foreign conquerors are historically significant. Meanwhile, quite the opposite happened with those nations whose people maintained the right to keep and bear arms. The statistics clearly show a direct link between free, armed populations and lower crime rates. On the contrary, subdued, unarmed people are most often subjected to violence from criminals in and out of government.

Governments alone are responsible for the murder of at least 250,000,000 people in the twentieth century and most of the people who were murdered were either lightly armed in comparison to their aggressors or completely disarmed. If the security of a free State — and such state is indeed composed by its citizens because that State is an independent Nation, depends upon its people — it is then the responsibility and the right of those people to keep and bear arms against all threats.

Therefore, the Second Amendment is not about hunting or the ownership of a specific caliber firearm, but about the ability of the people to be armed as needed to defend themselves from standing armies; both foreign and domestic. It is as simple as that. The people have the right, under applicable laws, to own and use firearms of undetermined calibers, sizes or firepower, to defend themselves, their families and their country.

There can’t be a better time to put that right to work than today, when average criminals, mentally ill people and the government itself pose the greatest danger to the security of the people than ever before in history. For those who understand the meaning of the Second Amendment, it is clear that the full conquest of the United States will not occur unless its people are completely disarmed.

The globalists who control the American government have financially and politically disarmed the country, but they haven’t been able to break the will of the people to defend themselves. Americans are beginning to understand that their government cannot protect them and will not protect them, because government  doesn’t work for them.

Politicians who move to Washington, D.C., work for foreign interests whose goal is to destroy the United States the same way they’ve destroyed countries in Latin America, Africa and Europe. That is why, when studied from a legal standpoint — the only point of view it should be studied from — the Second Amendment explicitly enables Americans to defend their country as well as to defend themselves from their country if necessary.

The Second Amendment was intended to guarantee the right of the individuals to be equally armed as their country’s military, both to aid the military to defend the country from foreign threats, as well as to defend themselves from the Nation’s military forces, should they turn against The People. The Founding Fathers intended to provide the citizens the ability to be armed well enough to keep their country and themselves free from oppressive forces which could arise internally and externally.

The idea that a semi automatic firearm should not be in the hands of average folks could not be more opposed to the right provided by the Second Amendment, since governments’ firepower has increased exponentially. What kind of self-defense action could an individual sustain with a .22 caliber gun if its government has sound canyons, armed drones and laser beam weapons? In fact, a semi-automatic or even an automatic weapon would be useless.

The next step on the road to serfdom after a population is disarmed is anything and everything that those in places of power believe is enough to keep themselves in power. “You can do all kinds of things when the population is disarmed. You can round them up, you can put them in ghettos, you can execute them, you can do all kinds of things,” says attorney Don Moore.

There is nothing controversial about the Second Amendment and what it means. Controversy arises from those whose power slips away when The People reclaim the rights given to them by their creator, which directly challenge the abusive behavior of corrupted individuals who use government to enslave his fellow citizens.

An honest debate about the Second Amendment will only be effective when those who participate in such a debate do so with full understanding of what they are talking about. The Second Amendment is intended to prevent the control, domination and oppression of the people by the government. Any discussion that starts without recognizing this fact will not only be futile, but also dangerous given the ignorance of the people who are charged with defending its very existence.

No matter what Michael Bloomberg, Barack Obama, or Pierce Morgan say, firearms don’t kill people. Crazy individuals using firearms murder people just as mad individuals use the power vested upon them by their fellow citizens to murder thousands of innocent civilians in a supposed attempt to ‘bring peace’ to their countries.

As foreign as it may seem for Americans or any other population whose governments want them to hand in their guns, the consequences of centralizing government power and disarming citizens are the predecessors of Genocide.

The Real Agenda encourages the sharing of its original content ONLY through the tools provided at the bottom of every article. Please DON’T copy articles from The Real Agenda and redistribute by email or post to the web.

EU Dictators to Control National Budgets

Sovereign Independent

As reported in today’s Irish Independent, the EU will be given first option on whether to approve of Irish fiscal policy thus opening

If the theory of Super States is adopted globally, the countries will effectively loose independence, sovereignty, identity and liberty.

the way for another €3 billion of cuts in spending, no doubt in public services we all pay our taxes into. This is of course dictatorship in its most basic form.

When a nation state is no longer in control of its own finances, which have been handed over to an unelected cabal of appointed lackeys, then the nation state no longer exists. This is exactly the position which Ireland and every nation in the EU face today. Let’s be clear, there are no longer nation states. Taking over a nation’s finances is only the start. When we no longer have individual countries, with individual cultures, as they are rapidly being mixed into a standardised ‘brand’, the result will be that in a generation or two from now, we will no longer have any distinction between individual sovereign states which could be classed as cultural identity whatsoever.

This is not only undesirable to the native peoples of the nations of Europe but it is also detrimental to world culture as a whole. I would envisage a day when travelling abroad, if still permitted, will be no more of a cultural experience than travelling through ‘one size fits all’ airports and staying in brand name hotels. Every ‘experience’ will be standardised.

Sticking with financial control, why is it that our ‘elected’ representatives have sold us off to these pirates of finance whereby they have allowed an unelected, private organisation to dictate terms and conditions over and above our national governments as to what they will and will not plan for in their own fiscal policy to benefit the people of their nations? When did outside forces have any right to interfere with the internal finances of a nation state? Haven’t we witnessed many times in history the ‘economic sanctions’ imposed on nations? How about the recent example of Iraq which was spuriously, and ultimately dishonestly, accused of having weapons of mass destruction? The result of these economic sanctions was mass starvation and death of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis.

I’m not saying it’ll come to that in Europe but at the same time when these criminals, and let’s not mince our words here, they are criminals, when they are allowed to impose what amount to economic sanctions on our country then we are in for extremely hard times ahead with the eventual result being mass poverty across Europe.

What then for the EU?

It clearly will not have worked as it was supposed to so why would we still want to be part of it?

Why would any nation want to be part of a criminal organisation which has gone out of its way to impoverish the ordinary peoples of what were once independent nation states whilst at the same time destroying cultural identity?

The powers that be insisted and repeated their lies that the single European currency would solve all of our financial troubles forever. That has obviously not worked either and indeed has brought us closer to the brink of utter catastrophe in terms of our financial security.

But of course, that was always the intention of the European Union. Its job was always to amalgamate all the nations of Europe under their control so that when the time was right, like now, they could collapse every nation in the Union to achieve their ultimate goal of bringing into being the single European Soviet Union Superstate. This was finally achieved after the illegal and blatantly fraudulent 2nd Lisbon Referendum in which the Irish people were robbed of the last elements of national sovereignty thus plunging the other members of the EU into the new European Soviet Bloc with all rights and rules being dictated from Brussels.

The European Parliament was overnight given the status of a National Superstate, with all the powers of a government over the 500 million people of Europe, with only 27 unelected Commissars deciding our fate.

Whilst those politicians pushing for a ‘YES’ vote in the bogus referendum celebrated a victory before the first vote was counted, they never told the people that they had effectively sold them into slavery to a foreign power, namely the European Union; a European Union that have steadfastly refused to submit its own accounts for scrutiny, to any one of the nation states funding it, for over 15 YEARS!

Why have we allowed, what is obviously a corrupt organisation, to take over our lives to the extent that they decide how our tax money is to be spent? No doubt a lot of it will be going into the grubby paws of these very same commissars who are dictating that we the people need to cut back on everything from energy consumption to foreign holidays and even what foods we will eventually have to eat as GMO crops are rolled out across the continent.

I was never asked about any of this in my entire life and certainly never voted for any of it.

If you voted ‘YES’ for the Lisbon Referendum are you happy with the results so far?

Do you have one of those mystical jobs that were promised by every major political party at the time?

Do you still have the job you had then or are you one of the close half a million officially unemployed people in a country of approximately 4 million people with a workforce of less than 2 million?

That’s a 25% unemployment rate folks!

Do you have the security we were promised even though what security they were talking about was never discussed?

Financial security is the bedrock of any civilised society. This doesn’t necessarily mean monetary security. That is simply a red herring and a fraud in itself being perpetrated on humanity since the first banker lent to the first borrower thousands of years ago.

No, ‘financial’ security comes in many shapes and forms. The main concerns for human beings since the beginning of time have been firstly, shelter whereby we need some form of a home to protect us from the elements and to raise our families. The second basic element is of course good healthy food combined with clean water. Some kind of health security is also essential although good healthy food and clean water go a long way to preventing any health problems in themselves.

Every person in this country could now be living in a home, perhaps not the ideal home, but a home nevertheless, if the wads of cash given to private corrupt banks had simply been given to the people via payment of mortgages and personal debt to the extent that the country could have started with clean slate so to speak whereby we could then have started creating our own independent monetary system in whichever form that took.

Why then have we borrowed billions from private banks simply to hand it over to other private banks which the taxpayers of Ireland have to pay for and who will now have to live in poverty for generations?

Why are our politicians not on trial for ECONOMIC TERRORISM and TREASON?

At this stage in the game it is probably too late for any intelligent debate from any intelligent political figure because let’s face it, they are extremely hard to find despite the claims of the establishment that we pay politicians so much money to attract the best minds in the country to the political process.

Does anyone seriously think that we have the best minds in politics? If that were indeed the case we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in would we?

It’s about time the public woke up to the fact that they have been duped all their lives and in generations prior to that. It’s a bitter pill to swallow and it does take an element of personal courage to admit, not only to yourself that you have been conned, but also to tell other people that they’ve been conned too.

Firstly they will ridicule you, secondly they’ll shun you until eventually something will happen to them personally which will dispel any doubts in their minds that something is seriously wrong in society, not only in Ireland, but across the globe. When innocent human beings are being blown to bits in an illegal war which has been proven to have been started using lies and deception, one would like to think that that time cannot be far off. I won’t hold my breath though. The current ‘crop’ of ‘human beings’ seem incapable of empathy for their fellow man whatever the dreadful circumstances the victims find themselves in. We have in effect been utterly desensitized to the suffering of others with the ‘self’ being the most important being it seems in most people’s lives.

In terms of people finally accepting that we are all in serious trouble, let’s hope that it’s not the day they turn up at Tesco’s to find the shelves empty and starvation becomes a real possibility. This is not wild ‘conspiracy theory’. This is exactly how things were in the Soviet Union when millions, just over half a century ago, were allowed to starve to death by Stalin and his cronies whilst they lived in absolute luxury in a land of plenty for them.

The new European Soviet Superstate is riddled with so called ‘ex’ Soviet Communist Party members who were active in Eastern Europe right up to the day they became part of the European Union.

I don’t want to live in the Soviet Union or in, as the UN has pointed, the state we should all try to emulate, the People’s Republic of China.

Every human being in the EU and around the world has a basic right to live their lives free of restriction so far as they do no harm to any fellow human being or their property. This is the basis of common law which the vast majority of people adhere to. We don’t need ‘Big Brother’ diktats from anyone telling us what we can and can’t do, what licenses we need for this or that and how many children we’re ‘allowed’ to have.

I’m sick of it all and it’s about time that the entire human race extricated its head from the sand and got off its knees. We do not owe our lives to any state whether real or created. We are not slaves to be bought and sold at the whim of unelected bureaucrats in a puppet government far removed from any nation state.

Responsibility comes at a price but ultimately it must be a price worth paying if the alternative is so bleak.

Nobel Laureate: “Put virus genes in bacteria and feed them to people”

Xinhua

Barry J. Marshall, Nobel Laureate in Physiology or Medicine 2005 and clinical professor with the University of Western Australia,

Barry J. Marshall

said people might, in the future, be vaccinated by swallowing capsules instead of by using needles.

He made his remarks at the World Expo’s third theme forum, which opened on Sunday in Wuxi, east China’s Jiangsu Province.

“The project I’ve been working on is to develop vaccines that look like a food product. I think that’s the future beyond the needles, to have vaccines look more like food,” he said.

“I worry about my family. I have a grandson. Recently he had five needles on one day. It’s very stressful for small children to have vaccination needles, so it would be much better if we could have vaccines like medicines,” he said. “You don’t have to go to the hospital or doctor, maybe you could go to the pharmacy or drug store or the super market,” he said.

“Ten or 20 years from now, probably many vaccines would be like that, so much easier for so many people not have to worry about influenza, measles, chickenpox,” he said.

“For example, one project we are undertaking showed some early successes in animals. The project is that we can take the influenza virus genes, put them into the bacteria so the bacteria look a little bit like influenza, then feed the bacteria to somebody,” he said.

“You could see in the future this could be like some food product, capsule bacteria. But when you swallow it, it will start living in your stomach for a few weeks. During that time, your immune system will be activated but you will also be vaccinated against influenza,” he explained.

In 2005, Barry J. Marshall and J. Robin Warren was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine in recognition of their 1982 discovery that a bacterium, Helicobacter pylori, is one cause of mankind’s most common and serious diseases, peptic ulcer disease.

Europeans are fed up with the elites and get to the streets

Spain’s parliament has passed a €15bn (£12.7bn) austerity package by just one vote, leaving the Socialist government nakedly exposed to popular fury.

Telegraph

Its glaring lack of political solidarity is the latest sign of rising resistance to deflation policies across the eurozone.

Prime minister Jose Luis Zapatero had to rely on the abstention of Catalan nationalists to push through public sector wage cuts of 5 percent this year and a freeze in 2011.

The 1930s-style pay squeeze was effectively imposed upon Spain by Brussels as a quid pro quo for the EU’s €750bn “shield” for euro zone debtors. It is a bitter climb-down for a workers party that vowed to resist salary cuts. Public sector unions have called a strike on June 8 to protest an act of “ultimate aggression” against the people.

The conservatives voted against the measures, prompting a fiery rebuke from finance minister Elena Salgado. “Unpatriotic, irresponsible, and hardly very European: one day they will pay for this,” she said.

The measures include cancellation of the €2,500 “baby cheque” and lower pension benefits. Mr Zapatero hopes to cut the deficit by an extra 1.6pc over GDP over two years, though unemployment is already 20 percent. The deficit will fall from 11.2pc in 2009 to 6pc this year.

Raj Badiani from IHS Global Insight said cuts may not be enough. The government is relying on growth projections that are “far too optimistic” to do the heavy lifting of the deficit reduction.

In Italy, the main CGIL trade union is launching two sets of strike in June to protest “unjust and unsustainable” cuts announced on Tuesday night, claiming that axe falls squarely on ordinary workers. “Those who earn over €500,000 won’t have to put up a single cent,” it said.

Premier Silvio Berlusconi said the sovereign bond scare sweeping the euro zone had forced Italy to build up a security buffer. “This crisis has been provoked by speculation and is like no other. These sacrifices are necessary to save the euro,” he said.

The €24bn austerity package (1.6pc of GDP) over two years aims to cut the bloated bureaucracy, chiefly by reducing grants to regional governments.

“Italy’s spending is out of control: this irresponsible system worked as long as we could devalue the currency,” said Mr Berlusconi. “

Link between tanning beds, melanoma grows stronger

USA Today

Strong evidence now links tanning beds to melanoma, a deadly form of skin cancer that afflicts nearly 69,000 Americans a year.

People who have ever used tanning machines were 74% more likely to develop melanoma than others, according to a study of 2,268 patients reported today in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

Those who tanned the most — for 10 years or more — had more than twice the risk of melanoma compared with people who never used tanning beds, says co-author Martin Weinstock of Brown University School of Medicine. Those risks didn’t change when researchers accounted for age, sex, income, family history, education, skin and eye color, freckles, moles, sunscreen use or time in the sun.

About 2.5% of men and 1.7% of women develop melanoma, according to the American Cancer Society.

The study provides some of the strongest evidence yet to link tanning beds to melanoma, which kills nearly 7,000 Americans a year, says Electra Paskett of Ohio State University.

The study includes information on the newest tanning technologies, finding that machines emitting both types of ultraviolet light — UVA and UVB — increased melanoma risk, says Allan Halpern of New York’s Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center.

Halpern and many other doctors say they’re especially concerned about the risks of tanning salons for teenagers, which are popular this time of year as kids prepare for proms, graduations and beach trips. About 35% of 17-year-old girls use tanning machines, according to the Food and Drug Administration.

The new report comes at a time of increased scrutiny of indoor tanning:

•The FDA is considering recommendations from an advisory panel that suggested that teens be barred from tanning salons, or at least get parental consent before tanning.

•Congress included a 10% tax on indoor tanning in the health reform bill to help pay for expanding medical coverage and to make it harder for teens to afford indoor tanning.

•The International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World Health Organization, in July listed ultraviolet radiation-emitting beds as “carcinogenic to humans,” its highest category of cancer risk.

In a statement, the Indoor Tanning Association’s John Overstreet says scientists disagree about the link between melanoma and tanning beds. “When reputable researchers are coming to vastly different conclusions, it’s clear that a lot more research is needed,” he says. “The science on both sides of the question needs to be weighed before consideration is given to any sweeping policy changes.”