Gun control zealots love to get hooked on the semantics of the 2nd Amendment.
Due to the forefathers elegant writing that is more verse than prose, gun control zealots have harped on misinterpreted syntaxes of the 2nd Amendment for years.
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
The gun controllers like to say that since there isn’t an “and” between State and the right of the people that somehow invalidates the intent of founders. The intent being found in the other writings of the time.
George Mason: “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
Sam Adams: “And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms”
George Washington: “Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence”
Alexander Hamilton: “The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed”
Thomas Paine: “Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them (arms)”
So even though the founders had just tossed out a tyrant and basically made a bill of rights that all be exclusively dealt with the aforementioned tyranny, somehow the lack of a word is supposed to undercut the intent?
If we were to extend this logic to the other rights enumerated by the Bill of Rights we would have a very different country today.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
By applying gun control “logic” on the 1st Amendment we would have the right of free speech, press and assembly limited to only apply when seeking redress for grievances. You see, everything before the petition part was an “or”. You have this right OR this right OR this right, then you can take one of those rights AND petition the government.
Remember, this is gun control “logic”.
So, unless you are petitioning the government for redress of grievances, your right to free speech or assembly or the press or religion would be able to be restricted to the point of prohibition.
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law
No mention of apartments in the 3rd Amendment. Therefore the government has the rights to shack up as many soldiers in your apartment as they want.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces
It only says land, it doesn’t say land forces therefore anyone can be held to answer for a crime without due process if it occurs on land. Therefore the 5th Amendment only applies to crimes taken while either on an airplane or while falling off a cliff. And since there weren’t airplanes back in the 1700’s and since gun controllers say at best we have a right to a ball and powder musket then the founding fathers meant to enumerate in the constitution a provision to protect the rights of people accused of committing crimes while falling off a cliff.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted
Since the it’s “and” and not “and/or” between cruel and unusual punishments the 8th Amendment allows punishments that can be either cruel or unusual so long as they are not both.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
Just like the previous amendment this one has “or” instead of an “and/or” and as such allows for certain rights to be denied AND disparaged against, so long as both are done when you apply the gun controllers logic to the 9th Amendment.
By applying gun control “logic” to other amendments of the Constitution illustrates how ridiculous it is. Yet gun control zealots still like to argue that somehow, despite the historical evidence of intent, that the founders somehow wanted to limit the right to keep and bear arms to the military.
But back in reality I argue that the intention of the founders was clear and clearest with regards to the 2nd Amendment. Not only are there the writings of the day that argue for the personal keeping and bearing of arms but also the anecdotal fact that these colonists OVERTHREW A TYRANT. They didn’t do it by not quartering soldiers, they did it by the use of arms.
They felt so strongly about it that they included in the 2nd the strongest wording they could and a phrase that is not found anywhere else in the Constitution.
Shall not be infringed
Send this to friend