There’s a very, very good reason why the Second Amendment immediately follows the First. And that’s because without the Second, the First is meaningless.
Look at the various countries where the bearing of arms has been curtailed. Take Australia, or New Zealand, as but two examples. Freedom of Speech exists only because the government allows it. And the government is free to ban any speech it doesn’t like (for example, Andrew Bolt being convicted under “racial vilification” laws for pointing out that plenty of piggies at the Aboriginal Funding Trough look a hell of a lot like whitefellas). In New Zealand, freedom of speech (or, more accurately, “expression”) exists because the government granted it in the Bill of Rights Act 1990. In granting this (and other) freedoms, the government can also remove them.
Let me ask you this: has there ever been a more clear and present threat to either the First or the Second than the Manchurian President currently illegally occupying the White House? He condemns patriots as clinging to guns and religion in the hope the zOmbies will re-elect him. He is on record as having a deep desire to remove as many guns as he possibly can from the hands of the American citizenry, and if anyone believes for a second he won’t use a second term to do just that, they’ve been supping at the Kool Aide for far too long. Hildebeast Clinton has said she will sign the UN Small Arms Treaty (and act of treason) and Obama has said he will also sign it (another act of treason).
Obama, like his heroes and ideological bedfellows, wants to disarm the citizenry because he knows how they will react when they wake up and realise what he’s really planning.
Those who look at gun-related violence in America, tut-tut and squawk about there being too many guns are cattle merely awaiting the slaughterman.
(Apologies to KG for the use of the Elmer Fudd Wabbit-Hunter imagery)