2nd Amendment First Post

For my first writing, I have put about a half seconds thought into what topic as to break the digital grounds of the internet  as an introduction to my Need Ammo site. In doing so I realize it is not a monumental event in even with the slightest significance in terms of my contributions, but wholly accredited our forefathers who fought so long ago to secure and create such freedoms I now experience. That said no topic seemed more appropriate than The Bill of Rights and our 2nd amendment.

So, I now join the band wagon of those who speak out in support of our 2nd Amendment, which states;

“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.”

With those insoluble words in mind, I would like to turn attention to the history that created them and bind that with my own comments and thoughts with a different viewpoint and interpretations.

Unlike the pretty picture we imagine in our history past where the Boston tea party, unfair taxes, and embargo's spawned the revolution that helped formed the United States of America, a deeper and darker side these histories is often overlooked for such favorable images that parades in our minds. This darker side is aligned closely to the driving force that goes unspoken.

In this darkness lingered unimaginable horror that lie before the Rebels if discovered, it was a constant reminder to uphold certain deal of secrecy in their rebellious conspiracy.  In such, it is plausible almost to an undeniable fact that under this threat alone, the revolutionaries operated in a deep state of paranoia and secrecy; keeping certain details and/or secrets from their own family in fear of this grueling outcome if discovered. To enhance this thought, such discovery of a conspiracy would have certainly unraveled every historical event in America as we know them today.

The darkness I speak of is Treason to the king and country. Such act was punishable by being drawn and quartered (cutting off arms and legs), beheadings burning and hangings. Punishment for such crime also extended to family, as lands and possession would be stripped from families. Such punishment is enough strike fear and distracts the minds of anyone. Even today the punishment for such can be death.

In breaking from Brittan’s control, a group of well known individuals and political leaders in the Colonies, having certain influences, joined together and helped form the rebellion. In this rebellion, the Declaration of Independence was written declaring separation from British rule and War was waged and there after won.

Later, the new found powers of America created a (fourth) document known as the Bill of rights. These rights were promised and guaranteed to all people that came too, and settled in this new found land of freedom. The reasoning behind creating the Bill of Rights was many. Among these was a fear of the repeat of previous government rule reestablishing itself; either by previous accustomed way of life, human desire and corruption of power, and/or possibly lack of ideals and fundamentals of anew. This was a true fear not only among the new founded American people, but that of the new formed government power as well. Lastly, certain rights were not viewed as rights but more so a reckoning of God given existence of natural rights to which no man or body of government held power.

Such scenario of punishments paints a slightly different of mindset of our forefathers before United States of America was born. It places a different light on the basis in which the Declaration of Independence was signed. So what does this have to do with the 2nd amendment which took place 14 years later? The” insufferable evils” they mention in the Declaration. The words that were spoken during that time conveyed much of their fears, experiences and intentions and were not meant to be the subject or interpreted lightly Centuries latter.

It is important to note that even in the 1700s, grammatical structures were different but much the same. Conjunctions such as (and, or) were most likely recognized as exclusive/inclusive conjunctions in English if not habitually practiced by accidental formality. These two conjunctions (and, or) was not used by Thomas Jefferson in certain instances, as it was known that it would eliminate “and/or”  join two statements, which would change interpretation structure of a sentence. For examples, when Thomans Jefferson would say:
 “I want a car and a truck”, he was speaking of both types of vehicles not just one, but if he said “I don’t know if I want an Automatic or Standard shift”, he knew he was referring to one of the two transmissions options and would have to decide! 

Obviously they didn’t make automatics so his choices were limited to Standard shifts back then so…
In the absences of the conjunctions (and, or) it leaves an openness of inclusion, in such both are considered.
For Example,
“The following are considered Respected Leaders or Socialist Dictators to some people: George Washington, Barack Obama”
 
The “or” offers a choice as previously noted (Respected Leader or Socialist Dictator), but the comma separated listing of presidents is inclusive of all. So the choice allows us to select between the choices and the comma allows us to fill in the blanks.
(and they say I have no humor)

Such is the important implied fact is often overlooked lightly in interpretation among many when reading any text.



Alas, in attempt to shed my twisted thoughts of enlightenment, I offer again the 2nd Amendment for its consideration with a personal defining interpretation as I believe it to have been conveyed in the later 1789s, 11 years before the turn of the century. (See how well the comma works?)

Bill of Rights (1789), 2nd Amendment to the Declaration of Independence (1787);

“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.”

I will start with “A Well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State” and breaking down each portion,  in which we begin with (A well regulated Militia) and focus on the key words.

A Well Regulated Militia: Of the times, and high on the New Nations agenda, would have been the future protection of the Americas by the organization of a commissioned Armies as to protect its vital freedom and way of life.  A well Regulated Militia would be a unit of military status, commissioned by the Government and it is mentioned as being “well regulated” to confirm the governmental control status and intent.  In such, History itself, as well as the wording, does show us that a Militia did exist at the time of its writing, but as the comma in the first line tells us …”there is more”!

At this point it is clearly stated “,being necessary to the security of a free state”  which now conveys a vital clue that  it is the duty of the Militia to protect, and in this case they are charged with the duty “to the security of a free state”! However, a comma separates once again to include “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”!  I will come back to this later.

Being necessary to the security of a Free State. - I mentioned above a vital clue which I now address. The word “Being” is to me a vital point in this sentence. It is the connection that causes the second fragmented portion of the line to flow in reference to the first opening statement.  Also it can be used as the start of a sentence without the first fragment of the statement (A well regulated militia). For example: (Being of sound mind and body, I Thomas Jefferson …)   can be turned around to read
 (I Thomas Jefferson, being of sound mind and body…); thus the grammatical reference above that I was pointing out.

 “Necessary” in the statement interprets to a Vital Need and not much more can be said about it.  As stated above, this statement follows the opening statement in conjunction like manner, and refers to the inclusion of “to the security of a free state”. It clearly suggests the reference to the first statement to mean the “Well regulated militia was needed to protect the Free States security”.

However, the above is also inclusive of the last line in the statement, which refers to the people as citizens and individuals in their homes. With more to say on this comment, I will reserve that for later in these interpretations.

Keeping in mind that this was a newly developing nation, we cannot rule out that there might have been some Britten loyalist who still existed and worked as a resistance. The fact that some resistance may have still existed, censorship and a need for secrecy might have still continued in some circles of the 13 states at the time of the Bill of Rights creation. This flows into my next point.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed: Here is where separation and inclusion occurs and “the right of the people” is mentioned and validated! It was not an unintentional brain fart on behalf of its creator, it was an intentional act of identifying an individual’s right! Militia was previously mentioned in the beginning and they are now excluded and the common people are mentioned. There is no confusion of the two as to be the same unit, or an interpretation as in “the people acting under Militia guidance”, else “People” would have been eliminated and the word “Militia” would have been implied! Again, it is sentence structure… English 101, 111; which, by the way I progressed poorly in because I use too many commas and no intellect.

In finishing this sentence fragment, we notice it tells us what right we have; “to keep and bear arms”. It is inconclusive and more will be said on that, but for the better of this claim, it tells us “we as common people can keep and openly carry a weapon”.

As to make this Amendment insoluble, the 2nd amendment contains one last comma and then states “shall not be infringed”!  While I cannot classify our forefathers as God’s, the promise and order cannot be any clearer. No one can take away that right and it cannot be eroded!

As if this is not long enough, I have included more thoughts of this era as to try and understand their meaning of the times. In such, I present a few words I feel should be considered.

Arms : in the 1700-1800s a weapon of sort that was used to: assist in and/or to protect one’s self, family, community, liberty rights, beliefs, rights and wrongs, life and/or way of life, well being, property, integrities; against any attacking or forcing body in which they feel threatened, or in violation of, to protect property and/or possessions, to repel tyranny of any nature; against all elements including hostile threat such as wild beast, Indian or other attacks; that which might or is essential or needed for survival in any event;  for self preservation as seen fit.

Arms: Arm yourself for defense, he is armed, he came armed, call to arms, Armed with a knife,  etc... Although many think it implied, armed does not specify a Gun; it implies arming one’s self with a weapon. Swords were commonly a part of the early Militia in their time, and I suspect they fell into the category as well. This is true to this day as knives and bayonets are still issued in militaries for hand to hand combats and survivals. Are such not part of arming oneself?
In reality of the times, the 1700s, there were many defenses in which a person could become armed. A person could be armed with their fist, a rock, stick/club, pointed stick, booby trap device, dynamite, sword, knife, fork, pitch fork, spear, bow and arrow, ax, hatchet, hammer, grain sickle (think grim reaper), gun, whip, rope, a frying pan, fire, hot oil, black powder, etc... One can be armed with words ; The Bill of Rights shows that we are armed….with rights!

Ok, the last is not an example of physical arming, bu I hope this is clear in conveying the point that a gun was not the only possibility and interpretation of being armed. A gun was simply the optimal tool of the time. It was used by the early settlers and was widely an accepted way of life. However, they used any means necessary and/or available to sustain, protect against any and all elements encountered.

In short, in the interpretation of Arms in the Bill of Rights, there is no listing of specific weapons of choice and its inconclusive in that it refers to exclusively to a gun, much less the exclusion of any specific type of weapon or gun. It is an implied thought that there are many ways to “Bear Arms” without defining or specifying them.  The insoluble statement “shall not be infringed” clearly states that it cannot be altered.

Lastly, In contrast, Arms in today’s society has a much different and more specific interpretation due to its evolution, but in some way much the same. For example: An Armed Assailant attacking another or Nuclear Arms. Commonly, the word “Armed” does imply a gun but also “ambiguously” could include any of the above listed tools, it is just the gun is the focus of topic in society today and thus what comes to the anti-gun supporters weak (media and politically manipulated) minds.  Thus the reason in such instance, when they read the second amendment, they see the word arm, they naturally assume it to mean a gun when in fact its original intent was meant to imply a tool of any nature.

In closing the book (for now) on this topic, I hope that I have offered a honest, accurate and insightful viewpoint in some way, either through history, English, definition,  interpretations or example. I also hope that it is considered a supportive contribution to the defense of our 2nd amendment rights. It is a rightful honor we as gun owners all share to have the 2nd amendment and other rights; but more so, the honor lies with those who died fighting for our rights. So shall it be our duty to fight for, and honor them, as the fight continues on today!