Alex Jones and Jakari Jackson break down the Charleston South Carolina shooting and how it proves you need the 2nd amendment to defend yourself.

Modern day discussions about the meaning of the Second Amendment-is it a collective right or an individual right?-would have been incomprehensible to the Founders.

Everyone at the time concluded that the federal government had no power to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Modern day arguments for the most part also fall short to address the important question of why the right to bear arms was enshrined in the Constitution in the first place.

The right to self-defense and to the means of defending oneself is a basic natural right that grows out of the right to life.

The Second Amendment for that reason does not grant the people a new right; it merely acknowledges the inalienable natural right to self-defense. Lawmakers may outlaw particular types of weapons, but they may not disarm the citizenry.

A more basic question issues the scope of the government’s power to prevent the possession and use of firearms through regulations that inflict burdensome conditions and qualifications on gun owners.

In the similar area of free speech, courts have fought endlessly to draw lines that permit governments to serve what they see as the public interest without permitting undue suppression of individual liberties.

If the Supreme Court is really serious about treating the right to arms as an important part of the constitutional fabric, we should expect the Justices to come across similar challenges in its rising gun control jurisprudence.

The Rabbit Hole Goes Real Deep, Find Out How Deep… HERE