WELCOME HOME !
  1. The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution 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."

What does that mean?  Well let us examine it and see.  It is a fairly simple and short statement.  It has two clauses or sections.  The second states that a particular right of the people shall not be infringed.  The first states why the second clause is necessary.

Lets examine the second clause first.  I am going to use Noah Webster's 1828 dictionary to define words.  It codified and assembled the language and thought processes of that time period.  A dictionary of today would not give the meaning of most of those words as written.  Our language has been changed and in many cases subverted to support and make illegitimate agendas appear legitimate.

the right -  the dictionary defines a right as that which justly belongs to one.  It is something that inherently belongs to you.  It is not a privilege to be granted or taken away by a government.

of the people - I think we all know what people are.  I am sure we all know people and interact with them every day.  And every other place the term the people is used in the constitution, it refers to the people.  Not the government, not the army, not the National Guard, but the individual citizens.  For example, the right of the people peaceably to assemble or The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects.

to keep - Again pretty simple.  To hold; to retain in one's power or possession; not to lose or part with.  If we keep something we don't sell it or give it away.  We hang on to it.

and bear - to bear means simply to carry.  To carry; to convey; to support and remove from place to place.

arms - I like the dictionary's definition of arms, Weapons of offense.  Of course the weapons of main concern to the founders and to us is guns.

shall not be - shall in this context implies a promise, command or determination.  So shall not be infringed is promising or commanding or determining that the right not be infringed.

infringed - means Broken; violated; transgresses.  So if we are not allowed to keep and bear arms, our rights and the constitution are being violated.

OK now lets look at the first clause.

A well regulated - Here is where some of the misunderstanding begins.  Does regulated mean overseen or controlled by or a part of the federal government?  What does the dictionary say?  Adjusted by rule, method or forms; put in good order; subjected to rules or restrictions.  It just means to be orderly, to have rules and restrictions to be effective.

Militia - Right here is where the main argument begins.  What is the militia?  I won't list the total definition in the dictionary since it is rather long.  Here is the important part.    The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades.  I added the underlining because that part is important.  Notice also that it says are instead of is.  Is would imply a single unified body such as our current National Guard.  However the plural are implies the militia is made up of individuals.  Also the is very important.  If it just said the militia are able bodied men, that would be one thing.  But the militia are the able bodied men says somethng much different.  It basically says the able bodied men are the militia.

At this point I think a little history lesson is in order to help to define what the militia is.

Here are some quotes from the founders.  Many others could be listed but these clearly show their intent.  

Tenche Coxe: “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” – Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

Patrick Henry: “The people have a right to keep and bear arms.”

Thomas Jefferson: “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”

Richard Henry Lee: “To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them…”

Richard Henry Lee: “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.”

George Mason: “I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people.” (Elliott, Debates, 425-426)

George Washington: “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”

So the founders were obviously referring to the people themselves, more specifically all able bodied men as the militia.  There were many other quotes by founders that also bear this out.  And also notice that they weren't concerned that people would need weapons for hunting or personal defense.  To the founders it was a given that they would always have those.  They wanted the militia to be well enough armed to oppose a tyrannical government.  And that is why they wanted it to be well regulated, so it would be an effective force against a tyrannical government.

The next step in defining the militia was the Militia Act of 1792.  It codified and defined the militia as all (emphasis mine) able bodied men from 18 to 54 years of age.  It also gave the specifications of the weapon they were required to have.  And they were to provide their own weapon.  It was not supplied by the government.  They were also required to report for training twice a year.  But these requirements were not enforced.

The militia operated under the Militia Acts of 1792 until 1903.  The president could call up militia but they didn't have to go.  For instance during the War of 1812 the New York militia refused to take part in operations against the British in Canada.  Because the issue of state versus federal control was not resolved, the federal government resorted to the creation of volunteer units when it needed to expand the size of the Army.  One such volunteer unit was Teddy Roosevelt's Rough Riders during the Spanish-American War.

Due to the failure of the Militia Acts of 1792 and of some militia units failing to  perform their objectives when used, the Militia Act of 1903 was passed.  This law repealed the Militia Acts of 1792 and organized the militia into two groups: the Reserve Militia, which included all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45(emphasis mine) and the Organized Militia, which included state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support.  The Miltitia Act of 1903 started the creation of the National Guard as we know it today.  The National Guard as we know it today was finalized in 1933.

One more definition of the militia.

10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

So today, if you are an able bodied male between 17 and 45 and a citizen of this country or have made a declaration of intention to become a citizen or if you are a female citizen of this county and are a member of the National Guard, you are a member of the militia!

All of this is to show that when the Second Amendment says the people, it means the people.  Not some military arm of the government.  But if anyone still wants to insist that it does mean some military arm of the government,I have shown that the people actually are a military arm of the government.  We are the militia!

 being necessary to the security of a free State - this just states that a well organized and effective militia is necessary to ensure the security of the country by helping to repel invasions and to keep a check on the government.

Views: 104

Add a Comment

You need to be a member of iKnife Collector to add comments!

Join iKnife Collector

Comment by Jan Carter on September 1, 2015 at 20:23

DLKG,

You make many great points.  Ashley was killed with her own kitchen knife and I never want to put our country in a position where we have to start thinking about not having them, or our ability to collect knives.  I will admit, it took me a little while to reconcile maintaining a collection and even the site after she left us.  But as you said, if it had not been that he could have strangled her.  I am sorry for your loss also, losing a anyone to violence is never something to be taken lightly.

That brings me to my feelings on the availability of guns.  As I said earlier I believe we have a constitutional right to own and bear arms.  I do believe there are limits to WHO.  Clearly stated, mentally deficient were not ever supposed to be armed.  If there is a felony in your back ground, you cannot be legally armed.  In some cases ( fully auto)  we need to find a way for background checks to include more than just run a rap sheet.  They are not personal protection nor hunting gear , in my opinion.   

The problem, as I see it, is that the criminals don't do any of it.  No background check, no safety course, no registering, no concealed weapons course.  So while I can appreciate a war on guns, I would prefer we not have a war on inanimate objects.  Let's have a crack down on existing laws and illegal gun runners.  They feed the folks we carry to protect ourselves from.

Comment by dead_left_knife_guy on August 30, 2015 at 21:49

Jan, as I said, I did not forget about your post.  It's horrible that your friend was murdered, I don't want anyone murdered, & it's stupid that people are still getting murdered after all the advances mankind has made in the millions of years we've existed as a species.  I am truly sorry to hear about your loss.

Similarly, I had a friend that blew his brains out.  He was a really sweet, nice guy.  Hearing his mother wailing at the cemetery was something I'll never forget.

I had no idea that happened to someone you knew, and I'm sure you didn't know that happened to someone I knew.  Access to weapons was the key in both cases, but so were the circumstances.  Simply owning a firearm & keeping it safely doesn't mean that the weapon will be adequately accessible in the time of greatest defensive need, whether it's because the weapon was in a safe or because injuries had already occurred before the weapon would've become accessible or because the trigger just could not be pulled at the crucial moment.  Similarly, if my friend hadn't access to the weapon, he might have jumped off building.  We don't know.

We do know that had Adam Lanza not had access (& training, quite a lot of training it turns out), 20 young children would have been entering 4th grade this school year at Sandy Hook Elementary, & those 6 teachers would have been moving forward with their lives.

Without free access to weaponry such as automatic and semi-automatic rifles with high-capacity magazines, and without access to firearms that can be worn in the waistband & used at distances beyond arm's length against multiple victims, there would be fewer shootings in violent crimes.  Without weapons that can be kept without being locked up in a home or a vehicle, there would be fewer accidental shootings of children by children.  If the gun isn't present, the trigger can't be pulled.

We have so many shootings in the U.S. because firearms are legal & relatively unrestricted.  The same is true about alcohol -- it's the most heavily abused drug in the U.S. because it's legal & accessible.  You never have to go through a background check to purchase a bottle of whiskey, but you can buy a weapon 3 years earlier than you can buy a beer.  

Similarly, car accident injuries & deaths are so high because we have so many people driving cars & trucks.  Licenses are necessary because operating these vehicles is inherently dangerous, just as operating a firearm is inherently dangerous.  A license is required for one but not the other.  There is something incredibly wrong with this picture.  And I very much appreciate having you as a moderator, & this forum overall, to discuss such issues because they are truly quite important.

Comment by dead_left_knife_guy on August 27, 2015 at 19:44

First, thank you, Charles, for actually writing follow-up questions.  Makes it feel much more like a discussion & not an attack.  I appreciate this, very much.

 

To the first question, it's pretty obvious that in the early U.S., much like most of Europe in the late 18th Century, "the people" refers primarily to land-holding white men of a certain age of majority.  This was not to protect women & children, or non-white men.  It was due to the cultural traditions, long-standing at that point, that supported full rights & citizenship only for the dominant race & religion, and only for men.  The Constitution is interpreted much differently now, by most people at least, as the Equal Protection clause is to apply to all adults of all races and religions, and more and more it is being applied to minority sexual orientations as well, reviewed under strict scrutiny when any such deviation occurs, while gender has a slightly more relaxed standard, but a strong standard still.  It was not illegal to discriminate based on race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation in the late 1700's (unless perhaps the discrimination was against a straight white Christian male, based on those characteristics).

 

Constitutional orginalism, which is where your original post & your arguments appear to be based in, has its merits, but also has its drawbacks.  An originalist cannot get away from definitions at the time, or the contexts of the time.  The Constitution would have protected only those with the power at the time, white Christian men, as that was what was most common, and even Jefferson was a slave holder.  It is impossible for an originalist to state therefore that the equal protection of the laws should apply to all people, regardless of their race, without getting into an argument of whose interpretation we should be giving preference to (a Founder that believed in a slave-based economy, or a Founder that believed in abolition). 

 

And once you start arguing for taking one Founder's interpretation over another, you've just stepped outside the "four corners" of the Constitution to an outside interpretation of the meaning of the document, which is antithetical to the originalist approach of relying solely on the Constitution itself.  Further, a more radical approach would be to forego the Amendments altogether and rely solely on the body of the original Articles themselves. 

 

Further, there are other Amendments that do not account for other things we have since found necessary to integrate into the application of the Constitution, such as public safety.  Inciting riots, or yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, for example, are not protected by the First Amendment, nor are religious sacrifices of humans. 

 

Gun violence has long been considered an epidemic in public health circles, though certain organizations have stepped in to prevent or hinder research by governmental bodies such as the CDC from approaching gun violence as an epidemic.  Meanwhile, societal issues such as rape and domestic abuse, from what I understand, have not been similarly hindered. 

 

You don't see how the 2nd Amendment is obscure because you're reading it in a way that is very clear to you, but that is not necessarily what it means, nor is it necessarily what it says or is trying to say.

 

I wasn't aware that automatic weapons were not banned, only highly regulated.  Not sure what the difference is.  What I hear is that people worried about gun bans tend to be worried about any restrictions on firearms (& to a maybe a lesser degree, semi-automatic firearms).  Should there be fewer restrictions on automatic weapons?  No, for the same reason you don't think people should have RPG's in their homes.  If you're arguing that people should have access to arms because the 2nd Amendment says it's their right, and you believe the 2nd Amendment extends to RPG's, then you're fighting for others' to have RPG's in their homes.  

 

The real question is, the core question I have for you based on your response, is why do you think people SHOULDN'T have RPG's in their homes?  Your answer to that question might just be the same answer I have as to why I don't think people should have small arms in their homes.  No amount of training makes all of them safe enough, in part because those without adequate training often end up getting access to them, & accidents, along with crimes, and suicides, happen.

 

Regarding statistics on guns used in crimes, accidents, and suicides vs. guns used for self defense:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/19/guns-in-a... 

The Washington Post does not have a reputation for being liberal; I made sure to find a source that didn't have a reputation for being liberal.  And this was on the first page I Googled.  And this data was taken from FBI data.  Anecdotes are often not accurately reflective of overall patters because the sample set is so small.  We likely come from different places & clearly have different emotions connected to this issue (you wouldn't have written such a long piece on the rights of gun owners on a knife collectors website if you didn't have an emotional attachment to the issue).  But I think we rely on different sets of facts.

 

As far as to whether I own a gun, well, all I can say is that for security reasons, I won't answer this.  A lot of people might be surprised at the answer if it was given.  But, I won't say that I don't own a firearm/s and open myself up to threats from those that do, nor will I say that I'm in possession, so as to subject me to possible thefts when I'm away from my home.  

 

Take care, Charles.  I hope you understand my position on the matter more clearly at this point, but certainly this discussion can (& likely will) continue.  And again, thank you for engaging in discussion (you too, Jan -- I haven't forgotten about your post -- I've just spent all my free time responding to Charles).

 

Comment by Charles Sample on August 26, 2015 at 2:44

DLKG

I would like to think of this as a discussion where we just state our opinions rather than an argument.  As I go through this I will be asking you some questions.  I really am interested in your thoughts on the subject. 

Actually, from what I understand, there was so much disagreement over the Second Amendment during the drafting of the Bill of Rights -- as a States' Rights issue, believe -- that this amendment was left somewhat obscure on purpose.  The thing doesn't read like the rest of the language of the Constitution or the other Amendments.

You are right DLKG.  In fact the whole constitution was a states' rights issue.  And the Bill of Rights even more so.  Many of the states said they would not ratify the constitution unless they were added.  The founders did not want an all powerful, overbearing, burdensome federal government.  That was the reason for the Tenth Amendment which states that powers not specifically delegated to the federal government are reserved for the states or the people.

I still don't see what is obscure about the Second Amendment.  The second part says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  Not only to own but to carry.  The first part gives the reason for the right not being infringed.  It doesn't grant the right, the right was already there.  It just says the right shall not be infringed.

Okay first question.  DLKG, do you believe "the people" means something other than the people and if so what?

It's also interesting that you ask how "the people" can be misinterpreted, since from the citations you gave, "the people" of the militia were only males of a certain age, & not any older or younger.  You can probably guess that they also were only talking about white males at that, given the eras.

I would think that they just didn't want to compel children, old men, or women to fight.

DLKG, do you think there was another reason for men only?

And yes the first Militia Act of 1792 did specify white males but the second Militia Act of 1792 was amended to say all males between 18 to 54.  Also the amendment does not say the militia are the people.  It says an effective militia is necessary and that's why the right of the people shall not be infringed.  The militia was a segment of the people.

There's also something in the types of arms at issue.  "Arms" would have to mean "weapons," as opposed to tools (as a hunting rifle might be considered).  But what about grenades?  Explosives?  Chemical or biological agents?  Nuclear weapons?  How about fully automatic rifles?  If the Second Amendment means "arms," it must apply to all arms, so why not nuclear weaponry?  Tanks?  RPG's?  Without these weapons, today no one could resist the government in a militaristic take-over situation.  

If that sounds extreme, & I agree it is, what about fully automatic weapons?  If you are fighting for your right to keep & bear a semi-automatic pistol, why not a fully automatic rifle?  Where was the NRA when it came to fully automatic weapons?  Didn't they actually get on board with the automatic weapons ban?

DLKG, you are right about the arms at issue.  They did want the militia to have arms equal to the federal government.  The Militia Act of 1792 specified that each member of the militia must provide himself with a military style musket including bayonet.  Also how much powder and shot he must have.

George Washington: “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”

The intent of the Second Amendment was not about ensuring the people would have hunting guns or personal self defense guns.  To the founders that was just a given that they would always have those.  The intent of the second amendment was that the militia and the people would be able to dissuade a tyrannical government from usurping their freedom.  Of course they could not foresee the weapons available today.  They could not even foresee my 120 year old Winchester rifle.  Now do I believe every household should have grenades or RPG's or biological weapons lying around?  NO!  But unless the constitution is amended to say otherwise, it says they can!

I agree if the military decided to take over this country and was willing to use all at their disposal against their own people, we could not stop them.

Actually there is not a fully automatic weapons ban.  They are highly restricted.  Many individuals own them.  I could own one if I was willing and able to pay the transfer fee and the tax required to own one.  I have fired a fully automatic weapon.  I was at a local range one day and another guy had his there shooting it.  He let me fire it.

DLKG, next question.  Do you believe any individual should be allowed to own a fully automatic weapon?  How about a semi automatic weapon?

Now, to not make this about the NRA, I'll just say that I'm not a fan of kids shooting & killing each other, usually with a handgun belonging to one of their parents, usually not with the intent of actually hurting the other or themselves -- just curiosity turned terribly tragic.  I'm also not a fan of weapons of opportunity being used to hurt someone, usually in a domestic dispute, because it was available (knives are often used if no gun is around, but usually to much less deadly effect).  Nor am I a fan of kids intentionally shooting each other in the streets, nor am I a fan of mass shootings (Sandy Hook occurred the day after a man attacked a similar number of children in China with a cleaver, none of whom died).

The number of times guns are used in self-defense situations is simply dwarfed by the times they are used in crimes, horribly tragic accidents, and suicides.

I definitely don't think you would be a fan of people hurting each other in any way.  But I don't think I can agree that the number of times guns are used in self defense is dwarfed by the times they are used in crime.  Because guns definitely are often used in self defense or to prevent a crime.  I personally know of three such cases.  Once by my father, once by me, and once by a friend.  And in many cases victims having a gun might have saved their lives.

Next question.  DLKG, are you aware of the NRA Eddie Eagle program wherein they have taught several million children about gun safety over the years.  And do you think they should do it?

And on another note, while people appear to be fighting for their own right to be armed, they're also fighting for the same right for those of others, others who may wish them harm.  Guns are so frequently used in crimes in this country for 2 reasons:  because they're so effective, and because they're so available.

I'm not sure a ban on handguns would be any more effective than a Prohibition-style ban on alcohol, and guns are becoming more effective at damage and killing.  But we can certainly increase the restrictions on who can obtain them, & I'm one who thinks we should.

Yes you are right.  When I am fighting for my own right to have a gun, I am fighting for the same right for others.  You are also right about bans.  We did a great job of banning alcohol and are doing a great job of banning drugs.

Next question.  DLKG, do you think we should ban guns?

Who is fine with criminally insane people owning firearms?  Who is fine with guys that beat their wives owning firearms?  Who is fine with violent ex-felons owning guns?  The answer to those questions is simple:  the criminally insane, the guys beating their wives, & violent ex-felons.  And hey, why stop at firearms?  Why not RPG's, tanks, cruise missiles, & bunker busters?

The criminally insane, the guys beating their wives,and violent ex-felons are already banned from owning firearms.  If we pass yet another law against it, will that stop them?  Between the federal and state governments, there are over 20,000 firearms laws on the books.  So if laws will stop it, we should be gun crime free.

Another question.  DLKG, if you had the power, how would you stop those that shouldn't have guns from getting them?  Do you believe that if guns were banned that criminals would turn theirs in?

Sorry for the essay here, obviously everyone here is aware that I can get quite verbose.  I don't expect to convince anyone on this site or to sway anyone over to my side.  But it's hardly the truth that I just don't care.  Quite far from the truth, actually.

Hey I like the essay.  I like to discuss things with people I disagree with.  If I didn't like it, I would have deleted it.

I don't think you don't care.  And I don't think even the virulent anti gun people don't care about gun crime and people getting hurt or killed.  In fact I think they care a lot.  That's why I say they have an emotional hatred of guns.  What I think they don't care about is looking at the situation reasonably and making decisions about guns based on facts.  I think some of them care so strongly and thus have such an emotional hatred of guns that they will ignore facts or even sometimes lie or distort the truth.

As I said at the beginning, I really would like to know your answers to the questions I asked.  I admit I am very conservative but I have been known to change my mind if someone shows me where I am wrong about something.

DLKG, I have to ask you one more question.  I think I know the answer but I have to ask anyway.  Do you own a gun?

You seem to me to be a reasonable guy.  I may be wrong but I had the impression that you were not virulently anti gun.

Comment by Jan Carter on August 25, 2015 at 21:00

DLKG,

One of the wonderful things about this site, and the USA, is that it is ok for everyone to have their opinions.  A dear friend being murdered in her home with a knife convinced me she would have had a fighting chance with a gun.  I am a bad shot, I have never hunted and until recently did not own my own gun.  I have always chosen to believe our founding fathers meant it to mean that NO government or waring faction on US soil had the right to take the protection of your home and family

Comment by dead_left_knife_guy on August 25, 2015 at 20:45

Actually, from what I understand, there was so much disagreement over the Second Amendment during the drafting of the Bill of Rights -- as a States' Rights issue, believe -- that this amendment was left somewhat obscure on purpose.  The thing doesn't read like the rest of the language of the Constitution or the other Amendments.

It's also interesting that you ask how "the people" can be misinterpreted, since from the citations you gave, "the people" of the militia were only males of a certain age, & not any older or younger.  You can probably guess that they also were only talking about white males at that, given the eras.

There's also something in the types of arms at issue.  "Arms" would have to mean "weapons," as opposed to tools (as a hunting rifle might be considered).  But what about grenades?  Explosives?  Chemical or biological agents?  Nuclear weapons?  How about fully automatic rifles?  If the Second Amendment means "arms," it must apply to all arms, so why not nuclear weaponry?  Tanks?  RPG's?  Without these weapons, today no one could resist the government in a militaristic take-over situation.  

If that sounds extreme, & I agree it is, what about fully automatic weapons?  If you are fighting for your right to keep & bear a semi-automatic pistol, why not a fully automatic rifle?  Where was the NRA when it came to fully automatic weapons?  Didn't they actually get on board with the automatic weapons ban?

Now, to not make this about the NRA, I'll just say that I'm not a fan of kids shooting & killing each other, usually with a handgun belonging to one of their parents, usually not with the intent of actually hurting the other or themselves -- just curiosity turned terribly tragic.  I'm also not a fan of weapons of opportunity being used to hurt someone, usually in a domestic dispute, because it was available (knives are often used if no gun is around, but usually to much less deadly effect).  Nor am I a fan of kids intentionally shooting each other in the streets, nor am I a fan of mass shootings (Sandy Hook occurred the day after a man attacked a similar number of children in China with a cleaver, none of whom died).

The number of times guns are used in self-defense situations is simply dwarfed by the times they are used in crimes, horribly tragic accidents, and suicides.

And on another note, while people appear to be fighting for their own right to be armed, they're also fighting for the same right for those of others, others who may wish them harm.  Guns are so frequently used in crimes in this country for 2 reasons:  because they're so effective, and because they're so available.

I'm not sure a ban on handguns would be any more effective than a Prohibition-style ban on alcohol, and guns are becoming more effective at damage and killing.  But we can certainly increase the restrictions on who can obtain them, & I'm one who thinks we should.  

Who is fine with criminally insane people owning firearms?  Who is fine with guys that beat their wives owning firearms?  Who is fine with violent ex-felons owning guns?  The answer to those questions is simple:  the criminally insane, the guys beating their wives, & violent ex-felons.  And hey, why stop at firearms?  Why not RPG's, tanks, cruise missiles, & bunker busters?

Sorry for the essay here, obviously everyone here is aware that I can get quite verbose.  I don't expect to convince anyone on this site or to sway anyone over to my side.  But it's hardly the truth that I just don't care.  Quite far from the truth, actually.

Comment by Charles Sample on August 23, 2015 at 22:22

Jan, I think most of them know what it means.  But the anti gunners just don't care.  They have an emotional hatred of guns and will do what ever they can to try to get rid of them.  The facts and the truth don't matter to them.  The Second Amendment is a simple statement.  It is not wrapped in lawyerese.  There are no big obscure words in it.  I mean, how can you misinterpret "the people"?  How much simpler or more straightforward could they have put it?

Comment by Jan Carter on August 23, 2015 at 21:30

Charles,

I was reading a lot of this last weekend.  It is astonishing to me that it takes so much for folks to understand what this amendment means and no matter how many times it is upheld, it still gets challenged.

White River Knives

Reed Cutlery Company

Visit Lee' s Cutlery

Now Available

JSR Sports!

© 2017   Created by Jan Carter.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service