The 2^nd Amendment:

‘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.’

So much ‘to do’ over a comma! What are you talking about Pete? I’m referring to the actual wording and grammatical structure of the 2^nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Some folks would have you believe the framers of the Amendment spoke a different language than we do today, and that sentence structure and thought processes were/are so disparate to our time and concerns that, well, we just don’t fully understand their meaning and having only delusions of adequacy.

Let me throw my two cents in, I believe the founding fathers inspiration for the Amendments were based on fear, the fear of government, of a government exercising overarching power upon its citizens. Sound familiar? I believe that if you read the actual wording without bias it shouldn’t be difficult to extract (if you have to work that hard) the meaning of the authors. That said I suggest we ask two simple questions about the Amendment-

Does anyone believe the Amendment was needed to support the right of the newly formed State and its Militia to keep and bear Arms? Or, that its troops, during times of peace, would have their weapons removed from them until such time as a skirmish or a war broke out?

I don’t believe the founders were purporting a need to authorize the ‘keeping and bearing of arms’ to its militia, but rather that the militia was not to be ‘infringed’ and that the People similarly had the ‘right’ to ‘keep and bear Arms’!

And, so says the Supreme Court of the United States at least twice, and, believe it or not, on May 16, 2016, so did the 9^th circuit court of appeals in California (Yes I said California) where buying and selling guns (Arms) was unfairly scrutinized by the Mudslide, Burning, Shaking, and Smog riddled State.

I am going to leave you with a great quip expressed by an unknown author who, in my opinion, drop kicked the issue by countering the ludicrous criticisms of the left by issuing his own ‘Amendment’ to education. I edited as deemed necessary for this blogs purposes:

“A well educated school System, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.”

Does this suggest that only the school System should read books? Or, that once they have obtained a diploma they should lock the books up until such time as there is a need to ‘review’ the material. Or, that the general populous, (ignorant fools that we are) shouldn’t be entrusted with written material?

No, of course not!

For those of you who know what I’m talking about, this sounds like a ‘Twilight Zone’ episode in the making!

See you next time,

Peter