Journalist Ben Swann rips apart gun control idiocy in stunning new video
by J. D. Heyes
(NaturalNews) Many experts, pundits and constitutionalists in the past have made impassioned and historically accurate defenses of the Second Amendment, but a recent one by independent investigative journalist Ben Swann was particularly poignant.
In this recent episode of Reality Check, Swann correctly notes that the Second Amendment in these modern times has proven to be one of the most controversial, and there's little question he's right about that: Left-wing presidents and lawmakers for decades have attempted to control or limit individuals' rights to access firearms, including the implementation of a Clinton-era 10-year ban on so-called "assault weapons" (which are really nothing more than semi-automatic rifles that resemble "scary" military models) that Congress and the Bush Administration allowed to sunset in 2004.
"Much of the root of [the] contention [over the Second Amendment] is an understanding of what the founders and the framers actually meant," he begins. "What is the Second Amendment really about? You may not like it, but this is a reality check you won't see anywhere else."
He goes on to say that there are so many questions nowadays surrounding the Second Amendment, though most often the controversies surrounding the constitutionally recognized right to keep and bear arms is artificial – ginned up by tyrant wannabes who seek to control the American people with an iron fist.
Which, as Swann notes, gets to the crux of the issue.
Today's 'modern' assumption about the Second Amendment is not historically accurate
"If the founders had really been aware of the kind of weaponry we have today, would they have included that right – to 'keep and bear arms' – in the Bill of Rights?" he asked. "Is the Second Amendment about hunting and sportsmanship?"
Citing the actual language of 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" – Swann notes:
Now, some legal analysts say it was not until the 1980s that the "militia" part of the Second Amendment became ignored, and thanks to an all-out push by the NRA, the meaning of the Second Amendment was expanded, from militia to the individual. CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin writes, "The re-interpretation of the Second Amendment was an elaborate and brilliantly executed political operation, inside and outside of government. Ronald Reagan's election in 1980 brought a gun-rights enthusiast into the White House. At the same time Orrin Hatch, the Utah Republican, became chairman of an important subcommittee on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and he commissioned a report that claimed to find '...clear and long lost proof that the Second Amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen, to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, to protect himself, his family and his freedoms.'"
Swann notes that while Toobin may be correct in observing that many in today's American public may view the Second Amendment as he sees it – a right held by the state instead of the individual citizen – "he's absolutely wrong when he indicates the Second Amendment did not originally mean private ownership of a gun by individuals."
The Reality Check host then discusses the framers' view of what constituted a "well-regulated militia" and why they felt one was necessary – they had a fear of large standing armies like that of the British empire they had just defeated.
Federalists vs. anti-Federalists
Swann also cited constitutional scholar David Young, who observed, "The necessity of an armed populace, protection against disarming of the citizenry, and the need to guard against a select militia and assure a real militia which could defend liberty against any standing forces the government might raise were topics interspersed throughout the ratification process."
The first real fight over the Second Amendment, Swann reported, was not over whether the citizenry should be armed; all of the founders agreed that they should be (and indeed, most were at the time). Rather, it was a battle between the Federalists and anti-Federalists over whether the new America should have a standing army.
Swann really nails it, historically and accurately. See the entire segment four-minute segment below:
Oh, and which leading presidential contender believes that the Second Amendment should be repealed and that nationwide gun bans are "worth considering"? Check out the story at Guns.news.
All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. NaturalNews.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml