I do prefer to speak in as plain a language as is reasonably possible. So I avoid fancy big words and offbeat or obscure and difficult to find references where possible.

And being truly honorable men who were not trying to deceive any faction, so did the framers of the Constitution. They spoke in plainness to each other. Unlike the politicians and ideologues of today, they meant just exactly what they said - and wrote. Nothing more and nothing less.

But if you want to heap to yourself all the fancy sophistry of those who wish to ignore the actual writings of the Founding Fathers, and put your/their own ideology ahead of the Constitution as it is actually written ; just remember this -

that what was written was a carefully crafted compromise between various factions. Note that not even James Madison, who initiated the whole process, got things the way he wanted them. He accepted compromise. huge compromise. A compromise of balance of powers that has so far preserved us our liberties


As to the 2nd amendment -- It says, "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State.....". That is the stated reason for the declaration that follows. But in 1789, the militia was made up of of whichever armed individuals were there; being well regulated was to be well supplied. Being well disciplined and seasoned was quite another matter and still is. But some argue now, using only the modern usage of that word (regulated), confusing it with external discipline. Of course the two usages are related. But the 1789 usage is what counts here.

All of that discussion is more or less irrelevant however, as the declarative statement is abundantly clear: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Note that it says "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". Note that it said "THE RIGHT". There are no exceptions made - period. At this point, it does not really matter why anyway; the directive statement is clear.

Some self defined sophisticates try to muddy up the definition of the phrase "the people" to mean some sort of vague collective continuum cognized by who knows who. Note that it was only "Powers", that were granted to CONGRESS, or granted to individual states if their constitutions also said so. Not rights!

Note also, no rights were actually granted to anyone or anything; as all rights were inherent and unalienable to each citizen. Some rights of citizens were enumerated, but most were not. So the "Right" to bear arms cannot reside with any agency of government or any other cognate, but only with each citizen, as with all other rights. So it is quite clear that all other rights mentioned, and even those un-enumerated, were to be applied directly to individuals, including those mentioned in the 2nd amendment.


Not being a gun owner, my personal take on the 2nd amendment, is that it was intended to be the last ditch defensive posture to be adopted if all other checks and balances have failed and an autocratic despot has in fact taken over, which circumstance was still quite fresh in the founders memory when they wrote the 2nd amendment.

While some reasonable regulation (modern usage) of our public behavior is acceptable (including guns), overturning the intent of the Constitutional Compromise and all its checks and balances, including this last ditch one, is not acceptable. And never will be.


One thing we agree on - Justice Roberts is in clear need of remedial English!


Strange that you should ask such an odd question, but random shootings, armed robberies, murders, suicides, and general stupidity have nothing at all to do with any militia, nor with the 2nd amendment, nor with guns per se - nor with any laws at all. In fact, it is symptomatic of a problem much bigger than any law could ever fix.

All this lawlessness is because we have become a nation of arrogant, prideful, lawless self centered control freaks; wanting power to tell everyone else what to do and take what we please, while exempting ourselves of course. Laws are being broken because enough of us are chronic law breakers, from the Law Breaker in Chief at the very top to the lowliest law breaker punk at the very bottom. And given the present Hobson's choice come this November, this is not going to change soon.

And since all lawbreakers are above the law; any gun law, no matter how tough, will never actually stop criminal access to guns - not happening. With all the gun laws already on the books, all that has ever been accomplished is to disarm law abiding citizens - making them sitting ducks for the lawless. Not a very useful, nor a wise solution.

This is what incenses me the most; the continued ideologically based myopia on that fact. And that ideological myopia is getting worse - even while our streets are running red with the blood of policemen in cities all across the country, they are now calling louder than ever, for a massive disarmament of the police as well.

What the hell are they thinking !

I guess it's really true - criminals will still have sufficient arms to prevail in a confrontation, but nobody else will.



And if there really are teachers out there with such myopic views on the Constitution as I have described, it is no wonder that so many young people are so ignorant of what their rights really are - and aren't - and of how their government is supposed to be working.

Which it isn't by the way. Just ask any veteran - especially the now dead ones who died before the VA got around to them, like my Father. Or ask any vet living on the streets, why he is still there after all the govmint could do was done - they failed there too. The list of failure is endless.........