The Second Amendment explained

The Second Amendment,

It seems to me that there are some people who have a hard time with simple English (and some people who simply have trouble with English). For example when some one says “people live in the city” one generally thinks of a general group of people living in a city. Now if one says “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause” and this is a statement made on the National level one would sensibly think that you are talking about all the people in the country who are citizens thereof. And we see in the court trials from a local court to SCOTUS that this is indeed the case that government officials cannot enter into a house or car or what have you to do a search without a warrant signed by a judge because of probable cause. (I would like to point out that as of yesterday those in the Peoples Republic of California no longer have a 4th amendment, but they haven’t had several of the others for several years now so no biggie for them)

So why the big deal with Amendment number two where we get these haloed words “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”? Why the controversy of “is it an individual right or a states right”? I will answer, because of corruption. Not simply corruption of the government though that has a part and a large one at that in this whole problem, no the corruption of intellectual honesty and right thinking in the United States. This is an intentional attack on the minds of the people in the US, not propagated as such of course. Rather put forward as “progressive”, “politically correct” and “global thinking”. Logical thinking in a traditional sense has been eliminated almost rank and file, literary relativism (AKA deconstructionism) destroys authorial intent across the campuses of secular America and even in most so called Christian colleges. The ability to grasp what is written, those things written with true lasting meaning has been almost completely destroyed. The idea to take a written document and read it, understanding what it says in the context of itself is almost anathema in today’s America. So I am going to spell this out and use as small words as I can.

I am sure that it has been done before but I am going to prove in simple English (even though that may hinder some) that the 2nd Amendment is not a state right but rather an individual right.

Let us start back with the 1st and work our way down.

Amendment 1 “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” This is an individual right. To understand that only the state has the right to say what it wants and we all have very limited and regulated versions is criminally intellectually deficient.

Amendment 2, oh we’ll come back to this one!

Amendment 3 you can’t be forced to keep troops in your house. This is an individual right. Only a corpse could be mentally deficient enough to say that this is a state or collective right.


Amendment 4 This is understood to be an individual right almost across the board. To understand the 4th Amendment as simply a collective right that can be limited by the state as far as the individual is concerned is absurd! The idea that only a state government has full protection from unlawful search without a warrant would probably get you laughed out of any government building across the US (for now pay attention things are changing in this country pretty darn fast).


Amendment 5 the right well there are a lot of rights here but basically you have the right to a fair trial, without having to worry about self incrimination or another trial if found not guilty. Again if you have any mental capacity whatsoever you understand this to be a individual right. The state or “collective” doesn’t come into it whatsoever.

Amendment 6 The right to a speedy trial without cruel or unusual punishment as the consequences thereof; again it would be mentally defunct to say that this only applies to the state government.

Amendment 7 the right for a trial by jury in civil court. Individual right nothing to do with the government whatsoever except telling it what it can’t do!

Amendment 8 fair bail. Individual right, really when was the last time some one had to bail the state government out of jail?

Amendment 9 I think this is more of an FYI to the people and the government, HEY YOU HAVE RIGHTS!!! Just because there are some laid down here doesn’t mean that this is an all inclusive list. There are more out there! Again Individual rights.

Amendment 10 The only thing you have in the constitution that actually mentions a state having a right. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” Probably the second most important amendment here, loose translation: “If the constitution doesn’t explicitly say the federal government has a power in some area then they don’t” Individual AND state right.

Throughout the bill of rights the word “people” refers to an individual. Not once can a person who claims any sort of wisdom or understanding could claim anything else.

There is the context of the 2nd Amendment now let us examine this troublesome sentence

“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.”

Things to notice, the word “state” is actually in the sentence, the word “right” is in the sentence, the word “people” is in the sentence, the word “militia” is in the sentence, the words “bear” and “keep” are in the sentence, and the word “infringed” is in the sentence, the word “arms” is in this sentence.

Let us examine each word and thus we will understand the meaning of the sentence.

“State” to be understood as the individual governments of the states that comprise the United States

“Right” to be understood as a absolute God given freedom

“People” to be understood as all the individuals who are in the United States

“Militia” this one is the trickiest to understand in the direct context of the constitution, but we do have it in the 5th amendment so we can examine it there. The word is used to separate one armed group from another like so “in the land or naval forces, or in the militia” ergo it is not the same as the army. We can gain that from the immediate context but for a true definition of what the thought behind the word was we have to reference the Federalist Papers two of the authors of which were signatories to the US Constitution, one of whom was James Madison who just happens to have been president when the Bill of Rights was Amended to the Constitution

Here are two quotes that bear reading on the subject of the word Militia and arms in general:


Quote:
Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…

James Madison Federalist paper no. 46

And again only this time Alexander Hamilton


Quote:
"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year."
"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."


Alexander Hamilton Federalist Paper no. 29

By reading this we can understand that the Militia was to be organized and operated by the local government, a military organization separate from the federal government. To which most every able bodied man was expected to be a member of.

“Bear” to be understood as to carry or transport with the intention of use

“Keep” to be understood as to own and maintain

“Infringed” to be understood as encroached upon, reduced or diminished

“Arms” to be understood as military grade weapons

Now that we know what the words mean let’s read the 2nd Amendment again with the implicit contextual articles included:

A well regulated a military organization separate from the federal government. To which most every able bodied man was expected to be a member of, being necessary to the security of the free individual governments that comprise the United States, the absolute God given freedom of all the individuals who are in the United States to own and maintain and to carry or transport with the intention of use military grade weapons, shall not be encroached upon, reduced or diminished.
And there you go, a easy to understand in modern language and in its correct context the Second Amendment.

While you think on these things, I want you to ask your self; "What was the reason the founding fathers valued guns so much? Was it a. To hunt, recreate, and self defence or was it b. To keep the Local, State and Federal Governments in check with the ever presence of the possibility of violent governmental change?" Just consider what they had just finished doing (I'll help they had just kicked England's butt with the citizenry's weapons).

I think we would have some rather angry founding fathers if they knew what was going on today. Ok now go write your congrescritter and tell them to give you back your guns!


-Trent


If you wan't to see how the 2nd Amendment works out in real life go here:
http://www.constitution.org/mil/tn/batathen.htm
Read, learn, live