The Second Amendment: Does Anybody But Me Understand It?

March 16, 2016

The Second Amendment: Does Anybody But Me Understand It?

By Russell D. Longcore

(Editor’s Note: I wrote this and first posted it in 2011. Since then, the Supreme Court issued the Heller decision. With the recent assassination of Justice Antonin Scalia, the 2A may be in play again. But even Nino Scalia, who wrote the opinion, didn’t get it right. I did…as shown below.)

The so-called conservatives say that there should be no restrictions to keep and bear arms for Americans. They say that it’s all about self-protection.

The so-called liberals beat the drum for outright bans on firearms, saying that disarming Americans will make our nation safer.

Both of them are wrong.

The Second Amendment to the US Constitution reads:

“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.”

Let’s spend a few minutes using our powers of reason to just simply read and understand.

Take the first two phrases. Any way you rearrange the words, the message is that a well-regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State. The Founders were talking about the thirteen sovereign nations, each considered a State in the same manner as any other sovereign nation around the world. They had no intention that the united States were to be considered a new nation. They were equals to Great Britain, France, Italy, Spain, etc…and every one of the European nations used militias. For more about the use of militias in history, visit Militia at Wikipedia.

So the Founders were stating the obvious…that a free State had to have a well-regulated militia to be considered secure. What is “Security?” The ability to defend itself against invasion or aggression by another political entity.

What does “well-regulated” mean? In the common usage of the 18th Century, it meant the property of something being in proper working order. The opposite of a well-regulated militia would be a chaotic assemblage of men with weapons without training.

So, you could restate the first two phrases as: “A militia in proper working order is necessary to the security of a free sovereign nation.” This is especially important when you consider that under the Constitution’s Article I, Section 8, the Federal Government was prohibited from having a standing army for more than two years, as well as providing for and training the Militia.

The underlying reason for the Second Amendment was not individual self-defense. The underlying reason for the Second Amendment was the security of the new thirteen sovereign nations. Yes…that meant security even from each other.

Now for the last two phrases…”the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The phrases are starkly plain. You have to intend to misunderstand the words if you do misunderstand them or redefine their meaning. Let’s examine the penultimate phrase.

From whence does the purported right to keep and bear arms spring? Natural law. In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…” Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are “among these,” not the only ones. (Read What Are Unalienable Rights?) The right of self-defense…to protect one’s self and/or others in your charge from harm…is so obvious it should almost not have to be pointed out. And “arms” are not only firearms. Nearly anything can be utilized as arms, or weapons.

But please consider: at the time of the Revolutionary War, did not the Continental armies possess the same technology of armaments as the Redcoats? Yes. Hadn’t the Colonial citizens owned and used firearms since the early 1600s? Yes! Did the English soldiers have cartridges for their rifles while the Colonials had only musket and ball? No. Musket, ball and cannon were the leading technologies of the day.

Actually, colonials had rifles more modern than the Redcoats. The rifles carried by the British were inferior to the long rifles of the colonials. A large number of the colonial rifles were the Pennsylvania rifles, made by German immigrant gunsmiths with spirally grooved barrels (rifling) that spun a ball leaving the barrel, increasing both its distance and accuracy. The British “Brown Bess” muskets were only marginally accurate to about 100 yards, while the long rifles of the Patriots could reach out easily past 300 yards. Colonials were also “armed” with hatchets, swords, daggers and bayonets. The Colonials also had modern cannon, as modern as anything the Redcoats used.

Did only the King have the ability to build ships, forge cannon and cannonball? No. John Paul Jones was a privateer, which is basically a government-sponsored pirate, preying on English ships. His first wartime command was aboard the ship Providence, owned by New England businessman John Brown. The Providence fairly bristled with cannons.

Yet the issue of advancing technology was not an issue that the framers of the Constitution even considered worthy of mention. These were learned men, and were well aware of the technological improvements that were made in weaponry just in their lifetimes. They knew world history and knew that guns and gunpowder were relative newcomers to the art of war.

Both of the combatants in the Revolutionary War had the same technology in armaments. The Continental armies consisted of fighting citizens, taking up their rifles and pistols, forging cannon and going to war against superior numbers in the British army and navy, but not against superior weapons.

Therefore, when it came time for the framers of the Constitution to write the Second Amendment, they did not even mention the possibility that the private citizen should be prevented from owning the same weapons as the military. Why? BECAUSE THE MILITIA WAS THE MILITARY!!! Could it be that they considered the threat of government tyranny greater than that of citizens owning military weapons? Why else would they write the Second Amendment in the words they chose?

Finally, the last phrase…”shall not be infringed.” The Webster’s Dictionary defines “infringe” in two ways pertinent to this discussion; from the Latin “infrangere”:(1)”to break; to violate or go beyond the limits of: (2) to encroach upon. The “right” is the thing not to be infringed by government. Therefore, the Second Amendment states that the right to keep and bear arms is one that is endowed by our Creator under natural law and shall not be broken, violated or encroached upon. It validates the concept of personal property ownership, in this case one’s own person, and the principle of self-defense.

The Second Amendment is not about hunting, or sports or being disarmed by any government. It’s not really even about personal self defense. The Second Amendment is about the security of a free State, and the necessity of a militia in keeping that state free.

So a proper understanding of the Second Amendment begs the BIGGEST question of all: If NONE of the states of the United States of America are sovereign any more, but are rather subservient to the Federal government in Washington DC, and the states have no need for militias, isn’t the Second Amendment entirely irrelevant?

I hope and pray that someday secessionists and state independence movements will fully embrace and openly discuss The Power Of The Sword.

Secession is the only hope for humanity. Who will be first?

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.


Gun Control And The Well-Regulated Militia (updated)

July 26, 2015

By Russell D. Longcore
Owner and Editor, DumpDC

(Editor’s Note: This is an updated article I wrote in 2009. Never more timely than today.)

Gun control is today’s subject. With the recent spate of mass murders here in the USA, you can be assured that the statists will use these crises to their advantage. Those who would outlaw gun ownership are undaunted and patient. They know that another school, church or theater shooting or other mass murder will eventually occur in the United States, and that event will propel this issue back onto the front pages and lead stories in the news media. So, let us examine the issue of gun control in light of history and a strict interpretation of the Constitution.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States says:

“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”.

Any State with a well regulated Militia would be capable of defending itself from Federal tyranny. Over the past two hundred years, the individual States have forgotten that their security as a free State relies upon a well regulated Militia. The first two phrases in the Amendment shed light on today’s power structure in the United States. The Federal government now has standing armies, navies and an air force that far outnumbers any state militia. So, state sovereignty has been destroyed. Now states are more like counties…no sovereignty, only slave territories of a cancer-ridden Federal system.

Let’s consider the definition of the word “arms”.

The Second Amendment does not define the word “arms” but leaves it open to definition and expansion in the future. “Arms” were not only firearms, but any weapon that could be used to defend one’s life or property. Why then do the anti-gun advocates only single out firearms as the focus of their desire to disarm Americans? Why not archery equipment, swords, or knives, or sharpened sticks?

Next, let’s look at the word “infringe”. The Webster’s Dictionary defines “infringe” in two ways pertinent to this discussion; from the Latin “infrangere”:(1)”to break; to violate or go beyond the limits of: (2) to encroach upon.” In order to further explain the Second Amendment, the definition of the word “right” must also be considered, and is: “something due to one by law, custom or nature.” The “right” is the thing not to be infringed by government. In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson writes of mankind being “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” The definitions above speak directly to rights endowed to humans by natural law, and to the nature of man as a created being subject to God’s authority. These rights were among those enumerated as “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” (For a GREAT article about Unalienable Rights, CLICK HERE.) Therefore, the Second Amendment states that the right to keep and bear arms is one that is endowed by our Creator under natural law and shall not be broken, violated or encroached upon. It validates the concept of personal property ownership, in this case one’s own person, and the principle of self-defense.

Many gun control advocates support, and have been successful in the criminalization of the ownership of certain automatic and semi-automatic weapons, the so-called “assault weapons”. They now seek to restrict the ownership of nearly all firearms by private citizens. Yet the issue of advancing technology was not an issue that the framers of the Constitution even considered worthy of mention. These were learned men, and were well aware of the technological improvements that were made in weaponry just in their lifetimes. They knew world history and knew that guns and gunpowder were relative newcomers to the art of war.

But please consider: at the time of the Revolutionary War, did not the Continental armies possess the same technology of armaments as the Redcoats? Yes.

Hadn’t the Colonial citizens owned and used firearms since the early 1600s? Yes!

Did the English soldiers have cartridges for their rifles while the Colonials had only musket and ball? No. Musket, ball and cannon were the leading technologies of the day. There were no cartridges. They came about 100 years later.

Did only the King have the ability to build ships, forge cannon and cannonball? No. John Paul Jones was a privateer, which is basically a government-sponsored pirate, preying on English ships. His first wartime command was aboard the ship Providence, owned by New England businessman John Brown. The Providence bristled with cannons.

Both of the combatants in the Revolutionary War had the same technology in armaments. The Continental armies consisted of fighting citizens, taking up their rifles and pistols, forging cannon and going to war against superior numbers in the British army and navy, but not against superior weapons.

Therefore, when it came time for the framers of the Constitution to consider the Amendments, they did not even mention the possibility that the private citizen should be prevented from owning the same weapons as the military. Could it be that they considered the threat of government tyranny greater than that of citizens owning military weapons?

One of the beauties of the Constitution is its simplicity. The Second Amendment is written with no ambiguity in clear, simple words. Words have meaning. For decades now, those who would subjugate our citizens with Federal and State tyranny have fought to redefine the words of the Second Amendment. They have been successful in passing unconstitutional laws that do in fact infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms. The framers understood that with freedom comes responsibility, and that the ideas and acts of men have consequences. Yet they entrusted to future generations this simple Amendment. They possessed the foreknowledge that this newly formed government would have the same potential as governments throughout history to decline toward tyranny and totalitarianism. And it has indeed.

This Amendment, along with the other original Amendments, were their lasting contribution to the establishment of what would become…for a time…the mightiest nation in the history of mankind. They planted good seed in fertile ground, and a great nation grew from that seed.

Sadly, this nation is no longer great. It has gone from the beacon of freedom to the world to the greatest cancer on the world that has ever existed.

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.


Gun Control And The Well-Regulated Militia Update

December 4, 2012

By Russell D. Longcore

(Editor’s note: I wrote this back in May 2009. I’m updating it today. Apparently, sportscaster Bob Costas and other mindless state-worshippers still cannot wrap their brains around the concepts of Natural Law. Of course, they would have had to actually learn the concept in order to forget or ignore it.)

Gun control is today’s subject. The issue has regrettably popped up onto the national radar screen after Jovan Belcher, a nobody NFL player, shot and killed his girlfriend and then did the criminal courts system a favor by killing himself. (In the USA, there are about 221 homicides EACH WEEK in which a gun is used.* But the rest of those people weren’t major or minor celebrities, so they must not count.) Those who would outlaw gun ownership are undaunted and patient. They know that another celebrity shooting, school shooting or mass murder will eventually occur in the United States, and that the event will propel this issue back onto the front pages and lead stories in the news media. So, let us examine the issue of gun control in light of history and a strict interpretation of the Constitution.

For today, we will suspend the debate about whether the Constitution has any validity. Let’s just all stipulate that for this argument, it does.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States says:

“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”.

Any State with a well-regulated Militia would be capable of defending itself from Federal tyranny or foreign invasion. Over the past two hundred years, the individual States have forgotten that their security as a free State relies upon a well regulated Militia. The first two phrases in the Amendment shed light on today’s power structure in the United States. The Federal government now has standing armies, navies and an air force that far outnumbers any state militia. So, state sovereignty has been destroyed. Now states are more like counties…no sovereignty, only slave territories of a cancer-ridden, predatory Federal system. So the very opposite of the Second Amendment has become true, stated thus: “A Well-Regulated Militia, being unnecessary to the security of a Serf State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall indeed be infringed.”

Let’s consider the definition of the word “arms”.

The Second Amendment does not define the word “arms” but leaves it open to definition and expansion in the future. “Arms” were not only firearms, but any weapon that could be used to defend one’s life or property. Why then do the anti-gun advocates only single out firearms as the focus of their desire to disarm Americans? Why not archery equipment, swords, knives, or sharpened sticks?

Next, let’s look at the word “infringe”. The Webster’s Dictionary defines “infringe” in two ways pertinent to this discussion; from the Latin “infrangere”:(1) “to break; to violate or go beyond the limits of: (2) to encroach upon.” In order to further explain the Second Amendment, the definition of the word “right” must also be considered, and is: “something due to one by law, custom or nature.” The “right” is the thing not to be infringed by government. In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson writes of mankind being “endowed by their Creator with certain Unalienable Rights.” The definitions above speak directly to rights endowed to humans by natural law, and to the nature of man as a created being subject to God’s authority. These rights were among those enumerated as “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Therefore, the Second Amendment states that the right to keep and bear arms is one that is endowed by our Creator under natural law and shall not be broken, violated or encroached upon by the Federal government. It validates the concept of personal property ownership, in this case one’s own person, and the principle of self-defense.

Read What Are Unalienable Rights? to grasp the concept of Natural Law and Unalienable Rights.

Many gun control advocates support, and have been successful in the criminalization of the ownership of certain automatic and semi-automatic weapons, the so-called “assault weapons”. They now seek to restrict the ownership of nearly all firearms by private citizens. Yet the issue of advancing technology was not an issue that the framers of the Constitution even considered worthy of mention. These were learned men, and were well aware of the technological improvements that were made in weaponry just in their lifetimes. They knew world history and knew that guns and gunpowder were relative newcomers to the art of war.

But please consider: at the time of the Revolutionary War, did not the Continental armies possess the same technology of armaments as the Redcoats? Yes.

Hadn’t the Colonial citizens owned and used firearms since the early 1600s? Yes!

Did the English soldiers have cartridges for their rifles while the Colonials had only musket and ball? No. Musket, ball and cannon were the leading technologies of the day.

Did only the King have the ability to build ships, forge cannon and cannonball? No. John Paul Jones was a privateer, which is basically a government-sponsored pirate, preying on English ships. His first wartime command was aboard the ship Providence, owned by New England businessman John Brown. The Providence bristled with cannons.

Both of the combatants in the Revolutionary War had the same technology in armaments. The Continental armies consisted of fighting citizens, taking up their rifles and pistols, forging cannon and going to war against superior numbers in the British army and navy, but not against superior weapons.

Therefore, when it came time for the framers of the Constitution to consider the Amendments, they did not even mention the possibility that the private citizen should be prevented from owning the same weapons as the military. Ladies and Gentlemen, the militias of the Colonies WERE the military!! Could it be that they considered the threat of government tyranny greater than that of citizens owning the latest, most advanced weapons? If the Continentals had the same technology in armaments as the British military, how is it that today’s politician has concluded that (a) semi-auto firearms are not necessary for a citizen to own, (b) full-auto firearms have mostly been outlawed, and that (c) firearms should be OK as long as they are used for hunting or sporting purposes? Where in HELL did this hunting and sporting idea come from?

One of the beauties of the Constitution is its simplicity. The Second Amendment is written with no ambiguity in clear, simple words. Words have meaning. For decades now, those who would subjugate our citizens with Federal and State tyranny have fought to redefine the words of the Second Amendment. They have been successful in passing unconstitutional laws that do in fact infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms. The framers understood that with freedom comes responsibility, and that the ideas and acts of men have consequences. Yet they entrusted to future generations this simple Amendment. They possessed the foreknowledge that this newly-formed government would have the same potential as governments throughout history to decline toward tyranny and totalitarianism.

Finally, you might want to take a look at Ammo: Isn’t It Obvious? which is likely the next logical step for Washington to take to disarm America.

Liberty lovers, tyranny is usually not completed in one grand sweep. There is no single foreign enemy that is going to invade America and enslave its people. It is much more effective when the tyrants enslave people a tiny bit at a time. Tyrants are patient, and the people are usually too busy living their lives to care. It’s death by a thousand little cuts. And you still end up dead.

The Right To Keep And Bear Arms is yet another great reason that secession is the ONLY solution for individual liberty and property rights in North America.

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

*CDC stats 2009

© Copyright 2012, Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.


Ammo: Isn’t It Obvious?

August 10, 2012

By Russell D. Longcore

America has suffered a recent spate of attacks by armed gunmen. Back in 2009, Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan killed 13 soldiers on base at Fort Hood, Texas. Of late there is Jared Loughner, who shot and killed 6 in Arizona, and wounded 12, most notably a sitting Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. Then there were the 12 Aurora murders allegedly perpetrated by James Holmes in a crowded theater. In Wisconsin, a man entered a Sikh temple and killed six worshippers.

I’m not willing to say that any of these murderous incidents had any connection to each other. I do find it interesting that Major Hasan was a psychiatrist, and Holmes in Colorado was studying to be a mental health professional. Reasonable minds would have concluded that people trained in mental health would not commit multiple murders.

I could write an article about each of the incidents…the details are of little importance to this article. What is important is that in each incident, the gunman wielded weapons that use high-capacity magazines…weapons that are considered military-like, or “assault” weapons.

No six-shot revolvers used in mass shootings. Gunmen are smarter than that.

Gun control in America is for practical purposes a non-issue. Sure, there are little incremental laws and regulations passed around the country that chip away at the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. But there are still a couple hundred million firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens in America. And confiscation of legally owned weapons just ain’t gonna happen.

But it doesn’t need to happen for the globalists, liberals and Washington devotees to win.

Question: What is a gun without ammunition?
Answer: (a) a club
(b) a nice piece of industrial art
(c) a black marketer’s wet dream
(d) all of the above

I’d recommend that you choose D.

Actually, I cannot believe that the gun-haters haven’t gone after ammunition more fiercely over the years. But you and I can still walk into millions of stores and buy ammo. Hell, we can even buy it out of catalogs and on the Internet and have it shipped to us directly.

I realize I am not telling you anything you don’t know. But isn’t it obvious that the Washington crowd is going to try to restrict ownership of high-cap mags and ammo…NEXT?

This week, Democrats in Congress have proffered legislation to restrict the purchase of high-cap mags. New Jersey senator Frank Lautenburg, a longtime gun banner, attached an amendment to a bill before the Senate, amid howls from both sides who want the underlying bill passed. Ain’t it just like DC to think that more laws will solve the problem.

But all the guns, ammo and magazines used in all these murders were purchased LEGALLY. And bad guys who are of a mind to murder with a gun are not prevented by gun laws.

This issue is yet another example of arranging deck chairs on the Titanic. The hue and cry, in Washington, on the various media outlets, and around the office water cooler is meant to obfuscate and mask the foundational issue. Getting people to focus on peripheral issues that don’t mean anything results in millions of eyes diverted from what really matters.

What really matters? Individual liberty and property rights.

I urge you to read two other articles I wrote Gun Control And The Well-Regulated Militia.Then go even deeper into individual liberty and property rights by reading What Are Unalienable Rights?

Bottom line of this article is simply this: The Federal Government of the United States of America is a cancer growing on all of us. There is not one second of your flippin’ life that is not regulated in some way by Washington. All cancers place survival as their Number One goal. And all cancers will continue to survive and grow until they kill their host.

Your choice is to either cut off the cancer or die from the disease.

There is only one way for individuals and groups of individuals to get cancer-free. That is secession. A group of people somewhere in America must make a decision that their own survival as a people is more important than Washington’s survival. They must separate themselves from the United States and become a sovereign nation. Secessionists do not advocate or promote the overthrow of the US Federal Government in any way. They simply seek to break the ties that bind them to DC and seek their own futures and destinies.

American States MUST choose Secession or forever forsake Liberty in North America. We started as thirteen sovereign nations…AFTER WE SECEDED. States MUST return to sovereignty or be counted as cowards and criminals who have sided with the tyrant to enslave the people.

Do you want the liberty to own any sort of firearm you choose? Your only choice for that level of freedom is found in secession.

Secession is the ONLY Hope For Mankind. Who will be first?

It’s Secession or Civil War. You Choose. There Is No Third Choice.

DumpDC. Six Letters That WILL Change History.

© Copyright 2012, Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.


The Case for the Non-Revolutionary Ownership of Guns

March 16, 2012

by Gary North

(Editor’s Note: Dr. Gary North formally accepts secession. Perhaps he has written about this in the past. I am not aware of such.)

There are two main extremes in the debate over guns. The gun control people are basically worshipers of the state. They grovel before the image of the state. They believe in the state. They see the state as redemptive: an agency of healing. This agency must be armed, they say, in order to collect the money necessary to fund the state’s messianic claims and programs.

A state that can heal must be a state that can kill. The gun control crowd worships a state that can heal. So, they call for the abolition of private gun ownership. This is consistent.

At the other extreme is the private militia crowd. They think that the ownership of weapons is basic to conducting a new American Revolution. They think that that their ownership of weapons will in some way slow down the state. Some day, the People will take up arms against the state.

I reject both positions.

Here is reality. The ownership of guns is mostly symbolic most of the time. The gun as a symbol says this: the state is not God. The state is not finally sovereign. Citizens are sovereign under God, and they possess the right to bear arms as a mark of this sovereignty.

The defenders of the messianic state go ballistic in the face of this claim. They do not accept popular sovereignty. They accept state sovereignty. They accept the fact that voters can elect masters, but they do not accept the fact that citizens have a right to exercise the mark of sovereignty: to defend themselves by force of arms. The statists want the state to possess a strict monopoly over life and death. They understand the meaning of the symbol of the gun. They want guns and badges linked judicially: no badge–no gun.

The weekend militia people are dangerous. Why? Because they have a romantic view of bloodshed. They think that the modern state can be successfully resisted by force of individual arms. This leads to a suicide mentality. The suicide mentality is the heart of the matter, not gun ownership.

The correct goal is to wait for the federal government to go bankrupt before it bankrupts us. It will go bankrupt. It is not God. It cannot afford to implement its programs of healing.

In the political vacuum that will appear in the aftermath of that national bankruptcy, armed citizens with economic assets and economic and political skills will be in a position to pick up the pieces. Local armed citizens will become the back-up of the local police, which local citizens will elect.

The main idea behind gun ownership is to maintain the right of every law-abiding resident to defend his life and property when the state cannot do it. We live in a time when the local agencies of law enforcement cannot secure the peace. This leaves citizens the task of defending their lawful zones of jurisdiction: in their cars, in their homes, and in their places of business.

The lone gunner who takes a stand against the authorities will wind up like David Koresh and his followers. It is better to live to fight politically. Suicide missions benefit the state.

As for armed students in public schools, there is a solution. Close the public schools. No one hears of bullied students who go on a shooting spree in private schools.

We should not worship the federal government. We should plan a peaceful revolution to overthrow the federal government. We should work toward the day when local governments replace 90% of the federal government.

TeaPartyEconomist.com

Copyright © 2011 The Tea Party Economist


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,464 other followers