"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."

It should be pretty self explanatory. Even a former immigrant like me, without any law degree, and without any formal education, can understand the true meaning of this amendment.

First of all, the second amendment is an individual right, not a privilege.

If truly I have a right, I don't need to ask anybody for any permission, otherwise it would be a privilege, that someone has to grant me.

That's why I live in Arizona, one of the few places in the world where law abiding Citizens can exercise the right to keep and bear arms without any governmental rubber stamp approval.
Open carry or conceal. It does not matter. All it matters is that with freedom comes responsibility that means that we are accountable for every round we shoot.

As I have already stated, the second amendment is an individual right, like the first amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights; so, if you believe in the Bill of Rights, you cannot pick and choose which ones you prefer. They are all equally important, at least for me.

Rights are never granted, but are intrinsic into every human being, regardless gender, religion, age, social status, skin color or political views.

So, just to be clear, the second amendment it is not granted by the Constitution or the Bill of Rights... but it is an unalienable God given (if you believe in God) right. Period.

To all the collectivists/socialists/fascists/control freaks out there...

Read this line “The Right of the People... SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!”

What does it say? “the Right of the People”! Not the right of the collective, of the army, militia, navy, government, police, homeland security, TSA, booted thugs or others... let me repeat it again... the right of the People.

And when you read “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”... do I need to add anything?

To complete my analysis, when the word “arms” was used, it does not dictate you how many rounds capacity or what type of personal weapon you can have. Please now do not bring the idiotic example of the black powder muskets of our founding fathers, the Nuclear bomb or other weapons of mass destruction.

The musket of our founding fathers was the equivalent to our best modern rifle we have today.

The nukes are weapons of mass destruction in the hands of governments that in my opinions should all be banned anyway, in a ideal world. But that's another story.

The purpose behind the second amendment, was never about hunting, target shooting or even defending your person from regular crime. The true intent of our Founding Fathers was to have an armed Citizenry as the last line of defense against a tyrannical government, and ready also to repel any foreign invasion.

The Revolution was fought at the beginning by local citizens Militias, and the Founders were very leery of standing armies. So I don't want to hear the retarded argument about that the second amendment was intended for the organized Militia, aka the National Guard. Just for the record the national guard was created in 1903, with passage of the Dick Act. Got it ?

Here I would end my debate about the Second Amendment, that really it is not a debate, since there is nothing to debate, because my rights, are not for debate, or compromise.

I don't really care if 99.99% of the brainwashed sheeples out there decide that they want to take my guns... As I have said, Rights are not subject to a popularity contest.

If you want my guns, all you have to do, is come and take them. Simple as that.

But let me be clear: I will not comply. Period.

And like me, many other millions of Americans.

Good luck


Luca Zanna

Italian by birth, American by choice, Arizonan by gift of God

Join my Free Newsletter

Get Free new downloadable tracks