KingWolf
- Apr 24, 2023
- 19 min read

The Unwavering Strength of the Second Amendment

The Second Amendment: A steadfast pillar of the U.S. Constitution, upholding the right to bear arms.

The U.S. Constitution serves as the foundation of our country's legal system, granting rights and protections to all citizens, including elected officials. Among its tenets, the Second Amendment's "shall not be infringed" clause has generated significant debate, with some arguing that this phrase means the Second Amendment cannot be legally altered or hindered in any way. In this article, we'll explore the implications of this phrase and examine the ongoing discourse surrounding the Second Amendment.

The Authority of the U.S. Constitution The Supremacy of the Constitution in Governing the United States

The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land and serves as the foundation of the United States' legal and political systems. Established in 1787 and ratified in 1788, the Constitution outlines the structure and powers of the federal government, as well as the rights and liberties of its citizens. Its supremacy is derived from the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2), which establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made in accordance with it, and treaties made under its authority are the ultimate authority in the United States.

This supremacy means that any state or federal law that conflicts with the Constitution is considered invalid. The courts, particularly the Supreme Court, have the power of judicial review, which enables them to examine the constitutionality of laws and government actions. This system of checks and balances ensures that the Constitution remains the highest authority in the nation, guiding and limiting the powers of the government and safeguarding citizens' rights.

The Application of the Constitution to All Citizens, Regardless of Status

The U.S. Constitution applies to all citizens, regardless of their status, position, or political affiliation. This principle ensures that everyone, from ordinary citizens to elected officials, is subject to the same rules and regulations. It reinforces the idea that no one is above the law and that everyone has equal rights and protections under the Constitution.

This principle is especially important when it comes to elected officials, as it prevents them from abusing their power or acting in ways that undermine the Constitution and the rights it guarantees. It also serves as a reminder that public officials are accountable to the people they serve and must uphold the principles and values enshrined in the Constitution.

The Second Amendment and "Shall Not Be Infringed" A Closer Look at the Wording of the Second Amendment

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is a critical part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment reads: "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."

The Significance and Legal Implications of the Phrase "Shall Not Be Infringed"

The phrase "shall not be infringed" has significant implications when it comes to understanding the intentions of the framers of the Constitution and the scope of the Second Amendment. On its face, the phrase appears to convey an absolute protection of the right to bear arms, suggesting that any attempt to limit or restrict this right would be unconstitutional.

While there have been debates and legal battles over the interpretation of the Second Amendment, it is important to note that the language of the Constitution is clear: the right to bear arms "shall not be infringed." This phrase implies an unwavering protection of the right to own and use arms.

As a result, any attempt to change or hinder the Second Amendment can be seen as an affront to the Constitution and a violation of the rights it guarantees. The phrase "shall not be infringed" serves as a reminder that the rights enshrined in the Constitution are not to be tampered with or diminished, regardless of contemporary concerns or legal arguments.

The Second Amendment and "Shall Not Be Infringed" A Closer Look at the Wording of the Second Amendment

The Significance and Legal Implications of the Phrase "Shall Not Be Infringed"

Interpretations and Debates Surrounding the Second Amendment

Differing Perspectives on the Second Amendment and the Meaning of "Shall Not Be Infringed"

The Second Amendment has been a subject of intense debate and various interpretations since its inception. The phrase "shall not be infringed" has contributed significantly to these discussions. While some argue that this phrase implies an absolute and unyielding protection of the right to bear arms, others contend that it allows for reasonable restrictions and regulations to ensure public safety.

One perspective on the Second Amendment argues that "shall not be infringed" guarantees an individual's right to possess and carry arms for self-defense and other lawful purposes. This viewpoint emphasizes that the framers of the Constitution intended to provide a robust protection of this right to ensure the security and freedom of American citizens, particularly in the face of potential tyranny. This interpretation asserts that the Second Amendment was written to protect the right of the people to bear arms, rather than being limited to the context of a well-regulated militia.

On the other hand, those advocating for a more limited interpretation of the Second Amendment argue that the phrase "shall not be infringed" should be considered within the context of public safety and reasonable restrictions. They maintain that while the Second Amendment grants an individual the right to bear arms, it does not preclude the government from implementing certain regulations to address concerns related to gun violence and public safety.

The Evolving Nature of Discussions on Gun Rights and Restrictions

The debate surrounding the Second Amendment has evolved over time, particularly as issues related to gun violence, mass shootings, and public safety have increasingly become pressing concerns. As a result, discussions on gun rights and restrictions have shifted to focus on finding a balance between preserving the constitutional rights of citizens and addressing the challenges posed by the widespread availability of firearms.

In recent years, there have been numerous legislative efforts and court cases aimed at clarifying the scope and limits of the Second Amendment. These attempts have often been met with opposition from both sides of the debate, as each seeks to assert their interpretation of "shall not be infringed."

Upholding the Second Amendment Rights: The Imperative of Ensuring Public Safety Without Compromise

The Challenge of Addressing Modern Concerns While Maintaining Second Amendment Rights

One of the primary challenges in discussions surrounding the Second Amendment and gun rights is how to address the pressing public safety concerns of the modern era without infringing upon the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment. The rise of gun violence, mass shootings, and the proliferation of advanced firearms have intensified the debate. However, the Second Amendment's clear language, "shall not be infringed," emphasizes the importance of preserving the individual right to bear arms for the purpose of self-defense and protection against potential tyranny.

Acknowledging the Non-Negotiable Nature of Second Amendment Rights

The Second Amendment is a critical part of the U.S. Constitution, and its language serves to emphasize the non-negotiable nature of the right to bear arms. While public safety concerns are valid, any attempt to restrict or modify the Second Amendment would go against the Constitution's intention to preserve this fundamental right. The focus should be on addressing the root causes of gun violence and promoting responsible gun ownership without compromising the constitutional rights of American citizens.

The Role of Public Discourse in Promoting Responsible Gun Ownership

Public discourse plays a crucial role in fostering a constructive dialogue on gun ownership and the Second Amendment. Engaging in open, respectful, and well-informed conversations can help bridge the gap between opposing viewpoints and facilitate a better understanding of the complexities involved in balancing constitutional rights and public safety concerns.

Promoting responsible gun ownership, education, and training can be a more effective approach to addressing public safety concerns than attempting to restrict Second Amendment rights. By encouraging responsible behavior among gun owners and focusing on the root causes of gun violence, society can work together to develop effective solutions that respect constitutional rights while addressing the critical public safety challenges of our time.

The Unambiguous Meaning of "Shall Not Be Infringed" in the Second Amendment

The Significance of "Shall Not Be Infringed" in Legal Context

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states, "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." The phrase "shall not be infringed" is particularly significant in the legal context, as it conveys a clear and unambiguous meaning regarding the intentions of the amendment's drafters.

Understanding the Definition of "Shall Not Be Infringed"

To appreciate the significance of the phrase "shall not be infringed," it is essential to understand the definitions of the words used. The term "shall" is a strong directive, indicating that an action is mandatory or obligatory. In legal language, it is often used to convey a command or requirement. The word "not" negates the following verb, thus creating a negative command or prohibition. Lastly, "infringed" means to act in a way that violates or breaches a law, rule, or agreement.

When these words are combined into the phrase "shall not be infringed," the meaning becomes clear: the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not to be violated or breached in any way. By using this specific phrasing, the drafters of the Second Amendment intended to create an unalterable and non-negotiable right for American citizens to possess and carry arms.

Implications of "Shall Not Be Infringed" for the Second Amendment

The phrase "shall not be infringed" conveys the strong message that the Second Amendment is not open to alteration or reinterpretation. This stance is rooted in the belief that the right to bear arms is a fundamental safeguard against tyranny and a cornerstone of individual liberty. The clear language of the Second Amendment, as well as the historical context in which it was drafted, supports the idea that this right should remain inviolable.

Given the unambiguous meaning of the phrase "shall not be infringed," any attempts to change or restrict the Second Amendment would be contrary to the original intentions of the Constitution's framers. This understanding highlights the importance of adhering to the plain language of the Constitution and respecting the fundamental rights it guarantees to American citizens.

The Paradox of Gun Violence in Gun-Restricted Areas

The Concentration of Shootings in Gun-Restricted Zones

It is a striking phenomenon that a significant number of shootings in the United States have occurred in areas with gun restrictions or where civilian firearm ownership is limited. This pattern has raised concerns and questions about the effectiveness of gun control measures in preventing gun violence. By examining the prevalence of shootings in these areas, we can explore the factors that may contribute to this paradox and contrast it with areas where gun restrictions are less stringent.

Factors Contributing to Shootings in Gun-Restricted Areas

Criminals Exploiting Vulnerable Targets: One explanation for the concentration of shootings in gun-restricted zones is that criminals may perceive these areas as vulnerable targets. Knowing that law-abiding citizens are less likely to be armed, assailants may feel emboldened to carry out their attacks, expecting less resistance.

Illegal Firearms Circulation: Strict gun control laws can inadvertently create a thriving black market for firearms, making it easier for criminals to acquire weapons illegally. As a result, law-abiding citizens who follow the restrictions may find themselves at a disadvantage compared to criminals who disregard the law.

The Illusion of Safety: Gun-restricted areas can create a false sense of security among residents, leading to complacency and a lack of preparedness for potential threats. This mindset can make these areas more susceptible to gun violence, as individuals may be less vigilant and less equipped to respond to an attack.

Socioeconomic Factors: The prevalence of gun violence in gun-restricted areas may also be influenced by socioeconomic factors, such as poverty, unemployment, and lack of access to education and mental health resources. These factors can contribute to higher crime rates and a greater likelihood of gun violence in certain areas, regardless of gun control measures.

The Deterrent Effect of Less Restricted Areas

In contrast, areas with less restrictive gun control measures often experience lower rates of gun violence. The main reason for this is the deterrent effect of widespread firearm ownership. Criminals in these areas may be more hesitant to brandish a weapon or commit a crime when they know that their potential victims may be armed and capable of defending themselves. This fear of retaliation can help maintain a safer environment and discourage would-be criminals from carrying out violent acts.

Throughout History: The Dangers of Disarming Populations and the Potential for Genocide

A Sobering Look at Historical Examples

Throughout history, there have been several instances where populations have been disarmed, either voluntarily or by force, leading to devastating consequences. In some cases, these events have culminated in genocide, where the disarmed populations were left defenseless against oppressive regimes or other violent groups. By examining these historical examples, we can better understand the importance of maintaining the right to bear arms as a safeguard against tyranny and violence.
Armenian Genocide: One of the most infamous examples of disarmament leading to genocide occurred during the Armenian Genocide in the early 20th century. The Ottoman Empire systematically disarmed the Armenian population, confiscating their weapons and leaving them vulnerable to mass killings and deportations. The result was the death of an estimated 1.5 million Armenians.
Nazi Germany: In the years leading up to World War II, the Nazi regime in Germany implemented a series of gun control measures that targeted Jews and other "undesirable" groups. These measures effectively disarmed the targeted populations, leaving them defenseless against the subsequent persecution, mass deportations, and extermination that took place during the Holocaust.
Rwandan Genocide: The Rwandan Genocide in 1994 saw the Hutu-led government disarm the Tutsi population, leaving them helpless in the face of a brutal campaign of ethnic cleansing. In just 100 days, an estimated 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus were systematically slaughtered.
Native American Genocides: The history of Native American populations in the United States is marked by a series of forced disarmaments and subsequent genocides. One example is the Wounded Knee Massacre in 1890, where the U.S. Army forcibly disarmed the Lakota Sioux, leading to the deaths of approximately 300 Native American men, women, and children. This event serves as a reminder of the tragic consequences of disarmament for indigenous populations.

The Importance of the Right to Bear Arms as a Safeguard

These historical examples serve as a stark reminder of the potential dangers of disarmament and the loss of the ability to defend oneself. In each case, the removal of the population's ability to resist led to their vulnerability and, ultimately, to their persecution or extermination.

The right to bear arms, as enshrined in the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, serves as a safeguard against such atrocities. By preserving the ability of citizens to defend themselves and their communities, the right to bear arms acts as a deterrent against would-be oppressors and helps to maintain a balance of power between the government and the governed.

Every Recorded and Documented Attempt to Change or Dismantle the Second Amendment by the Democratic Party

Over the years, the Democratic Party has proposed various measures aimed at regulating firearms and addressing gun violence in the United States. While not every proposal has sought to directly change or dismantle the Second Amendment, many of these efforts have sparked debate over the extent to which they may infringe upon the right to bear arms. Here are some of the notable attempts:

The Gun Control Act of 1968

After the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy, President Lyndon B. Johnson, a Democrat, signed the Gun Control Act of 1968 into law. This legislation regulated the firearms industry by prohibiting interstate firearms transfers except among licensed manufacturers, dealers, and importers. It also established the federal licensing system for firearms dealers and set minimum age requirements for purchasing firearms.

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993

Named after James Brady, who was severely injured in an assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan, the Brady Act was signed into law by Democratic President Bill Clinton. The legislation mandated federal background checks for firearm purchasers and imposed a five-day waiting period for handgun purchases, which was later replaced by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994

As part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban was enacted under President Clinton's administration. The ban prohibited the manufacture, sale, and possession of certain semi-automatic firearms classified as "assault weapons" and large-capacity magazines. The ban expired in 2004 and has not been renewed.

Proposed Renewal of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban

Since the expiration of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, multiple Democratic lawmakers have introduced legislation to renew the ban or impose similar restrictions on certain firearms. Notably, in 2013, Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013, which ultimately did not pass.

The Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019

Passed by the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives in 2019, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act sought to require background checks for all firearm sales, including private transactions. The bill has not been taken up by the Senate.

The Assault Weapons Ban of 2022 (H.R. 1808)

In 2022, the Democratic Party pushed forward another significant piece of legislation related to gun control: the Assault Weapons Ban of 2022 (H.R. 1808). This act aimed to regulate assault weapons and reaffirm that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited. The bill was received in the Senate on August 1, 2022, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

The Assault Weapons Ban of 2022 proposed the following key provisions:

It defined "semiautomatic assault weapon" and established criteria for identifying such weapons, including specific features and characteristics of semiautomatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns.
The bill sought to regulate the manufacture, sale, and possession of certain semiautomatic firearms and ammunition feeding devices based on their capacity and design.
It targeted accessories and components designed to accelerate the rate of fire of semiautomatic firearms without converting them into machine guns.

Upholding the Integrity of the Second Amendment

Given the clear and unambiguous language of the Second Amendment, with its emphasis on "shall not be infringed," it is essential to recognize that no individual, political party, or government entity has the legal authority to alter or hinder the fundamental right to bear arms enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. This principle applies to everyone, regardless of their political affiliation or position within the government.

Attempts to regulate or restrict the Second Amendment can be seen as a direct challenge to the constitutional rights of American citizens. The phrase "shall not be infringed" carries a powerful message, stressing the importance of preserving the right to bear arms and ensuring that the government does not overstep its bounds in this regard.

As we continue to engage in discussions surrounding gun control, public safety, and constitutional rights, it is crucial to remember the foundational principles that underpin the Second Amendment. By maintaining a steadfast commitment to the Constitution and the rights it guarantees, we can foster a society that respects individual liberties while striving to address the complex challenges of our modern world.

Responsible Arms Ownership: Preventing and Stopping Criminal Activity

Throughout the United States, numerous cases illustrate the positive impact of responsible arms ownership in preventing and stopping criminal activity. These incidents showcase how law-abiding citizens exercising their Second Amendment rights have played a crucial role in protecting themselves, their families, and their communities. Here are a few notable examples:

Sutherland Springs Church Shooting (2017): In Sutherland Springs, Texas, a local resident named Stephen Willeford used his legally owned AR-15 to confront a mass shooter who had opened fire at the First Baptist Church, ultimately killing 26 people. Willeford's courageous actions helped stop the shooter and likely saved countless lives, as the shooter was reportedly still firing at the church when Willeford intervened.
Oklahoma City Restaurant Shooting (2018): When a gunman opened fire at Louie's Grill & Bar in Oklahoma City, injuring four people, two armed citizens stepped in to confront the shooter. The individuals, who were legally carrying arms, shot and killed the attacker, preventing further casualties and potentially saving many lives.
Rockledge Auto Shop Shooting (2017): In Rockledge, Florida, an armed employee at Schlenker Automotive used his legally-owned arm to stop a gunman who had entered the business and started shooting. The employee's actions halted the attack, saving the lives of his coworkers and customers.
Atlanta Home Invasion (2015): A pregnant woman in Atlanta, Georgia, used her legally-owned handgun to fend off three armed intruders who broke into her home. The woman fired multiple shots, hitting one of the assailants and forcing the others to flee. Her actions protected not only herself but also her husband and young child.
Chicago Uber Driver (2015): An Uber driver in Chicago, who held a concealed carry permit, used his arm to stop a gunman who had opened fire on a crowd of people. The driver fired multiple shots at the attacker, wounding him and stopping the attack. Authorities later credited the driver's quick actions for preventing what could have been a mass shooting.

These examples demonstrate the potential benefits of responsible arms ownership in preventing and stopping criminal activity. While these cases should not be used to generalize the experiences of all arms owners or to downplay the importance of addressing gun violence, they do highlight the potential for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and their communities with arms when used responsibly and in accordance with the law.

Media and Popular Culture: Shaping Public Perception of Gun Rights and the Second Amendment

The role of media and popular culture in shaping public perception of gun rights and the Second Amendment is significant and multifaceted. From news coverage to television shows and movies, the portrayal of arms and the Second Amendment can greatly influence public opinion on these topics, often in ways that may not align with the original intent and wording of the Constitution.

News Media: News coverage of gun-related incidents, such as mass shootings and other violent crimes, can heavily influence public opinion on gun rights and the Second Amendment. While it is essential to report on these tragic events, the emphasis on negative stories can contribute to a skewed perception of the prevalence of gun violence and the effectiveness of gun control measures. Additionally, news coverage often focuses on proposed changes to gun laws, which, according to the Second Amendment's original wording, can be seen as violations of the constitutional right to bear arms.
Television and Film: The portrayal of arms in television and film can also shape public perception of gun rights and the Second Amendment. Action movies, crime dramas, and other genres often feature characters using arms in unrealistic and highly sensationalized ways, which can contribute to misconceptions about the role of arms in society. These portrayals can lead to a distorted view of the importance of the Second Amendment and the potential benefits of responsible arms ownership.
Political Rhetoric: Political discourse surrounding gun rights and the Second Amendment can also influence public perception. Politicians and activists on both sides of the debate often use emotionally charged rhetoric and selective statistics to promote their viewpoints, which can contribute to a polarized and misinformed public discourse. It is important to recognize that any attempts to change or dismantle the Second Amendment, regardless of the party or individual, are violations of the constitutional right to bear arms as originally written.
Social Media and Online Content: Social media platforms and online content creators can also play a role in shaping public perception of gun rights and the Second Amendment. The widespread sharing of memes, videos, and articles can contribute to the spread of misinformation and reinforce existing biases on this divisive issue. Engaging in respectful, fact-based discussions on these platforms can help counteract these influences and promote a more informed public discourse.

By examining the role of media and popular culture in shaping public perception of gun rights and the Second Amendment, it becomes clear that there are many factors contributing to the current state of the debate. It is crucial to remain vigilant in seeking accurate information and critically evaluating the messages conveyed by various media sources. By doing so, we can work towards a more informed and balanced understanding of the Second Amendment and the role of arms in our society while remembering that any attempts to change or dismantle the Second Amendment are violations of the constitutional right to bear arms as originally written.

A Global Perspective on Gun Rights and Gun Control: Comparing the United States to Other Countries with Different Approaches to Arms Regulation

Taking a global perspective on gun rights and gun control can offer valuable insights into the benefits and challenges associated with various arms regulation approaches. By comparing the United States to other countries with different degrees of gun control, we can better understand the unique aspects of the American experience with the right to bear arms.

United States: As a country with a strong tradition of individual gun ownership enshrined in the Second Amendment, the United States has a unique relationship with arms. The right to bear arms is seen as a fundamental freedom by many Americans, providing not only personal protection but also serving as a deterrent against potential tyranny. This approach has led to a high rate of civilian gun ownership and a deeply ingrained gun culture.
Switzerland: Often cited as a country with a similar emphasis on gun ownership, Switzerland has a well-regulated militia system that promotes responsible gun ownership and training. Despite having a high rate of gun ownership, Switzerland has relatively low levels of gun violence. This can be attributed to the country's comprehensive gun regulations, strong social safety nets, and a culture that emphasizes responsible use of firearms.
Australia: Australia implemented strict gun control measures in response to a mass shooting in 1996, including a mandatory buyback program and stringent licensing requirements. While the country has since experienced a significant reduction in gun-related deaths, it is important to note that Australia does not have a constitutional right to bear arms, making it easier to implement such restrictions.
United Kingdom: The United Kingdom has some of the strictest gun control laws globally, with a near-total ban on handguns and strict regulations on other firearms. The country has a low rate of gun-related deaths, but critics argue that these measures have not been entirely effective in reducing overall violent crime rates. The absence of a constitutional right to bear arms in the UK also plays a significant role in shaping the country's approach to gun control.

When comparing the United States to other countries with different approaches to arms regulation, it is clear that there are both benefits and challenges associated with the American right to bear arms. The United States benefits from the deterrence effect against potential tyranny and the empowerment of individuals to protect themselves and their property. Moreover, data suggests that areas with higher numbers of legally armed, law-abiding citizens tend to be safer.

The Distinction Between "Firearms" and "Arms" in Legal Contexts and the Implications of Their Usage

Understanding the difference between the terms "firearms" and "arms" when used in legal settings is crucial, as it impacts not only the interpretation of laws but also public discourse, education, and overall understanding of the subject.

Firearms vs. Arms: Legal Definitions

Firearms: In legal contexts, the term "firearms" refers specifically to weapons that use the force of an explosive to discharge a projectile. This category encompasses various types of guns, such as handguns, shotguns, and rifles. Laws and regulations surrounding firearms tend to focus on the specifics of these weapons, including their manufacture, sale, possession, and use.
Arms: The term "arms" has a broader meaning, encompassing any instrument or device used with the intent to inflict damage or harm. This includes not only firearms but also weapons such as knives, swords, and even non-lethal devices like pepper spray or stun guns. When used in the context of the Second Amendment, the term "arms" emphasizes the broader scope of the right to bear instruments for self-defense and protection against tyranny.

Impact on Public Discourse and Education

The distinction between "firearms" and "arms" plays a significant role in shaping public discourse and education on the subject of gun rights and regulations. When discussions or educational materials focus on "firearms" specifically, the conversation may become narrowly centered on the particulars of guns, overlooking the broader implications of the right to bear arms.

In contrast, using the term "arms" emphasizes the wider context of self-defense and protection against potential threats, including government tyranny. This broader perspective encourages a more comprehensive understanding of the Second Amendment and its historical and contemporary significance.

Influence on Laws and Regulations

The choice of terminology also affects the interpretation and application of laws and regulations. When legislation or court decisions focus on "firearms," the resulting rules may be more specific to particular types of guns and their components. On the other hand, when "arms" are the subject of legal discussion, the resulting regulations may be more broadly applicable to a wider range of weapons and devices.

Moreover, the use of the term "arms" in the Second Amendment suggests that the right to bear weapons for self-defense and protection against tyranny is not limited to firearms alone. This distinction is important to consider when evaluating the constitutionality of various restrictions and regulations.

Call to Action: Stay informed about your constitutional rights, engage in constructive conversations about the Second Amendment, and promote a deeper understanding of the U.S. Constitution to ensure that the rights of all citizens are protected. Together, we can help shape the future of our nation while preserving the foundational principles that make it strong.

Attributions:

2nd Amendment

Dictionary

The Unwavering Strength of the Second Amendment

Recent Posts