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.
Current law, as determined by the latest Supreme Court, holds that the first 13 words are meaningless and should be ignored.
That leaves us with the common interpretation: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
What is the purpose of that Amendment?
Seemingly, there can be only four purposes:
- Hunting.
- In the event America is invaded by a foreign power, there will already be armed citizens ready to repel the invasion.
- For self-defense.
- In the event a dictator takes over our government, armed citizens will be able to resist.
I. Hunting: The 2nd Amendment does not address hunting. The fact that guns can be used for hunting is not a right protected by the Constitution. The protected right has to do with “the security of a free state.”
II. Foreign invasion: Here in the year 2020, purpose #2 is ridiculous on its face. By law, Americans can be armed with nothing more lethal than a semi-automatic rifle or pistol.
No bombs, no machine guns, no hand grenades, no land mines, no tanks, no naval ships, no military planes, no cannons, no flame-throwers, no poison gas — none of the war weapons an invader could possess.
Additionally, the citizens are not under the control of military leaders. They would be no more than a rag-tag bunch, fighting trained, militarily-armed cadre. A bunch of citizens, carrying rifles, would have no effect on an invading army.
III. Self-defense: This would be a legitimate purpose, but for one sad truth. Excluding police and similarly authorized personnel, guns more often are used by untrained Americans in the commission of crimes and for suicides than for self-defense.
IV. Defense against the government: You may find it surprising, but that is the primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment.
According to the syllabus prepared by the U.S. Supreme Court Reporter of Decisions, in District of Columbia v. Heller, (2008), the Supreme Court held: The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.
The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule.
The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.
Keep that in mind:
The primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to protect the citizens from the federal government.
In this vein, “James Madison wrote how a federal army could be kept in check by state militias, “a standing army … would be opposed [by] a militia.” He argued that state militias “would be able to repel the danger” of a federal army, “It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.” (Wikipedia)
This was a real concern in the earliest days of our nation, when the states were more jealous of their rights and more concerned about federal power.
In more recent years, the rights of states vs. the federal government have diminished, mostly because that’s where the money is. The federal government has the ultimate power of the purse, and that translates into other forms of power.
And now we come to the Trump administration and its dictatorial bent.
Trump Deploys Lawlessness Against Lawlessness
The president’s heavy-handed response to protests against police brutality belies his promise of “law and order.“
Jacob Sullum, 7.22.2020Notwithstanding Trump’s pose as “your president of law and order,” his heavy-handed reaction to the protests triggered by George Floyd’s death represents neither.
In response to largely peaceful demonstrations against police brutality that have been punctuated by criminal behavior, he has deployed his own brand of lawlessness, including arbitrary arrests and the disproportionate, indiscriminate use of force.
Billy Williams, the U.S. attorney for Oregon noted that the Justice Department’s inspector general is investigating a July 11 incident in which a protester was severely injured by “less-lethal munitions” that the Marshals Service allegedly fired at his head.
Last week Williams asked the Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general to investigate allegations that “federal law enforcement detained two protestors without probable cause.”
Williams was referring to reports that camouflage-clad federal officers, identified by nothing more than generic “police” patches, have been driving through the streets of Portland in unmarked rental cars, grabbing protesters for no apparent reason and detaining them without charge.
Although that sounds like the sort of thing that happens in tinpot dictatorships, some of the incidents were caught on video.
“We cannot give up liberty for security,” Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) warned. “Local law enforcement can and should be handling these situations in our cities, but there is no place for federal troops or unidentified federal agents rounding people up at will.”
In a federal lawsuit filed on Friday, Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum, citing the accounts of protesters who said they had been subjected to such treatment, argues that the Marshals Service and several Homeland Security agencies thereby violated their First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights.
“Every American should be repulsed when they see this happening,” she said. “If this can happen here in Portland, it can happen anywhere.”
Trump is in fact threatening to deploy federal agents, who are ostensibly in Portland to protect federal property, in Chicago and other cities “run by very liberal Democrats,” whom he equates with “the radical left.”
Like Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler, who describes the Trump administration’s tactics in his city as “abhorrent,” local officials elsewhere do not want his “help.”
Notice the line, “run by very liberal Democrats.” To Trump, this is a political issue, to be used for political purposes, not for security purposes.
Trump is using the military to attack cities run by Democrats, under the guise of protecting them. It is, in fact, a military takeover of these cities, from the elected mayors.
But the single most important purpose of the 2nd Amendment was supposed to be to help citizens protect themselves from just such a takeover by the federal government.
Clearly, the 2nd Amendment does no such thing. That may have been its original purpose, but its current function is just to give gun lovers the right to carry guns.
The original purpose of the 2nd Amendment has disappeared. Today, it is a lie.
Today, Trump is engaging in the first step of an American Kristallnacht. Trump is sending in his version of the Nazi brownshirts to cause chaos, pretending that the protesters are enemies of America.
Read the short article, What next? Kristallnacht? to learn what happens when a dictator sends in the troops to put down “enemies.”
Trump has followed Hitler’s playbook to the letter, with our salvation to date being that Trump is not as clever as Hitler.
Those who understand how an entire nation can be taken over by a ruthless dictator will justifiably be concerned about Donald Trump. The next half-year will determine the future of America, and all your guns and semi-automatic rifles will be of little use.
Only the ballot box can save you — if you are smart enough to want to be saved.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty Twitter: @rodgermitchell Search #monetarysovereignty Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
THE SOLE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT IS TO IMPROVE AND PROTECT THE LIVES OF THE PEOPLE.
The most important problems in economics involve:
- Monetary Sovereignty describes money creation and destruction.
- Gap Psychology describes the common desire to distance oneself from those “below” in any socio-economic ranking, and to come nearer those “above.” The socio-economic distance is referred to as “The Gap.”
Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics. Implementation of Monetary Sovereignty and The Ten Steps To Prosperity can grow the economy and narrow the Gaps:
Ten Steps To Prosperity:
2. Federally funded Medicare — parts A, B & D, plus long-term care — for everyone
3. Social Security for all or a reverse income tax
4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone
5. Salary for attending school
6. Eliminate federal taxes on business
7. Increase the standard income tax deduction, annually.
8. Tax the very rich (the “.1%”) more, with higher progressive tax rates on all forms of income.
9. Federal ownership of all banks
10.Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99.9%
The Ten Steps will grow the economy and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest.
MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY
#Monetary Sovereignty - Mitchell 
Where’s Republican Federalism During Trump’s Urban Invasions?
A president from a party supposedly committed to restraining the federal government is now sending enforcers to cities over local objections.
============================================================================================================================================================================================================
Judge Orders Federal Officers in Portland To Stop Harassing and Assaulting Journalists and Legal Observers
U.S. District Judge Michael Simon reminds the feds that they are bound by the First Amendment.
LikeLike
Good post, Rodger. What Trump is doing is disgusting and frightening and we can expect it to continue through the election with the goal of intimidating voters who might vote against him. Thus, among other reasons, his focus on Democrat-run cities.
However, there is more to the story of the 2nd Amendment. The language originally proposed was changed at the behest of the slave states. Their militias were created for the purpose of slave control, not to protect them from the federal government. These were essentially fugitive slave patrols, which also were used to intimidate the slaves so as to “keep them in their place”.
The original language, IIRC, used the words “…necessary to the security of a free nation…” which was changed to “…a free state…” in order to preserve the slave states “right” to continue these slave patrols without interference from the federal government.
This is not a contradiction to what you wrote, it’s an addition, since these states, like others, were also worried about the federal government pre-empting their militias. They just had a different primary reason for wanting the 2nd Amendment.
LikeLike
You are correct.
LikeLike
My thoughts completely. The core issue has been explained in readable words that provide understanding. My hat’s off to Mr. Mitchell.
LikeLike
In light of the recent ruling (6/3/21 ) by Federal judge Roger Benitez overturning a California firearms ban on assault weapons where he ruled it violates the Constitutional right to bear arms, his words, referring to the Second Amendment, I have a suggestion. In my thesis regarding the Second Amendment I think it will prove his ruling right to bear arms” has everything to do with a “militia” and nothing to do with a “person” or individual, which the following will suggest..
Justice Amy Coney Barrett Second Amendment dilemma
In some 225 years neither law professors, academic scholars, teachers, students, lawyers or congressional legislators after much debate have not been able to satisfactorily explain or demonstrate the Framers intended purpose of Second Amendment of the Constitution. I had taken up that challenge allowing Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s dilemma to understand the true intent of the Second Amendment.
I will relate further by demonstration, the intent of the Framers, my understanding using the associated wording to explain. The Second Amendment 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.”
Militia, a body of citizens organized for military service.
If, as some may argue, the Second Amendment’s “militia” meaning is that every person has a right to keep and bear arms, the only way to describe ones right as a private individual is not as a “militia” but as a “person.” (The individual personality of a human being: self)
The 4th Amendment reminds us, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons….”
The Article of Confederation lists eleven (11) references to“person/s.” The Constitution lists “person” or “persons” 49 times to explicitly describe, clarify and mandate a constitutional legal standing as to a “person” his or her constitutional duty and rights, what he or she can do or not do.
It’s not enough to just say “person/s” is mentioned in the United States Constitution 49 times, but to see it for yourself (forgo listing), and the realization was for the concern envisioned by the Framers that every person be secure in these rights explicitly spelled out, referenced and understood how these rights were to be applied to that “person.”
Whereas, in the Second Amendment any reference to “person” is not to be found. Was there a reason? Which leaves the obvious question, why did the Framers use the noun “person/s” as liberally as they did throughout the Constitution 49 times and not apply this understanding to explicitly convey the same legal standard in defining an individual “persons” right to bear arms as a person?
Justice Amy Coney Barrett dissent in Barr v Kanter (2019) Second Amendment argument acquiesced to 42 references to “person/s, of which 13 characterize either a gun or firearm. Her Second Amendment, “textualism” approach having zero reference to “person/s. Justice Barrett’s view only recognizes “person/s” in Barr, as well in her many other 7th circuit rulings. It is her refusal to acknowledge, recognize or connect the U.S. Constitution benchmark legislative interpretive precept language of “person/s,” mandated in our Constitution 49 times, to the Second Amendment.
Leaving Supreme Court Justice Barrett’s judgment in question.
In the entire U.S. Constitution “militia” is mentioned 5 times. In these references there is no mention of “person” or “persons.” One reference to “people” in the Second Amendment. People, meaning not a person but persons in describing militia.
Now comes the word “shall” mentioned in the Constitution 100 times. SHALL; ought to, must ..
And interestingly, the word “shall” appears in the Second Amendment. “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and shall not be infringed.”
“[S]hall not be infringed.” Adding another word “infringed” to clarify any misunderstanding as to the intent of the Second Amendment. Infringe. To encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another;
The condition “Infringe” has put a stop as to any counter thoughts regarding the Second Amendment, as you shall not infringe or encroach on beliefs other to what is evident as to the subject “Militia.”
Clarifying “..the right of the people to keep and bear arms…
People. Human beings making up a group or assembly or linked by a common interest.
I am not against guns, everybody has them. I’m against using the Second Amendment illogically as a crutch. If it makes those feel better so be it. Just what it deserves, use it with a wink.
William Heino Sr
LikeLike
Mr. Heino,
Your reasoning is clear and your facts are undeniable — except by the same people who claim the attempted coup at the Capitol was just tourists strolling, global warming is a Chinese hoax, and the 2020 election was stolen by the Democrats.
For them, facts and reasoning are subservient to their devotion to a traitor.
LikeLike