DEFENDING THE SECOND AMENDMENT

THE TRUE CONTEXT OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT SHOWN IN QUOTES BY EARLY AMERICAN LEADERS:

Chris Pinto is continuing the subject of gun control in today's (July 27) broadcast The Second Amendment Some topics covered: UN aim to disarm the world, means the average citizen. + Pinto believes it's basically Rome's attempt to reinstate a worldwide Inqusition. + He gives quotes from American leaders that make clear what the Second Amendment was really all about, which contradicts today's attempt to disarm the people.

Quotes Blackstone on the law. + quotes Jefferson on necessity of armed citizens for protection against criminal acts. + Mentions a video at You Tube How to stop a massacre which shows a recent real-life incident in which an armed citizen routs a couple of robbers who were threatening people in an internet cafe. +

Quotes Patrick Henry on need for force to protect liberty, advocating that every citizen have a gun. + Quotes Noah Webster on how the tyranny of state armies is thwarted by the arming of the citizens. + Quotes a journal in Boston in 1769 calling for citizens to be armed against British military abuses of power. English Bill of Rights invoked as authority. Mentions Blackstone's commentary on the law. Natural right of self defense. + Bible references +

Quotes George Mason 1775 militia plan, pledge to keep arms in readiness + Patrick Henry on protection of liberty by all citizens being armed + Sam Adams natural rights to life liberty and property and right to defend them. + John Adams arms for defense of country, ovethrow of tyranny or private self defense. +

As Pinto says "It's so clear what the second amendment was intended to mean" if you read the writings of these early Americans, "its purpose clearly extended to private citizens", and yet the second amendment has been "twisted and manipulated and lied about" by people trying to find a way to destroy it. + He ends with a quote from Richard Henry Lee in 1788 which ought to put to rest all the anti-second-amendment stuff about what a militia was supposed to be:

"Militias, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms. To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

The importance of knowing history is demonstrated in this quote. I've been in all kinds of discussions about what the second amendment means and nothing like this came up, which should have silenced all that nonsense about a militia being an organization or an army. The idea always seemed to contradict the very soul of the second amendment which is the right of the PEOPLE to defend themselves, but without proof of the original intent of the founding generation the gun control people were always winning the debates. We need more Chris Pintos.
============================
Later edit:
Typical "liberal" view of the second amendment:

... what you CAN construe is that the National Guards of the various states are the modern militias in question, organized and trained by state, armed, organized and disciplined by congress ... and the place where civilians can enroll to get proper training and then keep and bear arms. The second amendment is curiously silent on whether or not these arms can be taken home, presumably leaving that up to the states that are running the National Guards ( militias), and it is also silent on regulation of general gun ownership, again, presumably leaving that up to the states, a position that is upheld in the supreme court.

In light of the quote of Richard Henry Lee given above, such an opinion is completely out of tune with the original intent of the founding generation. Any official army, even the National Guard, is an entity that can become a force of tyranny on behalf of the state against the people, the very people the second amendment was intended to protect against that very kind of tyranny.

The second amendment is not "curiously silent on whether these arms can be taken home" since it accords to "the People" the right to keep and bear arms.

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution was what inspired the interpretation quoted above:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

If this section is intended to define or qualify the "militia" as set forth in the second amendment, then it must refer to the totality of the People that Congress is called to organize, arm and discipline, as opposed to "such Part of them" as a separate unit to be employed in the service of the United States... The singling out of such a Part implies a much greater totality which is not so employed -- that is, of course, ALL THE PEOPLE.

Threats to America: Gun Control, Mormonism (Ecumenism)

Two separate issues that were recently talked about on internet radio programs I listen to frequently, both current, both real threats to the foundations of America.

1. THE GLOBALIST THREAT TO AMERICAN SOVEREIGNTY THROUGH GUN CONTROL:

Chris Pinto is talking about the shooting in Aurora Colorado at the opening of the film The Dark Knight, and how this could play into the globalist agenda to restrict gun ownership in America. He gives historical background and statistics.

Scott Johnson, talking about the same event in Colorado, brings in the possibility that it was staged. He gives evidence of the participation of a second party that the mainstream media aren't talking about.

2. THE TROJAN HORSE OF CONSERVATISM IN TODAY'S CHURCHES:

Brannon Howse's program on Worldview Weekend for July 25th is covering Glenn Beck's Restoring Love Rally coming up on the 28th, as well as a separate event that features some well-known evangelical leaders along with various wolves in sheep's clothing that is billed as somehow connected with though not part of Glenn Beck's rally.

Of particular interest to me in this discussion is the clip of former Mormon leader and US political leader Ezra Taft Benson speaking to a Mormon gathering back in 1965 (Howse keeps putting it up in the 70s), an impassioned patriotic talk that denounces "godless communism" and quotes Mormon documents as equal to scripture. He calls the American Constitution divinely inspired and invokes the prophecy of Joseph Smith that says the Mormon Church is going to save the endangered Constition. Well, there's no doubt it's endangered now and has been for a long time, but do we want it saved by Mormonism? Are evangelicals today that corrupted and misled?

The Worldview Weekend talk will be available without charge for only two weeks as usual, but parts of the talk by Benson can be found at You Tube and a fuller version here.

As I listened to this I just kept thinking Why did I have to wait until 2012 when we have a Mormon running for President and a very popular Mormon talk show host speaking for conservatism, to begin to grasp the connection between conservatism and Mormonism and what a threat it is to America? Every day it seems I learn something new that I should have heard of years ago if the Church had been doing its work of warning us. I did learn about the false teaching of Mormonism in general, but not its political agenda.

I had an email relationship for years with a Mormon with whom I could agree on political issues just about totally, but we battled to the death (of our friendship) about the nature of the gospel. Same with an orthodox Jew I'd also met online. I liked both of these men a great deal and agreed with both of them politically, but my determined defense of the gospel finally brought our friendship to an end in both cases. It was a great opportunity to hone my biblical skills and I only wish the Lord had seen fit to use my efforts to save these men but it wasn't to be -- at that time anyway.

There is a huge Catholic presence in conservatism these days as well, and the same situation applies. We can join on political issues but we must part company when it comes to the gospel.

MUST. And what Glenn Beck has been doing is promoting not just a political coalition of conservatives but a religious and spiritual coalition in which he aggressively asserts unity between Mormons and Catholics and true Christians, and Christians are falling for it, some of them joining with him in his aggressive ecumenicism.

Brannon Howse's discussion focuses on the compromises within the evangelical church in the service of patriotism and conservatism.

There is no hope for America unless the Church is strong and true to the gospel, politics is useless without this. A compromised ecumenical Church is useless, even just another cause for God to bring punishment against the nation.