The Second Amendmend. We Don't Need it! (Part Two)
By Servando Gonzalez
December 27, 2014
In his famous 1929 painting The Treachery of Images, Belgian Surrealist
painter Rene Magritte depicted a very realistic pipe, but added
the paradoxical caption, “This is not a pipe.” Magritte’s
point was very simple: a picture of a pipe is not a pipe. If you
don’t agree with Magritte, just imagine an army equipped
with pictures of rifles, machine guns, cannons, mortars and tanks.
It seems, however, that most of the people who misunderstood my
article “Abolish the Second Amendment. We Don’t Need
It,” are fully convinced that the Second Amendment is a
gun, because they accused me of being anti-gun, when I am just
anti-Second Amendment. One of them wrote, “How dare you
want to abolish our dearest amendment?”
Nevertheless, I have to emphasize that, as a picture of a pipe
is not a pipe, the Second Amendment is not a gun. So, I advise
my critics to never bring the Second Amendment to a gunfight.
Further proof that the Second Amendment is not a gun is that I
am sure that none of my detractors and critics has tried to get
permits authorizing them to carry concealed copies of the Second
Amendment — which still in some states is perfectly legal.
Nevertheless, there are some things that became evident in the
e-mails I received from some of my angry critics.
First, they are not careful readers, because, in contrast, I have
received many e-mails praising me for my article — and I
guess that none of them were from anti-gun hoplophobes. It
seems that most of my critics never went beyond the title of the
article and, like angry bulls attacking a red cloth, just jumped
to conclusions and assumed that I was an anti-gun lefty. But,
as they say in the military, “assumption is the mother of
Second, most of my critics don’t have a sense of humor.
Just reading the text of the fictitious bumper sticker I quoted
at the beginning of the article, “The right of the people
to keep and arm bears shall not be infringed,” was a strong
indication that the article was in part ironic and satirical.
That’s why they didn’t realize that when I wrote,
“Nevertheless, though this article may be construed as proof
that I am a gun nut, I assure you that I am not. Actually I am
fully for the banning of firearms,” I was being facetious.
And I was being even more facetious when I wrote that, after disarming
first the free-lance criminals on the streets and then the criminals
in the government, most people would not feel the need to carry
guns. Now, as everybody knows, disarming the common criminals
is very difficult and disarming the criminals in the government
is totally impossible. But, if due to a divine miracle this may
happen, I think that then, and only then, most people would not
feel the need to carry guns for their protection — unless
they live in bear country and some of them want to keep and arm
Third, the fact that some of my critics attacked me personally,
not the points on my article, and suggested that I should move
back to Cuba to enjoy Castroism, evidences their lack of solid
arguments against my points of view. Arguments ad hominem are
the last resort of people who lack logical arguments.
Fourth, despite opinions to the contrary, the inclusion of the
initial phrase of the Second Amendment, “A well regulated
militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,”
adds to the confusion. Does it means that only members of a well-regulated
militia have the right to keep and bear arms? What about the members
of a poorly regulated militia? What about the members of a non-regulated
militia? Even more important, who will have the right to tell
when a militia is well regulated or not: the Government?
Finally, and this is something worrying, some of them have shown
a streak of totalitarian mind-set, evidenced in the fact that
they not only criticized me, but also were very angry at the editor
of the site because he published my article. Well, even if my
article was anti-gun — which it was not — I had the
right to express my points of view on the matter. The love for
censorship and lack of diversity of opinion is something currently
associated with the Left and totalitarian regimes. So, it seems
that some of my critics love the Second Amendment, but hate the
The essential point of my article was that the Second Amendment
is unnecessary. Proof of it is that though the natural the right
to Life is more important than the natural right to own guns —
you can live without guns, but you cannot have guns without being
alive — there is no specific Amendment stating that the
right of the people to Life shall not be infringed.
So, can any of my critics explain to me why the natural rights
to Life, Liberty and Property are not included in the Bill of
It is because the Founding Fathers knew that natural rights don’t
need to be put to paper, because once put to paper somebody is
going to try to cancel the paper. The best place for natural rights,
a place where these rights will never be erased, is the people’s
minds. Currently, however, in the U.S. we are experiencing an
interesting phenomenon: while these rights still exist in paper,
most Americans have been brainwashed to a point where these rights
do not exist in their minds anymore.
Moreover, putting the natural right to own guns to paper was a
dangerous mistake, because it gave people a false sense of security.
Proof of it is that some people —my critics among them —
are convinced that the Second Amendment protects their natural
right to keep and bear arms. Big mistake.
I foresee a Confiscation Day when the government thugs are going
to knock at their doors and:
— Knock, knock. Door opens.
Government thug: “We’re from the Government. We’re
here to . . . ”
Second Amendment Lover: “NEVER!” “You can
take my Second Amendment only when you pry it from my cold,
Government thug: “Hi, Buddy, no reason to be upset. You
can keep your Second Amendment, we’re here only to take
Second Amendment Lover: “Oh, well, no problem. Here they
If you think that the above exchange will never
take place, I would remind you that this is exactly what happened
in New Orleans in the Katrina aftermath.
People apparently forget that the Bill of Rights is actually a
list of amendments to the U.S. Constitution and, to all practical
effects, the only use of the Constitution for most government
officials is to violate it. Currently, one of the few government
officials who has never violated his Oath of Office is Barry Soetoro
(a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama), for the simple reason that he is
an impostor who never took it properly.
Most people ignore, because it was suppressed many years ago,
that the Preamble to the Amendments clearly specifies that the
amendments are solely provided for “declaratory and restrictive
clauses,” as a way to “extending the ground of public
confidence in the Government,” to “best insure the
beneficent ends of its institution.” In other words, the
Bill of Rights is only a restriction on government. It guarantees
you no rights whatsoever, except an argument to legally fight
back against government abuses.
Currently, however, there is a big problem with this. The Constitution
is nothing but an agreement, a contract between two parties: the
people and the government. Now, given the fact that the U.S. government
has gone rogue and refuses to play its part in this agreement,
for all practical purposes the contract is void. Not only the
Second, but also the Constitution itself and all its amendments,
have become a dead letter.
The Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights is the equivalent to
paper bills. On the contrary, natural rights are like gold —
real money. If you believe more in paper than in gold, you are
out for a nasty surprise. Just wait and see how the U.S. government,
based on the Bill of Rights, is going to protect your natural
right to own guns, and your natural rights to Life, Liberty and
Property — but don’t hold your breath while you wait.
Some anthropologists have mentioned that natives of certain primitive
cultures fear being photographed because they think the photo
can steal their souls. To these natives, the photo, an iconic
sign, is more important than the thing itself. It seems that most
of the readers who took exception to my article have a similar
primitive way of thinking. They firmly believe that they can use
the Second Amendment, a symbol, to protect their guns, the real
thing, instead of using their guns to protect their natural right
to keep and use them.
They cannot be more wrong.
Fortunately, however, not all American gun owners share that primitive
way of thinking. Just recently, the citizens of Olympia, the capital
of Washington State, did it right: more than a thousand peacefully
went to the streets not carrying copies of the Second Amendment
but their locked and loaded guns to assert their natural right
to carry them as they wish. No wonder the event was mostly ignored
by the mainstream presstitutes. By the way, the government thugs
didn’t even try to stop them.
Just recently, an article in NRA’s America’s First
Freedom magazine mentioned how New Yorkers went to sleep one evening
and woke up to find their Second Amendment rights had been bruised
and battered overnight. However, the author failed to notice that
the only ones affected were the true believers in the Second Amendment.
It seems, however, that I am not the only one
aware of the perils of trusting the Second Amendment. The gun
grabbers have discovered that some gun owners believe that only
the Second Amendment gives then the right to own guns, and are
desperately trying to eliminate it to grab their guns. The
whole point of my previous article was very simple: if there is
no Second Amendment, the gun grabbers cannot cancel it as a pre-requisite
to ban and confiscate all privately-owned guns.
Obviously, we cannot abolish the Second Amendment from the Bill
of Rights, but we can do something much more effective: we can
erase it from our minds.
How? Very simple.
Just stop thinking about the Second Amendment. Don’t mention
it anymore, particularly to an official of a government that has
stopped defending and protecting the Constitution against all
enemies, foreign and domestic. Once you have erased the Second
Amendment from your mind, the gun grabbers would not affect you
if they managed to have it erased from the Bill of Rights —
which, most likely, they eventually will accomplish — or
even erasing the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which is
their ultimate goal.
President Kennedy put it magisterially when he said:
“The rights of man come not from the generosity
of the state, but from the hand of God.” No wonder the CFR
conspirators decided to terminate him with extreme prejudice.
So, if any government thug ever asks you why are you carrying
a gun, the right answer is not because the Second Amendment protects
you. Tell him that you are carrying a gun because you have a natural
right to Life, Liberty and Property as well as the means to defend
The bottom line is that your inalienable right to keep and bear
arms is only protected by the loaded and locked guns you are holding
in your hands and your mental commitment to molon labe.
Anything else is pure, undiluted, unadulterated bovine manure.
I would like to thank some of my readers who sent me important
information, which I have included in this article, backing my
point of view about the Second Amendment.
1. I think I found the main source of passionate
love for the Second Amendment: the NRA. Reading past issues of
its America’s First Freedom magazine, I found out
that most of its articles and editorial pieces are devoted to
begging the government to respect the Second Amendment. In one
article, the author begs the government thugs to respect the Second
Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens who own guns for legitimate
uses such as hunting and self-defense. It seems that the author
thinks that owning a gun for the sole purpose of defending himself
from a tyrannical government is not a legitimate use.
2. Hoplophobia, a term coined by the great Jeff Cooper to designate
people who have an irrational fear of firearms.
3. On the other hand, quoting Jeff Cooper again, “Men fight
with their minds; the tools they use are irrelevant,” I
don’t need to carry a gun because my lethal weapon is my
4. I don’t agree with some of the articles published in
NewsWithViews. Actually, there is a particular author
with whom I strongly disagree, and I have the feeling that the
editor of NWV shares this disagreement. But I respect and admire
the editor for his commitment to freedom of expression by continuing
publishing that author’s articles.
5. See, Servando Gonzalez, “Why The House Can’t Impeach
Obama,” NewsWithViews, December 10, 2013, http://www.newswithviews.com/Gonzalez/servando103.htm
6. David Whitney, “The Christmas Murders,” NewsWithViews,
December 28, 2014, http://www.newswithviews.com/Whitney/david123.htm
7. Frank Miniter, “In The Blink Of An Eye,” America’s
First Freedom, February 2014, p. 32.
8.[See, i.e., Kit Daniels, “ College Professor: Repeal the
“Stupid Second Amendment,” Infowars.com,
December 30, 2014, http://www.infowars.com/college-professor-repeal-the-stupid-second-amendment8.
I foresee that the final push for the total disarming of the American
people will be launched by a Republican puppet president after
a devastating “terrorist” attack on American soil
which immediately will be blamed on “right wing militias,”
“white supremacists,” and Tea Partiers. Then, the
President will sign an executive order making the U.S. part of
the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty, which quietly entered into force on
November 24, 2014. After that, forced confiscation of guns in
the hands of Americans will follow (being a “persecuted”
minority, gays will be exempted), and most “conservative”
Republicans will be very happy surrendering their guns to a Republican
president. Some weeks later somebody will discover that the law
banning guns had been copied in toto from a document produced
many months before by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
9. Molon Labe, Greek for “Come and take them!”
-- Go to
Part One --
Servando Gonzalez, is a Cuban-born American writer,
historian, semiologist and intelligence analyst. He has written
books, essays and articles on Latin American history, intelligence,
espionage, and semiotics. Servando is the author of Historia
herética de la revolución fidelista, Observando,
Secret Fidel Castro: Deconstructing the Symbol, The
Nuclear Deception: Nikita Khrushchev and the Cuban Missile Crisis
madre de todas las conspiraciones: Una novela de ideas subversivas,
all available at Amazon.com.
He also hosted the documentaries Treason in America: The Council
on Foreign Relations and Partners in Treason: The CFR-CIA-Castro
Connection, produced by Xzault Media Group of San Leandro,
California, both available at the author's site at http://www.servandogonzalez.org.
His book, Psychological Warfare and the New
World Order: The Secret War Against the American People is
available at Amazon.com.
Or download a
.pdf copy of the book you can read on your computer, iPad,
Nook, Kindle or any other tablet. His book, OBAMANIA:
The New Puppet and His Masters, is available at Amazon.com.
Servando's book (in Spanish) La CIA, Fidel Castro, el Bogotazo
y el Nuevo Orden Mundial, appeared last year, and is available
and other bookstores online.
His most recent book, I
Dare Call It treason: The Council on Foreign Relations and the
Betrayal of the America, just appeared and is available
at Amazon.com and other bookstores online, or download
a .pdf copy.