“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.”
If we take out “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”, the remaining “A well regulated Militia shall not be infringed”, makes no sense. The “infringement” must refer to something more specific, like “the people”, which clearly means the Militia people. If people in general were meant, the Amendment would only refer to “people” in general, not specifically “the people”.
The meaning and intent of the Amendment would be clearer if it read: “Since a well-regulated Militia is necessary for the security of a free State, their right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.
Why would the Constitution advocate general gun ownership, when a well-organized Militia was supported as a controlling agency? That would make their job much harder, and therefore it makes no sense. Why should they have to be well-regulated, while the rest of the population wasn’t?
There is good reason to believe that the misinterpretation by the gun-lobby and others was intentional. And for the Amendment to mean that any kind of future mass killing weapon should be freely available to anyone, makes absolutely no sense. It is far more logical to believe that the intent was to keep firearms out of civilian hands and let the well-regulated Militia provide for the security of the State!
Thank you for all your nice, encouraging feedback about my book “Dear Editor & Beyond”, available as a paperback from www.Amazon.com It is funny how many of you have found little things here and there that you really agree with and have passed on to others, – both to those who agree with you, and those who do not! Indeed, help me spread the truth! Keep it up, and let me hear from you via safechem@comcast.net
It turns out I was right when I claimed that the hosts on Fox News couldn’t possibly be stupid enough to believe Trump’s lies about the election being rigged against him, and that he should have won in a landslide! Sure enough, they now admit that they didn’t believe a word of it, but were lying to please their gullible listeners! What else have they been lying about? We’ll see …
(SM Daily Journal, on-line comment: 2/21/2023)
You’re the man Jorg. I have never seen a more cogent explanation of what I’d term a great example of our own ‘National Stupidity’. The purposeful misapplication of a poorly worded clause in our constitution. Bravo Jorg!
I also received a phone message from a lawyer, who said that this piece on the 2nd Amendment should be read by judges around the country.
Back to New Post