It matters. Really matters.
The 2nd Amendment, a crucial, and the most generally agreed upon Amendment and condition of ratification of The USC, by the individual but separate, (critically important), sovereign states, The Peoples, get that, The People, not the governments, Right To Arms became almost a uniformly universal ratifying condition set by these states before they would sign on the dotted line. Can it be any plainer than that. A truly relative condition and integral inherent foundational inclusive historical precedent component of our governing document, The US Constitution.
So it begs, it screams, the question, WTF!: just who the hell has been messing with the written structure of the 2nd Amendment??? Why are they altering its foundational meaning and intent? Not how they whoever “they” is, changed the 2nd Amendment, this is self evident, but why and for what purposes was this undertaken, is the salient question. But to get to that answer, it is necessary to find out and document first how it was accomplished, this fundamental alteration without even so much as a whisper of having a Constitutional Convention or 2/3’rds Majority of both houses of the Congress, or the individual States legislatures and their peoples consent and blessings.
Do you grasp the ramifications of the hubris and malice involved here, for something so simple as a colon?
It is FUBAR is what this is now.
Do you feel your gorge rising?
Have this feeling you need to have a bone in your teeth and a combat rifle in your hands?
A most suitable target for your sights.
And the insatiable need to discharge your rifle in vast exuberance at such targets?
Brother and sister you should.
I surely have these urges.
I’m pissed off.
This shit is unacceptable in no uncertain terms it is no negotiable.
End of discussion.
Because We all got conned big time.
In this Republic, exactly because its inviolate framework is just, there are no corrupt aspects within that framework, the framework is inherently legitimate, only illegitimate corrupt actors on the inside and outside: there are no such things which exists as natural, spontaneous, unrelated, isolated, purely coincidental, unconnected, politically, socially, culturally convenient happenstance. The Republic which is not subject to usurpations, is indeed fully functioning within the framework of intent as founded are not subjected to such specious activity. An entity of a Republic can not become corrupt. Only people become corrupt and corrupt inanimate objects such as A Republic. That there are no natural happenstances inherent such as first listed in an uncorrupted Republic, this exactly applies for everything from the massacre at Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas to 911, and everything in between, before and after, including the insidious magical alteration in secret of the wording of The 2nd Amendment.
Because the 2nd Amendment, not its existence so much, as a sentence in an Amendment, but, and its a BIG BEAUTIFUL BUT, what the 2nd implies is everything, because this natural right is all which has stood in the way of usurpation to unlimited raw naked power over our republic and ourselves, simply, because we have guns, and lots of them, and we never hesitate to remind prospective tyrants. This amendment lends political credence to our natural unalienable primal birth rights to such recourse if they waver in their sworn trusted duties as representatives, elected, and more so in some ways, unelected government actors.
Revisiting Gary Hunt’s and fellow researchers, decades long masterpiece carefully investigated as these things must be, with great circumcision, what clearly proves how they parse us into tyranny a tiny piece at a time by rearranging punctuation. That is no accident. Thus a subtle change is the grammatical composition of the singular intent of the framers of codifying our God granted natural rights, into become something else entirely. All this requires is an extra colon or where a colon is placed within the framework of a compound sentence. Cute.
Cant speak for anyone else, there is no way this is by mistake or by total ignorance, or even chance. They do not permit moron’s nor the ignorant modify and change willy nilly the intents and meanings within the most important document in existence which created the modern state, warts and all. Either changes are for good and proper reasons only within the frame work, or, they are malicious changes with intent totally outside the intent and framework. You only get to pick one.
The built in safeguards of The USC only permit the first. The second reason is self explanatory: Ulterior Motive
Copy and pasted, (without alteration), here is an excerpt from Mr. Gary Hunt’s Out Post of Freedom‘s: The Real Second Amendment and Militia Related Information
The Library of Congress, the NARA (National Archives and Records Administration), University of Indiana, various sources within South Carolina, North Carolina, Alabama, Archives of Delaware, Legislative Archives of Kentucky, Archives of Maryland, Archives of Pennsylvania, Archives of New Hampshire, Archives of New Jersey, Archives of Massachusetts, Archives of Connecticut, Archives of Vermont, Archives of Ohio, Archives of Virginia, Archives and Library of Georgia. Also, various on line resources, especially Google Books, from which hundreds of historical publications can be found.
Special thanks to the members of the Team (names withheld) that has been a source of many hours of input, review, proofreading, and other assistance, in the preparation of this article, and many before it.
A basic historical and grammatical analysis of the Second Amendment
This is the full, erroneous, text of the Second Amendment
Complete Second Amendment text, as ratified.
“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.”
It’s short and sweet–done so, ironically, to avoid confusion. However, it could be argued that the confusion is only an emotional one.
The Second Amendment is a compound sentence with an independent clause preceded by two modifying dependent clauses.
The Supreme Court interprets “A well-regulated militia.” as implying the imposition of proper discipline and training.” IMPOSED proper discipline and training. People that argue the second amendment protects gun ownership usually ignore this fundamental point.
Paraphrased, the second amendment modifies the keeping of arms with regulation through compelled discipline and training.
The second clause, “being necessary to the security of a free state,” modifies the first and main parts. Why do we need a well-regulated militia? It is needed “To protect the security and freedom of the state.”
It is this simple. Well regulated gun ownership the security of the free states is the only function for which well-regulated gun is guaranteed.
To paraphrase, the first two, modifying clauses establish that a well-regulated and trained militia that is necessary for the security and freedom of the states.
The final part, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”, is equally clear, but maybe not at first glance. It establishes the right of “the people.” This is tied to something called the “body politic.” It’s a phrase you might have heard from some bloviated gas-bag posting in a highfalutin’ journal… ahem… and have a decent sense of what it means, yet never really checked. I used to think it meant the body of politics.
It actually means, “the people of a nation, state, or society considered collectively as a group of citizens,” and “a group of persons politically organized.” A body politic is also “a metaphor in which a nation is considered to be a corporate entity.” (Under the old use of the word corporate, also known as a municipal corporation…)
The intent of ratification is that it is ratified, as is (without change). It is to approve and sanction, not to modify. If it is modified, it is no longer the same as it was when ratified.
The House of Representatives presented to the Senate seventeen proposed amendments. Between both houses of Congress, they then reduced that to twelve and settled upon the final wording. If ratification changes that wording, then they are not ratifying that which was presented. This could result in an unending task of resolving, until the ratifications were in agreement, to determine what the final result would be. However, Congress did the final resolving. The states’ only duty was to ratify, or not.
We can surmise that the acceptance of a sufficient number of states ratification of the Second Amendment was based upon that which was proposed, as well as what the greater number of states agreed upon in their ratification returns. This would mean that wording and punctuation of the Resolution of Congress of September 25, 1789, is the Second Amendment, as ratified in accordance with Article V of the Constitution. To wit:
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.
[Note that there is only one comma in the Amendment.]
We can understand better the intent of the amendment by reviewing Fifth Article in the initial proposal of seventeen amendments:
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
It is clear that it was understood that the “militia” is “composed of the body of the people“. That was so readily understood that what the militia was, the body of the people, and that it was not necessary to repeat it in the final proposed amendment.
In its final form, it follows a grammatical structure that is found in most resolutions of the day. A resolution would generally begin with a “Whereas”, providing the foundation for a perceived necessity. This is followed by a “Therefore”, this providing the solution or resolution of the necessity.
Applying this logic to the Second Amendment, we can easily understand:
Whereas, A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state;
Therefore, The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Before we consider the publications that have, over the last few centuries, published the Second amendment, we need to understand a bit about punctuation in the Eighteenth Century.
In researching punctuation of that era, I found an article, “When Did People Start Using Punctuation?” (http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2016/05/origins-punctuation-marks/). It gives us an understanding of the change in use of commas and the fact that the practice of light punctuation that we use today was slowly adopted over a period of centuries.
The article explains that the use of a comma:
[B]egan to change after the publication of Ben Jonson’s English Grammar (1640) in which he illustrated how punctuation could help preserve an author’s original intention, rather than just giving a guide to how to read a text out-loud. Well received, by the time of the Restoration (1660), using punctuation for syntactical purposes was finally common, and in fact, by the 18th century, excessive punctuation (such as placing a comma between every possible phrase) had become a major problem. . . Overuse of punctuation continued to some extent through the late 19th century.
Now, that overuse went well into the late 1800s, and this is to be considered, as we continue.
During the course of researching the historical record, we have located 490 publications that include the Bill of Rights as proposed, the object being the “Article the Fourth”; or including the Bill of Rights, as ratified, being the “Second Amendment”.
The publications include: Federal authorized publications, State authorized publications, general works for public consumption; Published Newspapers; a state authorized broadside; and, publications for educational purposes.
Constitution RE People and Militia
Preamble to the Constitution of the United States
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
In this instance, the “People” included only those who had a right to vote (being male freeholders – owning land or having an estate of a certain value). Those voters then elected delegates to a Convention. The Conventions then ratified the Constitution. In this usage of “People”, it refers to a limited number, based solely upon their qualifications to vote within their respective state.
From the 1856 Supreme Court decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 we can get a glimpse of the then perception of “People”. From that decision, we find:
“The words ‘people of the United States’ and ‘citizens’ are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the ‘sovereign people,’ and every citizen is one of this [these] people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty.”
Our Constitution created the first government in the history of the world that was put into place by a process that began in the community; sent delegates to state conventions; then, in convention, to determine to ratify, or not, that Constitution.
It is also the first time in the history of the world that a government was created, and within its founding document, the Constitution, had a provision for amendments, based on experience or necessity, could be ratified and become a part of the Constitution.
Two states, North Carolina and Rhode Island, would not ratify the Constitution until certain amendments were proposed for the protection of certain rights. These proposed amendments were to assure that the rights of the people and of the States would be further protected against encroachment by the newly created federal government. This was a serious concern to the people of that period, as they had thought that their charters and autonomy were protected until Britain decided that once given, the rights of the people and the authority granted by the colonial charters could be modified or extinguished.
The Ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights
We can look back to a letter from George Washington, written on September 17, 1787, and addressed to “His Excellency the PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS”. That Congress, of course, was the Continental Congress, operating under the Articles of Confederation. Attached to the letter was a copy of the Constitution, which had been signed by the delegates, unanimously.
We have now the honor to submit to the consideration of the United States in Congress assembled, that Constitution which has appeared to us the most adviseable.
The friends of our country have long seen and desired, that the power of making war, peace, and treaties, that of levying money and regulating commerce, and the correspondent executive and judicial authorities should be fully and effectually vested in the general government of the Union: But the impropriety of delegating such extensive trust to one body of men is evident—Hence results the necessity of a different organization.
It is obviously impracticable in the federal government of these states, to secure all rights of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for the interest and safety of all: Individuals entering into society must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. The magnitude of the sacrifice must depend as well on situation and circumstance, as on the object to be obtained. It is at all times difficult to draw
In all our deliberations on this subject we kept steadily in our view, that which appears to us the greatest interest of every true American, the consolidation of our Union, in which is involved our prosperity, felicity, safety, perhaps our national existence. This important consideration, seriously and deeply impressed on our minds, led each state in the Convention to be less rigid on points of inferior magnitude, than might have been otherwise expected; and thus the Constitution, which we now present, is the result of a spirit of amity, and of that mutual deference and concession which the peculiarity of our political situation rendered indispensible.
That it will meet the full and entire approbation of every state is not perhaps to be expected ; but each will doubtless consider, that had her interest been alone consulted, the consequences might have been particularly disagreeable or injurious to others ; that it is liable to as few exceptions as could reasonably have been expected, we hope and believe; that it may promote the lasting welfare of that country so dear to us all, and secure her freedom and happiness, is our most ardent wish.
With great respect, We have the honor to be, Sir, Your Excellency’s
most obedient and humble servants,
GEORGE WASHINGTON, President.
by unanimous Order of the Convention.
However, the Constitution would not create a new government, displacing the Continental Congress, until ratified, without changes, by nine of the 13 independent countries. The duty fell on the Continental Congress to accept and forward or simply ignore and let die, the outcome of the Philadelphia Convention.
Read The Whole Thing Here
This issue of our time can not be over emphasized. Everything revolves around us mere dirt people having guns. Everything stems out from this. Our Colonial Era founding decendents understood this in no uncertain terms, hell, they just fought and won the greatest most successful revolution for freedom from tyranny in all of history. And here we stand today because of OUR guns in OUR hands. Because of our guns we have held back tyranny in all its totalitarian hideous form. WE are indeed on the threshold of the final stage of imposition of this totalitarian raw naked power so evident breathing down our throats. Yet, such a simple thing as our personal property, (that being the first thing) in the form of our guns, is The Bulwark, the only prohibition, against tyranny. We can split hairs and argue forever how “free” we are or how much Liberty we live under, but the crux of this great issue of mankind is we are indeed not defenseless unarmed slaves of tyrants and their systems of dictatorship and raw naked power.
We, us, We The People, more than enough of us, composing that incredibly mysterious profound, yet powerful beyond compare “plurality”, a tyrants wet dream of power they can never attain because illegitimacy of such usurpers, this Plurality of people which we who are armed constitute, because tyrant, because self defense, because protecting life porperty and family, because Liberty, because natural born rights, because primal reason of survival, because we want to, because we can, because we own that right, because it is non of your fucking business, BFYTW. And it is not the right, not the purview, not the place, not the business, not the power, not anything any persons institutions mechanisms “laws” manmade defacto or attainder of writ nor the congress or any branch of government nor the president himself, the whole lot it it and them, to say or do anything regarding our guns. Unless we request or provide our consent. And even then it is all subject to our power as the governed to change or stop any and all within that framework of Mind Your Own Business, illustriously known as MYOB!
It is imperative to refer to both the introduction and conclusion of David E. Vandercoy”s superlative essay The History of The Second Amendment. The historical context of Vandercoy’s assumptive masterpiece is the most factual relative historical reference as to the reason why us dirt people need to be armed and why it is essential to our lives in every respect. And why it has always been about guns. Who has them who does not. Who controls guns and who is controlled by them. Who wants to take everyone elses guns and who refuses to comply. Everything today in our present circumstances has always been about guns, but now it is at the pivotal moment where if we do not keep our guns we are truly screwed. Do Not. Never. Ever. For Any Reason. Give Up Your Guns.
Here you go. I hope you read the whole thing. It is pretty darn good. You will discover things you never knew existed. Really cool things. Empowering concepts, ideas, precepts, and your legacy. It is all there jam packed into this awesome piece of critical history:
Long overlooked or ignored, the Second Amendment has become the object of some study and much debate. One issue being discussed is whether the Second Amendment recognizes the right of each citizen to keep and bear arms, or whether the right belongs solely to state governments and empowers each state to maintain a military force.
The debate has resulted in odd political alignments which in turn have caused the Second Amendment to be described recently as the most embarrassing provision of the Bill of Rights.Embarrassment results from the politics associated with determining whether the language creates a state’s right or an individual right. Civil libertarians support the individual rights recognized in the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments and defend these rights against governmental abuse. Civil libertarians insist that each citizen be accorded the right to free speech, even if the citizen is a Nazi hatemonger. Similarly, criminals can count on a vigorous defense of the fourth amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches as well as the fifth amendment right not to incriminate oneself. All of this is true even though most of us would (p.1008)agree that Nazi hate language is of no utility, and a criminal’s confession, absent coercion, and the fruits of a search of his or her house are among the best indicators of actual guilt or innocence. Yet, we zealously defend these rights on the premise that governmental abuse of power is a greater evil than that posed by individual hatemongers or criminals.
In the context of the Second Amendment, civil libertarian instincts are overcome by our fear of one another. As a consequence, we find civil libertarian organizations, such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), acting as participants in such groups as the National Coalition to Ban Handguns. Indeed, the ACLU, typically at the forefront of defending individual rights against an encroaching government, takes the position that the Second Amendment protects only the state’s right to an organized military–a well-regulated militia. It rejects any suggestion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right.
While this phenomenon is interesting, it is not the subject of this Article. My purpose is much narrower. I will address the history of the Second Amendment and attempt to define its original intent. I will not suggest that original intent is controlling. On this point, I am reminded that George Washington once suggested, “Individuals entering into society, must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. The magnitude of the sacrifice must (p.1009)depend as well on situation and circumstance, as on the object to be obtained.”
The purpose of this Article is only to define those shares of liberty the Framers intended to retain and those given up in the context of the Second Amendment. By way of preview, this Article will contend that the original intent of the Second Amendment was to protect each individual’s right to keep and bear arms, and to guarantee that individuals acting collectively could throw off the yokes of any oppressive government which might arise. Thus, the right envisioned was not only the right to be armed, but to be armed at a level equal to the government.
To determine the original intent of the Second Amendment, this Article will examine the history of armed citizens in England, the Federalist and Antifederalist debates, the meaning of the word “militia,” the constitutional ratification process, and the various state constitutions in existence at the time.
English history made two things clear to the American revolutionaries: force of arms was the only effective check on government, and standing armies threatened liberty. Recognition of these premises meant that the force of arms necessary to check government had to be placed in the hands of citizens. The English theorists Blackstone and Harrington advocated these tenants. Because the public purpose of the right to keep arms was to check government, the right necessarily belonged to the individual and, as a matter of theory, was thought to be absolute in that it could not be abrogated by the prevailing rulers.
These views were adopted by the framers, both Federalists and Antifederalists. Neither group trusted government. Both believed the greatest danger to the new republic was tyrannical government and that the ultimate check on tyranny was an armed population. It is beyond dispute that the second amendment right was to serve the same public purpose as advocated by the English theorists. The check on all government, not simply the federal government, was the armed population, the militia. Government would not be accorded the power to create a select militia since such a body would become the government’s instrument. The whole of the population would comprise the militia. As the constitutional debates prove, the framers recognized that the common public purpose of preserving freedom would be served by protecting each individual’s right to arms, thus empowering the people to resist tyranny and preserve the republic. The intent was not to create a right for other (p.1039)governments, the individual states; it was to preserve the people’s right to a free state, just as it says.
(but you already knew this)