The Unnecessary Convolution of the Second Amendment

Here’s a typical video claiming to inform the public of a “highly contentious Amendment.”

WRONG. IN FACT, contained in the many letters written by our Founding Fathers to one another and external organizations, some 50,000+ of which are held in our nation’s Library of Congress, is the ubiquitously-held tenet that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is most certainly a right held by each and every individual U.S. citizen.

Furthermore, contained in the first 14 seconds of this video is the clear and unmistakable evidence that its contents were lifted from typically liberal, anti-firearm, anti-Second Amendment, anti-Constitutional blogs.

Thirdly, remarks like “vaguely-worded” and “intellectual cross-word puzzle” clearly reveal the presenter’s ignorance of District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an INDIVIDUAL’S right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense.” Another outstanding expose’ on the origins and history of 2A, including many quotes from ALL Founding Fathers, not just the couple of names tossed out by the ignorant and agenda-driven liar authoring the video, are contained in the 1982 Congressional Report on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms: https://ryoc.us/1982-congressional-report-right-to-keep-and-bear-arms/

As for your review of Supreme Court cases, shame on you! SCOTUS has reversed itself multiple times. They’re not infallible. In fact, lacking any specific reference to the federal government, such as found in the First Amendment’s “Congress shall make no law…”, a prohibition applies to all levels of all governments under the Constitution for the United States of America, local, country, state and federal. Even so, SCOTUS has long since ruled even the First’s Congress-specific mandate nevertheless applies at all levels, as well, so everyone arguing derivative restriction of the 2nd from the lead-in to the 1st would still be overruled i.e. 2A applies to local, county, state and federal governments in these United States of America.

Your hyper-focus on militias ignores the fact that membership in a militia is neither required nor even implied in 2A. Rather, it recognizes well-regulated militias are necessary to the security of a free state, but THINK: Where do militia’s draw upon for their members? If you said, “the people,” you would be correct. Thus, 2A provided for ALL people to be free to keep (own/possess) and bear (carry) arms — AT ALL TIMES — as the broad pool from which any militia could be formed or augmented as required. Even so, a well-armed general populace serves as a significant deterrent and stopping force against tyranny, not to mention violent crime and mass shootings:

mass shooting

As for 1939’s decision, there entered SCOTUS into the infamous role of whittling down “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” Let’s face it: “Arms” means “armaments.” Certainly it includes firearms, but it also includes knives, spears, swords, clubs, bows and arrows, and all other weapons designed to augment force against another. Far from being any sort of “vaguely-worded intellectual cross-word puzzle,” 2A’s original intent is abundantly clear: Punish illegal use of armaments, not the possession of armaments.

Nay, all the confusion surrounding the Second Amendment’s total prohibition against any and all infringements upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms is solely the result of people like YOU, who for some unfathomable reason, constantly, if not incessantly, love to obfuscate the truth: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” All arms, all the team, both owned and/or possessed (keep) as well as carried (bear) anywhere and everywhere. “But gun-free zones!” You mean where 87% of all mass shooters unload upon disarmed citizens? Yeah, how’s that concept working for you? I hope you realize that mass shootings are largely the RESULT of declaring various areas as “gun-free zones.”

As for the NRA, which represents less than 5% (1 in 20) gun owners, why would we ever have to “bring it into the picture?”

There is no such thing as a “narrow interpretation of the Second Amendment.” WHAT DOES IT SAY? Read it and you’ll find there is no interpretation.

Finally, the “well regulated militia” part is, at best, an example substantiating the need to prohibit any and all infringements upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. THAT’S the way it READS, at least in both the normative English language, as well as in the vernacular of the late 1700’s.

By the way, I reviewed your entire 10 minute and 54 second presentation. While highly detailed and quite wordy, I find it to be a seriously convoluted conflagration of a rather simple topic. 2A is, for example, far more simple in both scope and nature than our First Amendment, little of which is contentious.