A Discussion of the 2nd Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution
A Discussion of the 2nd Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution
What does it even mean?
First, what is
the Bill of Rights?
“The Bill of Rights is the collective* name for the first
ten amendments to the United States Constitution, a
document which limits the power of the U.S. federal
government. These limitations serve to […affirm, and
thus…] protect the natural rights of liberty and
property including freedoms of religion, speech, a free
press, free assembly, and free association, as well as
the right to keep and bear arms….”
*That’s the ONLY thing “collective” about them; our rights are NOT “collective!”
of the U.S.
Bill of Rights
was and is NOT,
in fact, to grant these
to U.S. citizens!
Clearly, our citizens
already had these
The unambiguous purpose
of the Bill of Rights was to
affirm the inalienable rights
ALREADY assured ALL
(…and granted by God!!)
Again, the Bill of Rights thus, indisputably,
restricts the power of the government and
NOT the people!
(The Bill of Rights also doesn’t establish the militia either!)
“….And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for
which our forebears fought are still at issue
around the globe -- the belief that the rights of
man come not from the generosity of the state,
but from the hand of God….”
John F. Kennedy’s Inaugural Address
January 20, 1960
Let’s examine what the authors
and founders meant when they
created the 2ND Amendment to
the Bill of Rights! Before we do,
note the following…
“The first and governing maxim in the
interpretation of a statute is to discover
the meaning of those who made it.”
James Wilson, an original Supreme Court Justice
(This means: Do not spin your “interpretation“
to fit your political agenda, or to suit your pals!)
The Second Amendment:
“A well regulated militia, being necessary
to the security of a free State, the right of
the people to keep and bear Arms, shall
not be infringed.”
What does this mean?
NOTE: First, we must define militia, given that
the primary ploy used by 2nd Amendment
revisionists is to purposely pervert
the definition of the “militia!”
They do this to misrepresent the right to keep
and bear arms as a “collective” rather than
individual right, even though that position is
entirely inconsistent with the clear intent of the
entire Bill of Rights that points to individuals!
So it’s critical to make clear what the
authors meant by the militia!
What is the militia?
"A militia, when properly
formed, are in fact
the people themselves...
and include all men capable
of bearing arms."
Richard Henry Lee, signer of the
U.S. Declaration of Independence
SIMPLE FACT: The militia is NOT the same as the
“military” that provides arms to its soldiers.
(which includes the National Guard!)
The militia is an armed entity only because it is
comprised of armed civilian citizens. This was only
possible because our citizens have the inalienable
right to keep and bear arms to protect themselves
and their families from harm, thus making forming
up the militia when needed possible!
Citizens did NOT become armed because of the
militia; the militia is an armed force because
our citizens, who can own and do bear arms!
Also, personnel in the
military almost invariably
wear standard, issued
Militia personnel virtually
without exception do NOT
wear uniforms! These
private citizens typically
wear their own clothing!
ANOTHER SIMPLE FACT: Further, this reference to
the “militia” was only added to the 2nd Amendment
after much discussion and after several early
versions which did not even mention it!
During the 1788 ratification debates, the fear that
the federal government would disarm the people in
order to impose rule through a standing army or
select militia was pervasive in Antifederalist
rhetoric! I.e., they did not want any wording that
would lead to infringement of the basic inalienable
and personal right to keep and bear arms. They
KNEW what the anti-gunners would try to do!!
Thus, both Federalists and Antifederalists
alike agreed during the ratification process
that the right to keep and bear arms was
fundamental to the newly formed system
of government, and not derived from the
need for the United States to have a militia.
ALL this was and is clearly and unambiguously
documented, so there is no excuse for
anyone to misunderstand this!
In fact, the militia reference was included because of
the pivotal contributions our militia made to the
Revolutionary cause, since the British military, with
its adherence to Napoleonic tactics, was hard-
pressed to deal with the guerilla-like tactics of a
(e.g., during the pivotal Battle of Cowpens)
Clearly, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment
is not to somehow “establish,” the militia as
revisionists also unhesitatingly and disengenously
claim. That issue, in fact, is specifically addressed
elsewhere in the U.S. Constitution
There is also no basis in the claim
that the meaning or purpose of the
Second Amendment changes over
time, or somehow depends on
whether or not the services of the
militia are needed at the time or not!
In fact, the idea behind the militia
is that it can be mobilized quickly
any time it’s needed!
(And no one can predict when that might be!)
And if change to our Constitution
is needed, the process for
amending it is also clearly and
And it is an open DEMOCRATIC
(Which may be a big problem for some!)
In fact, WWII Japanese Admiral Yamamoto knew
damn well what is meant by “The Militia!”
The statement that the militia shall
consist of all able-bodied…persons is also
embodied in most state constitutions, in
original versions and updates, viz.,
Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia
Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Main, Maryland, Michigan, Mississipi,
Missouri, Montana, New York, North Carolina,
North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina,
South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and
Now that the authors’ meaning
of “militia” is clear, does the
2nd Amendment affirm individual
rights, or is it still somehow
restricted to some sort of
“[T]he said Constitution
[should] be never
construed…to prevent the
people of the United States,
who are peaceable citizens,
from keeping their own
Samuel Adams, signer of the
Declaration, “Father of the
“The right of self-defence is the first law
of nature: in most governments it has
been the study of rulers to confine this
right within the narrowest limits possible.
Wherever…the right of the people to keep
and bear arms is, under any color or
pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if
not already annihilated, is on the brink of
from Blackstone’s Commentaries
St. George Tucker, a leader of the 1786 Annapolis Convention
that led to the convening to the Constitutional Convention, law
professor in the college of William & Mary, justice on the VA
Supreme Court and federal judge under James Madison.
“The right…of bearing arms…is declared to
be inherent in the people.”
Fisher Ames, a framer of the Second Amendment
in the First Congress.
“The great object is that every man be armed….
every one who is able may have a gun. But we have
not learned by experience that, necessary as it is to
have arms, …it is still far from not being the case.”
Governor, patriot, leader
“No [citizen] shall be
debarred the use of arms
within his own lands.”
signer of the Declaration
“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, signer of the Declaration,
and a framer of the Second Amendment
The Dred Scott Decision
In the 1856 Supreme Court decision Dred
Scott v. Sandford, the majority opinion
cautioned that if negroes were given the
full rights of citizenship, they would [God
forbid!] be “…entitled to the privileges
and immunities of citizens… and…would
exempt them from the operation of the
special laws …”
The Court majority also warned that “….it would give them the full
liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon
which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon
political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went!”
The Court denied Black folks arms by denying them citizenship!
The First Gun Control Laws in the United States
Following “The War of Northern
Aggression,” (Civil War) Democrats
in the South passed laws to severely
restrict the rights of its Black
citizens. Thus, the first gun
control laws in the U.S. were
actually Jim Crow laws specifically
implemented to keep Black folks
from protecting themselves
and their families from harm.
In particular, the harm came in the
form of very bad guys in white
sheets, who were the enforcement
arm of the Democratic party!
With the Civil War ending, the question of
the rights of freed slaves to carry arms and
to belong to militia came to the attention
of the Federal courts. In response to the
problems freed slaves faced in the
Southern states, the 14th Amendment
was drafted to protect the rights of ALL
citizens by keeping Southern Democrats
from making laws targeting our Black citizens!
100% of the Democrats in Congress voted
Representative John Armor Bingham
of Ohio was the principal framer
of the 14th Amendment.
When the amendment was drafted, Rep. Bingham used
the Court's own phrase "privileges and immunities of
citizens" to include the first eight Amendments of the
Bill of Rights under its protection and guard these rights
against state legislation. The debate in the Congress
on the 14th Amendment after the Civil War also
concentrated on what the Southern States were
doing to harm the newly freed slaves. One particular
concern was the disarming of former slaves.
Bingham, by the way, also made it
very clear at the time that the
14th Amendment did NOT confer
birthright citizenship on anyone born
in the United States, but only to
children of parents subject to our
laws, i.e., who were U.S. citizens,
and NOT of persons who were
merely visiting our country!
Union veterans Col. William C. Church &
Gen. George Wingate formed the, NRA,
National Rifle Association in 1871,
originally as an organization with a goal
to improve citizen marksmanship, given
that the typical Union soldier was a
Civil War Gen. Ambrose Burnside,
who was also the former governor
of Rhode Island and a U.S. Senator,
became the fledgling NRA's first
president. Recent members include
John F. Kennedy.
The meaning of the 2nd Amendment as an individual
right did not begin to get challenged until well into the
20th century, more than 150 years after the Bill of
Rights was adopted.
It was this change that motivated the membership of
the NRA to have the organization take up the battle
protecting the 2nd Amendment rights of our citizens,
thus becoming the oldest civil rights organization in
the United States!
Most creatures on earth can and do protect themselves
and their offspring, and often fellow members of their
species, from harm by predators
Why then are humans granted less “rights” than animals to protect themselves?
SAD FACT: Mankind is the ONLY
creature on this earth that denies
fellow members of its own species
the right to defend their own lives
and that of their families, including
their offspring, from predators!
Why? Because it’s not really about
guns, it’s actually all about control!
Hitler Qaddafi Mao Stalin
Castro Pol Pot Kim Jong Mentally Ill Idi Amin
…ALL experts in Gun Control!
Although some try it in the U.S. through end-around games
or by the back door, instead of direct confiscation, e.g., through
U.N. “treaties” or by trafficking guns into the hands of criminals,
i.e., Mexican drug gangs, such as in the “Fast and Furious”
scheme to blame gang shootings in Mexico on U.S. gun dealers
and “lax” U.S. gun laws! (Two U.S. Federal officers and over 200
Mexicans have been murdered as a result of this scheme!)
Despite misleading government claims that
allege that “…90% of the guns recovered by
Mexican authorities from drug gangs were
traced to U.S. gun stores and sold due to
‘lax’ U.S. gun laws”, in fact, almost 90% of
the recovered weapons were real military
hardware and came from international
sources, & Mexican military and police,
NOT “U.S. gun stores!”
With unlimited funds available,
Mexican druglords do not need to send
straw buyers to our gun stores to buy
Of the 11-12% of the recovered guns that were
traced, almost 90% were, in fact, trafficked into
Mexico under a program planned and run by the
U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms,
AKA, USBATF, which was, in turn, directed to
do so by the U.S. Justice Department!
This is the program known as “Fast and Furious!”
The response of the Eric Holder and his “Department
of Justice” has been to STONEWALL any
Congressional investigation of this mess!
Sadly, it took a landmark civil rights case before the U.S.
Supreme Court to reaffirm that the individual’s right of our
citizens to keep and bear arms, for traditionally lawful
purposes (such as in self-defense within the home) in
federal enclaves (D.C.) ; and that it is not merely a collective
right granted members of the militia.
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
In another landmark decision, the U.S. Supreme Court determined
that the 2nd Amendment applies to the individual states. The
Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear
arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated
by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment and, thus,
applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty
left after District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights
in regard to the states.
McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025, 130 S.Ct. 3020 (2010),
Sadly, both of these critical
decisions were 5 to 4. In other
words, four of the nine justices
in each of these two cases
failed (or refused) to grasp or
understand the plain language
of the Bill of Rights, the history
behind these amendments, as
well as the well-documented
intent of the framers and
authors of our Constitution
Why is self-protection necessary?
When you call them, the police will
arrive in minutes…when seconds count!!
FACT #1: The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled
that the police have NO obligation to protect U.S.
FACT #2: About 99.9% of the time, the police will
arrive after the crime has occurred. (to deal with what
the criminals DID!) And in the case of mass shootings
like Columbine, they will NOT enter the scene until it’s
clear that it’s safe for the police! Typically they take an
HOUR before they even enter.
Fact #3: About 65 million armed U.S.
citizens who own hundreds of
million guns, and who commit
absolutely no crimes at all!
Fact #4: It’s the BAD guys we have
to worry about!
A Tale of Two Cities:
Thousands of U.S. citizens legally own and
carry thousands of handguns in El Paso, Texas.
The city averages only five (5) murders a year!
Just across the border in Jaurez, Mexico, it’s
virtually IMPOSSIBLE for private citizens to
legally purchase or own a handgun. The typical
murder rate in that city is well over 2000 a
year. Again, it’s the BAD guys we have to worry
Fact #5 Virtually all mass shootings in the U.S.:
Luby’s Cafeteria in Killeen TX, Virginia Tech,
several post offices, McDonalds in San Ysidro,
CA; Columbine High School, Cleveland Elementary
School in Stockton CA, Red Lake Senior High School,
Binghamton NY Immigrant Community Center,
Ecole Polytechnique (Canada), Ft. Hood, Killeen TX….
ALL took place in statutory “gun-free” zones,
which are really virtual “Shooting Galleries”
filled with helpless targets for the criminals to
Criminals are NOT deterred by “Gun
Free Zone” signs!
Violating the law is what criminals do!!!
But NO SHOOTINGS have occurred at any
NRA conventions, gun shows, etc.!
In fact, crime dropped virtually to zero in the
entire city of Charlotte, NC when the NRA
held its 2010 annual convention there!
Crime has dropped in N.C. by over 37%
since shall-issue concealed carry was made the
law in the state. Anti-gunners were able to get
parks and rec areas, etc. off limits to concealed
carry. Not surprisingly, the crime rate in these
areas has NOT dropped as with the rest of the state
In fact, crime has also dropped significantly
all over the U.S. since the late 80’s in states
that have implemented “concealed carry!”
It’s dropped far less, or not at all in states
that have resisted it!
Well…how then do you explain the horrible
mass shooting in a parking lot in Tucson,
Arizona on 8 Jan 2011? Yes, this was not a
“Gun-Free zone!” This massacre took the
lives of federal judge John Roll, 9 year old
Christina Taylor Green and 3 other
innocent people, as well as wounding 12
others, including loved and respected U.S.
Congresswoman Gabby Giffords?
Note that his shooting was done by a local,
Jared Loughner. (known by many in the area
to be unstable and erratic!) How could he
even buy a handgun?
What we do know is that in direct contravention of commonsense practice
by law enforcement across the U.S., Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik (D)
compromised the criminal prosecution against Loughner when he used the
pulpit happily provided by the “news” media right after the tragedy to publicly
blab time and time again for any TV station or network about the case.
We also know that Dupnik, a Democrat, used the forum provided by an all-
too-agreeable TV networks, etc. to also shoot off his mouth to bash and blame
any and every non-Democrat or “political enemy” Dupnik could think of for the
tragedy, including Rush Limbaugh, Talk Radio, conservatives, etc., etc. Further,
at no time did Dupnik provide any facts to back up his accusations, and at no
time did any TV reporter or journalist (except Megyn Kelly, Fox News) ask for
any or question his claims!!
In fact, many used the opportunity created
by Dupnik to join in on the political chorus
against anyone “…to the right of President
Obama!...” AND TO CALL FOR A WHOLE
SLEW OF NEW GUN CONTROL LAWS!
What was really going on here?
Interestingly, people who knew Loughner knew that he did
not even listen to talk radio, read conservative literature,
and was basically apolitical. That’s not all they knew either!
What quickly became inescapably obvious was
that Sheriff Clarence Dupnik’s public rant was
nothing more than his own diversionary
smoke-screen to shift attention from what
was Dupnik’s unambiguous responsibility
for the tragedy!
Loughner, in fact, had a long history of bizarre behavior, particularly at
the local Pima County Community College, with multiple campus police
reports because of his actions. With threats against his instructors and
fellow students, even death threats, Loughner had been suspended and
barred the college campus where a classmate predicted he would some-
day shoot up a classroom. The Pima County sheriff’s department was
made well aware of this!
Loughner also had a history of drug and alcohol abuse.
It was also known that Mr. Loughner had been obsessed with Mrs.
Giffords since 2007
In fact, Sheriff Dupnik's name was on a subpoena to Google/ YouTube for
information regarding a bizarre video that Mr. Loughner had posted.
Dupnik clearly knew all about Loughner BEFORE the massacre!
Sheriff Clarence Dupnik had more than enough evidence and thus
probable cause to take Jared Loughner into custody.
Under AZ Law, Dupnik also had more than sufficient grounds to submit
Loughner for a 72 hour psychiatric examination*.
When Loughner was finally mentally evaluated, he was found to be
schizophrenic and bipolar, and was involuntarily committed.
THUS, if Sheriff Clarence Dupnik had not been negligent and had not
shirked his responsibility as Pima County’s law enforcement officer, Jared
Loughner would never, that’s N-E-V-E-R, have passed the required FBI
NICS background check for handgun purchase and would never have been
able to walk out with that Glock 19 and commit the massacre he did
• In addition to involuntary commitment , this alone is sufficient to fail the FBI NICS
background check for handguns.
In fact…. about 2.5 million times a
year, armed citizens stop a crime
in its track, all on their own*.
Overwhelmingly they did not
even have to fire a shot!
(*Of course, unarmed citizens virtually
NEVER stop a crime! They almost
ALWAYS just become victims!)
One fourth of women
will be abused by the
man they live with. One
third of the women who
are murdered are killed
by their own partner
(the guy whose job it was
to look out for them!)
From Women’s Aid “Act”
The best protection against abuse (and also attack
and rape) is being an armed woman!
One question you really
need to ask yourself and
resolve in your own mind:
Is a woman who has been
raped, strangled with her
own pantyhose and lying
dead in an alley some-
where morally superior to
a woman who, instead,
blew the bastard away?
Sadly, I suspect that most
of the anti-gun crowd
would say “Yes!”
In the name of “gun safety”
and control, is this what you
(Click on the picture below!)
Thanks for the opportunity
to share all this with you!