top of page

The 2nd simplistic in its wording, and complex in it's implications.

"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."

— Second Amendment, Bill of Rights, Constitution of the United States

The framers of the Bill of Rights adapted the wording of the Second Amendment from nearly identical clauses in some of the original 13 state constitutions. At the time that the 2nd was ratified, Americans had a deeply entrenched loathing for standing armies, something that originated from the unpopular practice of the quartering of British soldiers in colonial homes. These same troops were used to oppress the people.

As a consequence, the founders believed the federal government should only be allowed to raise armies—with full-time, paid, professional soldiers—when facing foreign adversaries. They also feared that a standing army would side with the government against the people. Their answer was a well armed citizenry to protect both the country and its citizens.

The 2nd is both simplistic in its wording, and complex in it's implications. The Founders believed that you have the natural God-given right to protect your life, that of your family, and defend your private property from those who would threaten it. However, the language of the 2nd has been often intentionally used to misrepresent the meaning of it by disingenuous proponents of gun control.

The language of some parts of the 2nd, is clear on their meaning as the words have the same meaning in modern English as they did in 18th century English, but others do not. And there lies the opportunity for deception. To effectively understand the intended meaning of the 2nd, without misconstruing it, requires the understanding of the differences in meaning of certain words in 18th century English and today. Let's begin with the full text...

"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."

Clear right? Not to some. Again, unless you apply 18th century English to the Amendment, you will misunderstand the intent of the Founders on an amendment so important, that it is second only to the right to free speech. And why?

Because the power of words and reason is crucial to man's right to expression and a vehicle to address differences, injustices and grievances through peaceful means. The 2nd is a measure of protection for that right, and all other rights for that matter. Let's continue.

"A Well regulated Militia" Does not mean what we think it does in 21st century English. It does not mean control or regulation by a "body of authority.” In 18th century English, the word "regulated," was synonymous with competency, proficiency, and expertise.

Another misunderstood word is "militia." In 18th century English, a militia was a body of armed citizens not a professional military. All able-bodied, fighting age citizen males, ages 16 to 60, were to provide their own privately owned weapons, organize into a group, train in the tactics of war, and be relied upon at a moments notice, to assemble with their weapons, under the command of a designated leader, usually someone of military experience, and provide in the defense of their community against a threat.

The argument exists that the militia was the national guard. This is not exactly true nor false. Militias did indeed, give birth to the national guard but they are not the national guard. December 13th, 1636, is recognized as the birthday of the National Guard because on this date, the colony of Massachusetts, organized local civilian militias into three permanent regiments to better defend the colony.

This came as a result of the Massachusetts Bay Colony's General Court dictum. After the declaration of independence, the passage of the "Militia Act" of May 8, 1792, permitted militia units organized before the May 8, 1792, to retain their "customary privileges as private citizen militias." Provisions for the collective states's national guards is a product of the 20th century.

Beginning with the "Efficiency in Militia Act of 1903" or the “Dick Act,” which was legislation enacted by the United States Congress to create an early version of the National Guard, and which codified the circumstances under which the Guard, could be federalized. The "National Defense Act," ratified by Congress in May 1916, and signed by Woodrow Wilson on June 3, separated once and for all, the states' private militias from what was to become the national guard.

This brought the national guard of the states under federal control and gave the president authority, in case of war or national emergency, to mobilize the National Guard for the duration of the emergency. Let's continue...

"Being necessary to the security of a free State" Very self-explanatory in that it means exactly what it says, to defend the security of the country and the liberties of the citizenry. The question then arises of from whom?

The answer is simple. At the time of ratification, from the very real threat of an invading foreign power such as Britain—which wanted its colonies back—or a domestic threat, be it criminals, bandits, native raiding parties, or the newly formed government itself. Yes, it is true. The founders were concerned with the potential for overreach and abuse of power even from their own newly established government. My views on that later.

"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." — No “body” of perceived authority, be it government, local, state, or federal, the congress, court of law, agency of law, religious institution, financial institution, business, or any individual for that matter, from a Mayor to a landlord, is to prevent the ownership and possession of any arms by any citizen.

Some will argue that criminals shouldn't have guns but that is ignoring the fact that an imprisoned felon, is already disarmed in the process of apprehension, adjudication, and incarceration. That same individual, however, when released upon rehabilitation, completion, or commuting of the sentence, is still a citizen.

Laws that prevent released convicts from owning firearms is a product of the 20th century's interpretation of laws preventing that right. I know. It is a controversial topic. Moving on…

You don't need a degree in human psychology to understand why some people have antipathy towards the 2nd. Some do have a natural animus towards guns. They fall into several categories. First and foremost, the most dangerous of all, your typical leftist-demagogue whose's deeply rooted hatred is centered on the fear of being deposed of power by those they rule over.

Then, there are those of the liberal persuasion with an aversion to guns mostly based on a sanctimoniously elevated view of themselves. The guns are a symbol of the masses of ignorant, uneducated conservative Neanderthals they see as reprobate brutes, who "cling to their guns and Bibles," as a condescending President Obama once said. And lastly, those who simply don't care for them. You know the types. The fragile snowflake generation.

A little history is in order here…

Until the 1930s, you could walk into your local mom & pops hardware store, and walk out with a fully-automatic machine-gun and all the ammo you could carry, if you could afford one. No intrusive background checks, no waiting period, no ATF approval, no NFA stamp and tax. No one cared. And there were no mass shootings either like today except those between criminal gangs competing for turf and profits from illicit activities.

In the early 20th century, gun restrictions were none-existent except in certain urban areas ran by corrupt officials. The "Sullivan Act" comes to mind, which took effect in 1911 in New York state. The act was named for its primary legislative sponsor, state senator Timothy Sullivan, a notoriously corrupt "Tammany Hall" Democrat politician. Tammany Hall was the main local political machine of the Democrat Party and played a major role in controlling New York City and state politics.

Although Tammany Hall disbanded decades ago, the Democrats still control New York today in much of the same way. The Democrats, empowered by their success in New York, took gun control to a national level. The Democrats knew they couldn't outright ban guns, but they could—in their questionable hubris—apply stringent means of ownership to certain types of guns by implementing a truckload of paperwork, an elaborate registration scheme, a long waiting period, and an expensive tax to deal with.

And so, the Democrats in control of Congress, passed the first piece of national gun control legislation on June 26, 1934, which essentially made automatic firearms, such as the Thompson submachine-gun and the Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR), inaccessible to anyone but the criminals, the rich and the connected. In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case United States v. Miller, ruling that through the National Firearms Act of 1934, Congress could regulate the interstate selling of a short barrel shotgun. And the flood gates were open on gun control. And here we are today.

No, our 2nd isn't going away. You just can't make it go away with the stroke of an executive pen, Obama would have done it, nor is Biden going to do it. You could remove it from the Bill of Rights with another amendment, but that would require a constitutional convention and three-quarters of the states, to ratify that amendment to the United States Constitution. Therefore, out of 50 states, 38 states or more are required.

Won't happen. But, you can work other insidious schemes in that you make gun ownership too time consuming, too expensive, and too burdensome to own.

Now, to the implication of using the 2nd against our government should it go tyrannical on us, let's not be disingenuous. How are you going to make a stand against our 21st century military, arguably the best in the world, should that government, dispatch tanks and infantry against a justified and righteous popular uprising? It's a rhetorical question.

Unless the military turns against them, you don't have a chance in Hell. Which would explain, Obama's purging of the senior officer ranks during his eight years in office, and Biden's obsession today, with the rank and file, using the excuse of rooting out white-supremacists (patriots) from within the military.

Now all the pieces fit together. Now it all makes sense. Do "they," the power establishment in DC, anticipate a conflict with "We the People" at some point?

The 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights with an explanation of the18th century English language:

"A well regulated militia, [trained, competent and disciplined in the use of privately kept firearms] being necessary for the security of a free state, [sovereignty and personal safety and freedom] the right of the people [individual right just like the First, Fourth, Six, and Seventh Amendments] to keep and bear arms [individually kept, privately owned firearms] shall not be infringed [restricted, controlled managed, or otherwise impeded]."

Anything else is an intentional, or accidental misrepresentation of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

17 views0 comments


bottom of page