What America’s Freedom-Hating, Hoplophobic, Lying Financial Columnists Will Try and Tell You

You always know what to expect when someone claiming to be an authority on one topic decides to delve into another topic that has zero to do with his alleged expertise, and then begins his screed with an insult to a large portion of the American population. This is what popped up on my news feed this morning when I pulled up my Facebook account – shared by a friend from high school, who made it a habit of late to share idiotic anti-gun opinions and warn those reading her timeline that dissent will not be tolerated and opposing opinions deleted.

Well, that’s OK. I muted her, so I wouldn’t have to watch the abuse and ignorance unfold.

But the spew popped up again on the page of one of my favorite writers, and I thought maybe it was time to deal with the historical ignorance therein.

ahamiltonThe following diatribe was published by a financial writer named Brett Arends, who apparently won some award for his writing about markets, economics and personal finance.  But lately, he’s been delving into such topics as homophobia, the NRA, the Brexit (Britain’s potential exit from the EU), and Donald Trump.

Well, you see where this is going. The tirade, titled “What America’s Gun Fanatics Won’t Tell You,” Arends pretends to know something about history and the English language, by pulling up a single essay by Publius (aka Alexander Hamilton) in Federalist 29 to support his spurious claim that there is no individual right to keep and bear arms, and insulting America’s gun owners, historians, and numerous constitutional scholars.

Let’s delve into it, shall we?

The Second Amendment doesn’t give you the right to own a gun

Believe it or not, I agree with Arends here. The Second Amendment doesn’t give you the right to keep and bear arms. It protects an already existing right. Analysis of the plain English of the Second Amendment by the late language expert Roy Copperud confirms this analysis.

The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.”

Now, I know Arends probably considers himself an expert because he won some kind of award for his financial writing, but I do think Copperud’s more than three decades of journalism experience, his 17-year career teaching journalism at USC, his professional essays in Editor and Publisher, and his membership on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary trump Arends’ biography about Mitt Romney, his book on personal finance, and a book on sports gambling. So, yes, Arends is unintentionally correct here. The Second Amendment grants nothing.

Can we please stop pretending that the Second Amendment contains an unfettered right for everyone to buy a gun? It doesn’t, and it never has. The claims made by the small number of extremists, before and after the Orlando, Fla., massacre, are based on a deliberate lie.

Who’s pretending, Cupcake? Given the plain language contained in said amendment, I would submit the delusional extremist is the one claiming the 27 words don’t say what they plainly say.

The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution doesn’t just say Congress shall not infringe the right to “keep and bear arms.” It specifically says that right exists in order to maintain “a well-regulated militia.” Even the late conservative Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia admitted those words weren’t in there by accident. Oh, and the Constitution doesn’t just say a “militia.” It says a “well-regulated” militia.

Actually, no. As the late Roy Copperud said, the right to keep and bear arms shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.” It doesn’t say the right exists to ensure the militia, but that it is not to be infringed because a well armed and trained militia is necessary.

Shall we see if Arends actually understands the meaning of the phrase “well-regulated”? Believe it or not, he does, but then he dives head first into a bucket of stupid.

What did the Founding Fathers mean by that? We don’t have to guess because they told us. In Federalist No. 29 of the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton explained at great length precisely what a “well-regulated militia” was, why the Founding Fathers thought we needed one, and why they wanted to protect it from being disarmed by the federal government.

Hamilton is a single Founding Father. Who is this “they” that told us some nonsense that Arends spews? Yes, Hamilton specifically says that a well-regulated militia means one that is properly trained in military maneuvers. Didn’t Arends think that those who want to protect the right to keep and bear arms read?

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.

The American Heritage Dictionary gives four definitions of “regulate.”

1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.

2. To adjust to a particular specification or requirement: regulate temperature.

3. To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.

4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one’s eating habits.

Given Hamilton’s specific words above, it’s clear what definition is most applicable here.

And there’s a reason absolutely no gun extremist will ever direct you to that 1788 essay because it blows their baloney into a million pieces.

Except at Gun Cite, where legal scholar David Hardy quotes Publius’ words, and in this essay by Tea Party, whom frothing nuts like Arends hate with the passion of a thousand burning suns, and quoted here at the Rense Report, and cited here by conservative/libertarian economist and columnist Walter Williams. But maybe Arends didn’t mean these extremists? Maybe there are some other extremists running around who are afraid of Federalist 29? Nope. Maybe it’s because those of us who want to protect the right to keep and bear arms have actually read it and other Federalist Papers, as well as citations from other Founding Fathers supporting the Second Amendment’s definitive language that protects the individual right to keep and bear arms.

A “well-regulated militia” didn’t mean guys who read Soldier of Fortune magazine running around in the woods with AK-47s and warpaint on their faces. It basically meant what today we call the National Guard.

Oh! So without a shred of evidence or even an interpretation of Hamilton’s words, Arends expects us to believe that Hamilton meant only the National Guard ought to be armed, even though the first unit didn’t call itself the “National Guard” in Lafayette’s honor until 1824, and the actual National Guard didn’t come into existence until the 20th century! Sure. Got it.

But it gets better.

It should be a properly constituted, ordered and drilled (“well-regulated”) military force, organized state by state, explained Hamilton. Each state militia should be a “select corps,” “well-trained” and able to perform all the “operations of an army.” The militia needed “uniformity in … organization and discipline,” wrote Hamilton, so that it could operate like a proper army “in camp and field,” and so that it could gain the “essential … degree of proficiency in military functions.” And although it was organized state by state, it needed to be under the explicit control of the national government. The “well-regulated militia” was under the command of the president. It was “the military arm” of the government.

Almost… almost… well-regulated… good… and BAM! Arends veers into dumbass land! If you notice, not once in his essay does Hamilton ever mention the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment, or the right to keep and bear arms. Why? Because that’s not what he was addressing in the essay. The Bill of Rights didn’t exist yet. The debate was whether or not to adopt the Constitution. He was addressing whether the federal government should have authority over the militia.

Hamilton does not argue in this essay that the militia isn’t the whole of the people. He does not argue that they should not be armed. He does not argue that the people are not the last line of defense against tyranny. As a matter of fact, in Federalist 28, he specifically says they are. “In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.”

And Arends knows this. He understands this. He said as much in his next several paragraphs.

But all this has nothing to do with the right to keep and bear arms, nor has it anything to do with the Bill of Rights, which wasn’t even ratified until 1791. Hamilton’s letter was an attempt to calm the unease about the provisions of federal control of the militia. The Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment were written afterward to further allay concerns about government overreach – a Bill of Rights that Hamilton, by the way, opposed, but which was ratified despite his opposition a few years later anyway.

Again, all this has nothing to do with the right to keep and bear arms. Hamilton tried to ease concerns about the federal government’s authority over the militia, but also acknowledged that the majority of militiamen would muster about once a year, because requirements greater than that would put an undue burden on the employment and the economy of the country. Oh, and by the way, those Bubbas that were to be the barely trained militia would be supplied with arms and equipment by the federal government.

Where the hell is my M-4, feds?

The Second Amendment is an instrument of government. It’s not about hunting or gun collecting or carrying your pistol into the saloon. The Founding Fathers left it up to us to pass sensible laws about all these things. The Constitution is about government.

Um. What? How did we go from “Hey, don’t worry about federal government authority over the militias” to “The Second Amendment (which didn’t exist yet) is an instrument of the government?” Did we find this in Federalist 29? Nope. Obviously, it’s pulled out of Arends’ fourth point of contact – that’s ASS for those who aren’t familiar with military terminology. Yeah, the Constitution is about government – defining what powers the government specifically holds. The Bill of Rights are amendments to said Constitution, and it lists definitive limits on said government.

Today we have a professional army, anyway. Military matters have become so complex that no part-time soldiers could do it all.

Except the Reserves and the National Guard, who drill one weekend per month and two weeks for year for Annual Training, or AT. Those National Guard and Reserve Soldiers, most of whom deploy and fight in foreign and dangerous lands that would make Arends shit himself in fear. I can’t wait to tell my son he’s not a professional Soldier, according to a financial columnist!

So you could argue that makes the Second Amendment null and void, like the parts in the Constitution about slaves and Indians being counted as “three-fifths” of a person in the Census.

Except that those parts of the Constitution were rendered obsolete by the 13th amendment, not by ignorant, frothing fiat of an uninformed, irrational financial columnist with a transparent agenda, whose claim to fame is a biography of a failed presidential candidate and former governor.

But even if you still want to defend the Second Amendment, it should apply only to those who volunteer to join the “select corps” of their National Guard, undergo rigorous training to attain “proficiency in military functions” and perform the “operations of an army,” serve as ordered under the ultimate command of the president and be subject to military discipline.

What part of the Second Amendment says that, pray tell? Is this the one that refers to the right of the people, and not the right of the militia to bear arms?

So if you’re running around waving your AK-47 under the Second Amendment, and you haven’t shown up yet at your local National Guard headquarters, you’re not a “patriot.” You’re a deserter.

Hey, douche bat! The National Guard doesn’t issue AK-47s. And in case you have forgotten, there’s something called the “unorganized militia” in this country, per US code.

(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.

In other words, Arends took one Federalist Paper letter by one of the Founders that has nothing to do with the Bill of Rights, and was written prior to the creation and ratification of said set of amendments, and decided that somehow it proves there is no individual right to keep and bear arms as plainly stated in the amendment that didn’t exist at the time said Founder was writing the essay.

Perhaps some reading – particularly of Federalist 46 by James Madison – will help young Arends’ confusion vis-a-vis the right to keep and bear arms. Maybe then he will be more intellectually honest, or at least more informed.

52 responses

  1. Halfway through I want to make this comment… when I read the first Hamilton quote my first thought, considering that that is all I know of what he said, is that he’s arguing *against* a “National Guard” not for one because the requisite training would be onerous on the people. I do know that early on there were towns that kept weapons for everyone in an armory under key, so if those without their own weapons were to have any training they’d have to take significant time away from their work, time to travel, and time to train.

    That people certainly didn’t have time for that sort of BS makes the encouragement for maintaining private arsenals reasonable and logical.

    I have argued before that *grammatically* the 2nd Am could be taken as calling for a compulsory Militia. Only because the nature of the constitution is firmly focused on limits on government and abhorrent toward compulsion by government on the people do we automatically understand that training and militia membership can not be a constitutional compulsion. Even so, the statement that a militia is a *necessity* is unambiguous. I don’t think it leaves a single bit of space to decide that we simply don’t *need* one anymore.

    Like

    1. Hamilton was probably the most statist of the bunch, if you could call any one of them statist. He did believe it was OK for the federal government to have authority over the militias, and was trying to convince others to ratify that bit in the Constitution.

      Hamilton was well versed in economics. He knew that to have a truly well-regulated militia would require time away from work and would impact the economy.

      Like

      1. The passage makes sense in that context. And if you think about it, if that was the general assumption he’d not have been making the argument at all.

        Like

  2. I’ve noticed a lot of all the various “experts” who write ill-informed opinion pieces way outside their area of expertise, economists seem to be the worst offenders. Though, that’s probably because they branch out to draw attention away from the fact that the bulk of them are really shitty at economics. Look how many of these economic predictions over the past several years have been wrong, wrong, wrong. So figure: if they’re really shitty at the field they supposedly are “experts” in, is it really surprising that they suck even worse when they step outside that field?

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Reblogged this on The Arts Mechanical and commented:
    The way the 2nd reads, the right course isn’t gun control, but training of everybody in firearms practice and gun ownership being mandated because everybody is part of the militia. Shades of Switzerland where they take that seriously.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Yes. Except for the fact that nothing in the constitution is about what citizens ought to be required to do, it definitely could be taken that way.

      Like

    2. Anything that has requirements enforced by the government are not rights. Rights don’t have preconditions.

      Like

  4. I find it ludicrous that any reasoning person would argue against the plain sense of the Second Amendment. Now, having said that, I think they might want to debate whether the Second Amendment is still applicable. They WON’T get there by comparing modern weapons against late 18th century weapons, however. Rephrased a TINY bit, the Second Amendment says “Since a well-regulated Militia is necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to bear and keep Arms shall not be infringed.”

    Implicit is the understanding that our government is a free State, and ought to be. However, this is the first point that critics may wish to debate. Any who do are fools, and we may ignore what they have to say as twaddle.

    Secondly, they may wish to debate that a well-regulated militia is NOT necessary for the security of a free State. Since even the most ardent anti-gunner does recognize that the US has enemies, foreign and domestic, and that sometimes warfare is necessary, and that those who fight are in the form of the most organized type of militia that exists, I don’t hear anyone espousing this position.

    Finally, they may wish to argue that a well-regulated Militia does not depend on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

    This last is actually the point that the anti-gunners are trying to establish: that we can have a free state, even if all fire-arms are under the control of the government. To this end, they talk about Great Britain and Australia, two countries which have essentially disarmed their citizens, and cry ‘See? It can be done!’

    And if I may offer a rebuttal at this point, I would say that they are essentially advocating rape, and then demanding that the victim give retroactive consent.

    I do not have to justify my right to own a gun. I do not give ANYONE permission to take my firearms away from me without due process. And any government that attempts to do so is EXACTLY that government the Second Amendment is designed to repel.

    Have a nice day.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. I knew Nicki was smart, but this post makes me want to add brilliant, incisive, astute to my adjectives for her…and yet none would be adequate in describing her work on this. Read it and weep, gun-rights deniers. She killed your arguments without firing a shot. She just sliced you to ribbons in a few hundred well researched words.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Oh wow. Lee, that’s much too high a praise! I just do research (and have a husband with a history degree who proofreads my stuff to make sure I’m not talking out of my ass). But thank you!

      Like

  6. Someone probably ought to mention that the 3/5th person thing was about the fact that the states where slaves were property and had no rights whatsoever, their owners wanted to count their slaves as “whole” people in order for those slave holding states to be afforded more seats in Congress for slave owners to sit in. States where slavery was illegal felt that if you weren’t going to count someone as a person in one context, you shouldn’t be able to do so in another context, just because it bought you more seats in Congress for slave owners to sit in.

    (I realize this is off-topic but…)

    Liked by 1 person

  7. well done ma’am. I tip my hat to you. never let them baffle you with BS.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Dammit Nicki…..I hate it when you write such a thorough fisking, that there’s really nothing that I can add. It’s almost too bad that the intellectual midget who fancies himself a 2nd Amendment scholar, didn’t trot out the tired canards of “weapons of war” and “but, the Founders couldn’t have possibly envisioned the firearms of today!?!?!”

    Since you left me in predictable stunned silence, I’ll just share this on my site.

    Liked by 2 people

  9. […] Source: What America’s Freedom-Hating, Hoplophobic, Lying Financial Columnists Will Try and Tell You […]

    Like

  10. “Invade the US? That would be madness! There would be riflemen behind every hill, behind every tree” But when the invasion is from within?

    Like

  11. Nice analysis!

    I suppose that this has been done by lots of other people (I am thinking of the writing in Heller) but, anyway … what does this mean?

    “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.”

    Maybe we misinterpreted the 2nd Amendment. Let’s fiddle around with the words in the Amendment and make different parts the primary goal.

    Suppose that the founding fathers had wanted to say, “in order to keep our state free we need a well regulated militia”. Then what is the point of talking about arming the militia members? The sentence would come out something like, “in order to keep our state free we need a well regulated militia and those people have a right to carry arms”, well that is kind of obvious and it neither confers a right on the people or the government. It is a given that a well-regulated militia would have arms.

    Or “… and there is an un-infringed right for them to keep and bear arms”. There is no need for the the part about rights. The Framers did not use language that way.

    Or, a slightly different way, “a well-regulated militia will keep our state free”. I end up with the same issues.

    Suppose that the Framers wanted to say in effect, “we need a militia instead of a standing army”? We have the same problem. If the arms that the people can keep and bear are kept in an armory and only issued out during drill, the whole sentence is nonsense.

    My point: the Second Amendment only makes sense when we read it “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because, in order to keep our State secure we must have a well-regulated militia and the members of that militia must bring their own arms.” I am not an English artist, please rewrite, but I hope I make my point.

    Like

  12. Another minor, off topic, point. Indians weren’t counted as 3/5ths of a person, Indians weren’t counted at all. More reason to doubt his ability to read.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. Good point. I was so focused on the slaves issue, I failed to address that.

      Like

  13. I think it is sad that a purportedly educated man could be so ignorant. This shows a serious lack of critical thinking skills that a university graduate should possess. He certainly did not get his money’s worth. After reading his bio and his employment history I certainly understand. Education is not required for propagandist. In fact ignorance is a desirable trait for such useful idiots, er….. workers. Ken

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Kaiser Derden

      not educated, misinformed with a diploma to prove it …

      Like

  14. Wonder how Arends would deal with me? After 27 years I retired from the Army and was clearly told I was subject to recall. After 911, I called about coming back. Was told I wouldn’t be called up unless full mobilization occurred. “Well regulated?” Hell yes.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. My uncle was a lifer in the army. Korean and Vietnam veteran both. Retired and was also subject to recall. He lived in Junction City, KS. He had one week to report to Ft. Riley if recalled, and would be shipped to Ft. Benning as an instructor. And thanks for your service. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out. It does seem kind of an insult, when those who have given so much are required to give even more.

      Like

  15. I’ve seen so many variations on this argument, that I’m just tired of it. Because there’s one, fundamental fisking of it that I’ve never seen an idiot like Arends even _answer_, let alone _counter_.

    The right to keep and bear arms is granted to “the people”. How does “the people” mean something different (the government) in the 2nd amendment, than it does (individuals) in the 1st, 4th, 9th, and 10th amendments, given that the entire Bill of Rights was written by the same authors, at the same time, on the same sheet of paper, with the same pen? And given that the 10th amendment explicitly mentions “the people” and “the States” as different concepts.

    Because if it means the same thing in all cases, and “the people” means “the government, you have no right to freedom of the press, or of religion, or privacy, or to speedy trial, or… to basically anything. All you have is table scraps, granted to you by your lords and masters.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. I watched someone (Ron Reagan–no, not the president, his son) flat out lie one time and tell an audience of hundreds that in no case in the constitution does “the people” reference an individual right, therefore the second amendment doesn’t, either.

      Like

  16. Oh, and regarding the “bright people who think they’re experts on everything” – I refer to that as the Mensa fallacy. That being a bright, accomplished person in one field automatically makes you an expert in any field you care to comment on. VERY common amongst the intelligentsia.

    Had a bout of that mid-week with a family practice lawyer who wanted to lecture on how strict scrutiny really works, and 2A civil rights law. Kinda funny she hadn’t even read Heller when making pronouncements…

    Like

  17. The Second Amendment doesn’t give me the right to own a gun, it recognizes my right to keep and bear ARMS, which includes guns, knives, swords, switchblades, clubs, nunchucks, brass knuckles, et al. Let us not forget that our self-appointed masters have imposed severe limitations on all of these items, which are also covered by the Second Amendment.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Notoce, too, that their reasons for regulating various items are hypocritical and self-contradictory: we shouldn’t be allows short-barreled shotguns (or brass knuckles, or switchblades) because they have no militia purpose, but we shouldn’t be allowed short-barreled rifles or fully automatic rifles because they are “military” weapons.

      Most of the creaky case-law anti second amendment case law built up over the past couple centuries is almost comically disingenuous. In my opinion, we need to reset the slate straight bac to “shall not be infringed.”

      That doesn’t mean “unduly infringed” or “unreasonably infringed” — contructions I’ve seen even supposedly pro-grun legal scholars used. It means not infringed *at all* — not even a shadow of infringement.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. When someone exasperatedly asks “What part of ‘shall not be infringed’ do they not understand,” I’ll say “The ‘not,’ of course.”

        My alternate theory is that incoming federal judges are issued the special goggles that let them see the invisible ink which reads “…except when we goddamn feel like it.” (Complete with the tail on the comma we thought was a period after “infringed”)

        Like

  18. Sister, you knocked it in the creek. Best posting since I’ve visited your blog and definitely the most deserving of mass dissemination.

    Preach.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Wow! Thank you! Feel free to dissem far and wide.🙂

      Like

  19. “Fourth point of contact.”

    My dad used to say that to me, usually in context of getting my head out of my fourth point when I was being stupid. Perfectly fitting that I read this on Father’s Day.

    Liked by 2 people

  20. The bill of rights was meant to remind that there are limits on the Federal government. It is so unfortunate that the people it is meant to free are the very ones who want to enslave themselves.

    Liked by 2 people

  21. Nikki, sometimes it seems as though you just whip these things out off the top of your head, and hit the ball out of the park. ‘It’s nothing, just another hour or so at the keyboard.” As my uncle used to say, “you hit the nail with your head this time.”

    I find the meat of the matter in your last sentence when you mention intellectual honesty. When you start with a desired conclusion and contort the argument to support that conclusion, what you get is meaningless. Thanks for the post.

    Liked by 2 people

  22. Isn’t the little balding douche nugget a Brit? His bio says something about “chartered” where we would say “certified.” Plus his weak, statist ass is all over hysteria about the Brexit.

    Like

    1. No, but he went to college in Oxford.

      Like

  23. Reblogged this on Food for Thought and commented:
    Oh,this gal is a treasure! Clear-minded, logical, and ferocious. I like!

    Liked by 1 person

  24. I sometimes think we really should all have the elected Captain of our local Militia company on speed dial. I think that would be in keeping with the intentions of the founders.

    I seem to recall reading that the phrase “well regulated militia” traced back to the English Civil War, and referred originally to troops raised by Parliament outside the King’s (executive branch) control. I might have run across that in something by Stephen Halbrook or David Kopel, but I’m not sure.

    Like

  25. Well done.

    Never submit.
    Never surrender.
    Molon Labe’.

    Jeffersonian

    Liked by 1 person

  26. I suggest that the major selling point of the Federalists for an armed citizenry is the Faustian bargain they proposed to ensure that the US government had a Standing Army. Hamilton in particular jousted repeatedly with the Anti-Federalists over the issue of a Standing Army, Hamilton insisting that the USA could not have a powerful and efficient government without one. The bargain he proposed was that The People would be armed and have Militias sufficient to oppose the Standing Army if it got out of hand. As the Constitution had already been written before the debate, the 2nd Amendment was needed to balance the implied Standing Army contained in the Constitution.

    Like

  27. Maybe then [Arends] will be more intellectually honest, or at least more informed.

    I wouldn’t bet the rent on it. Lefties, with particular emphasis on anti-gunners, exhibit a well-developed proclivity for rejecting information that clashes with their religious faith (i.e., leftism). That’s why trying to argue with them using facts and logic is so frustrating.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Like trying to teach a pig to sing.

      Like

  28. So, a guy who took part (and was fatally wounded) in a pistol duel did not believe in the right to own a gun? Mmmmokay…

    Like

    1. That’s not what he said. Not exactly, anyway. He just somehow tried to equate that right with government control, which is ridiculous.

      Like

  29. The DC Court of Appeals and SCOTUS rulings in Parker/Heller (case no 04-7041 at US Court of Appeals for the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, and case no 07-290 at SCOTUS) are great reads on the issue and go into detail on how the militia was assigned, why the amendment is written the way it is.

    Bottom line- the amendment is written the way it is because the existing right to keep and bear arms at the time of the funding was deemed an essential liberty AND a well-regulated militia is impossible if the people did have the RKBA.

    Like

    1. … sorry, impossible if the people did not have the RKBA’

      I really need to proof read better before I post…

      Like

  30. The anti-2nd Amendment community has for a long time deliberately misread the amendment, to the point of ignoring the logic structure of the sentence.

    The structure is this:

    “This is a benefit derived from X; the rights to X shall not be infringed.”

    To read it in any different context requires deliberate, intentional ignorance.

    For example; suppose we said:

    “Healthy bones being good for children, the right of children to drink milk shall not be infringed”.

    The “progressive” read of that sentence, taken as they read the 2nd amendment, would be: “Only children with healthy bones are allowed to drink milk”.

    Excuse me, but you have to be a real arse to interpret that sentence that way.

    “Quality orchestras being of value to the culture of the state, the right of the people to own and play musical instruments shall not be infringed”.

    Clearly I’ve just said that only orchestra members can own or play instruments?

    They are not making a mistake with their faulty interpretation- it’s very chillingly deliberate deception.

    “A well balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.”

    Who has the right to keep and eat food? A well balanced breakfast or the people?

    “A well-read electorate being important to a representative democracy, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed”.

    The modern day gun controller would demand that only those on the voting rolls have the freedom to read and keep books. This shows their moral and ethical bankruptcy.

    But let’s take one last look at that sentence construction. The importance of a horse in the 18th century to army personnel was extremely high. It was their transportation, it was their luggage carrier, and they could even eat it if necessary during a siege. Therefore, it was paramount to know that all the milita could show up with their horse in hand when called upon. So… the Founding Fathers put a clause in the Constitution that read something such as this:

    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and ride horses shall not be infringed”

    Now, based upon the interpretations of those who have difficulty understanding English they would have us believe that only those who belong to the milita have the “right” to keep and ride a horse. No other people do. Not farmers. Not cowboys. Not teamsters. Not stagecoach companies. Not little girls with their ponies. No one has the “right” to keep and ride a horse except a “militia member.”

    And furthermore, those that have the “right” to keep and ride a horse must abide by the government regulations as to the particular, allowable breed of horse, the number of legs the horse must have, how old it must be, how tall it can be, the color of its hair, how long the mane can be, whether or not it is male or female, and if it is gelded. Not to mention the total number of horses one can keep and ride, or the sum total poundage of the herd.

    If this seems exceptionally silly… that is because the basic argument of those who dismiss the 2nd Amendment as only applying to the miltia is exceptionally silly. They really know that deep in their heart… which is why they generally just wave their hands and don’t ty to actually defend their position.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. And now I know what Jack Burton says at a time like this.😉

      Like

  31. “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.”

    Like

  32. please stop drinking ANY cool aid.

    OMG they are taking my guns, taking my guns, taking my guns…

    Wait no one ever said ANY thing similar to that.
    They are not taking my guns, more are they taking your guns.

    But if I show up on a list, that says: I might not be stable enough to be trusted flying on an airplane. THEN I would not be able to buy a new gun.

    ummm

    THAT is not taking, it is an attempt at preventing.
    Possibly, even a common sense attempt & an extremely limited one at that.

    In that context if you want to go after something,
    Rail about how difficult it is to get off the no fly list!

    Like

    1. What is this incoherent babbling?

      OMG they are taking my guns, taking my guns, taking my guns…

      Wait no one ever said ANY thing similar to that.
      They are not taking my guns, more are they taking your guns.

      Except for the growing calls to repeal the Second Amendment, right?

      But if I show up on a list, that says: I might not be stable enough to be trusted flying on an airplane. THEN I would not be able to buy a new gun.

      DUE PROCESS, MOTHERFUCKER! DO YOU KNOW IT?

      In that context if you want to go after something,
      Rail about how difficult it is to get off the no fly list!

      Already have.

      Like

%d bloggers like this: