“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the will of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”
Seems pretty cut and dry right, until the leftists and their echo chamber of steeple get ahold of it, bastardize it, and try to interpret it after dropping an entire sheet of acid. How else does anybody explain some of the crazy shit they come up with, so lets begin shall we?
There is a very good reason that this amendment is short, sweet and to the point. The founders did not think that we as a society would devolve so much in our education that we needed to be taught what this meant. Well, if you ask one of the many steeple out in liberal land, they will tell you a variety of things “only the militia, should have guns” is one. Okay, lets look at that, who were the militia? The people, you see our country was founded with the idea that we were not going to have a standing army, and that the citizens of this country were to keep and bear their arms should the need to use them arise against any enemy foreign or domestic….see what I did there?`
Want some context on this one? No problem. Shortly after we actually retained a standing army, most of the founders and writers of the amendment were still alive, anybody see a push back then to change it? No, okay so that argument is shot down, let’s go on to the next one then “muskets is what the founders meant, they could not have envisioned such weapons of war”. Except they could, look up the pickle gun, fascinating I tell you and would put even my lovely AR-15 you see at the top to shame. Also, if you believe that argument stop reading this, how could they have ever envisioned the advent of the internet, or automated printing. Nope, unless you managed to read this off of the old school printing press where Poor Richards journal was also printed, or this is on parchment paper and written with a quill and inkwell, then I suggest you ignore this argument. More clarity?
The founders were very specific in how vague they were. Hell, they didn’t even mention the word gun, or firearm. The left it at arms, because to defend yourself and others from all enemies, they didn’t care what you used, but to take up arms. In fact,they wrote all amendments to account for future innovations. Just like they wrote in the ability to amend the constitution, it is not some living document as most liberal college professors would have you believe. It does not breathe, eat nor sleep. It cannot change itself, but those changes must be brought about through a very specific process. (Hint: the supreme court is not the process). So the next time, somebody talks about what the founders could and could not envision for the future remind them of these things.
Speaking of professors, maybe they should go back and realize that there is punctuation in the amendment. I know, a student did not turn it in for a grade, rather it was published some 240 years ago, but punctuation still meant things back then. Those commas that separate the militia from the people include a very key phrase, in a very key place. It explains the need for a well regulated militia, that is it. Take it out and how does the amendment read? A well regulated militia the right of the people to keep……that doesn’t make any sense at all, now does it? Nope, not one damned bit. The founders were very mistrusting of the government from which they had just been freed and also very mistrusting of governments in general. They did not want a standing army, but this part of the amendment technically justified having one.
What it didn’t do was absolve the people’s right to keep and bear arms. It did not imply, allude to or otherwise try to construe the people as members of the government. Instead the entire purpose of the constitution is to remind that government that they work for the people, not the other way around. I know it is hard to believe nowadays, but it is true. Which reminds me, why did the founders think it important to include this amendment, because tyrannical government. I cannot drive that point home hard enough.
Well I think I have beat this horse plenty, apparently shooting the horse wasn’t enough. Sadly, there will still be those who try to use the courts or other means to circumvent the constitution and all of our rights to self preservation. The first thing any tyrant wants to do is take away your guns, be very careful of who you elect to office, they may bite your in the ass while you are held at gun point, if only you hadn’t voted your right to have one away.