The Atlantic on the Mysterious Meaning of the 2nd Amendment

10
193

The Atlantic published an anti-Second Amendment propaganda piece headlined, The Mysterious Meaning of the Second Amendment.

The subtitle: Even with the help of powerful 21st-century linguistic databases, the phrase “keep and bear arms” remains debatable.

It’s mysterious? Debatable? That so? The Amendment looks very clear to me. What leftists don’t get about “shall not be infringed” or “keep and bear arms” is the real mystery.

“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 Left can’t figure it out. They don’t understand “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”

Justice John Paul Stevens pretended that the phrase keep and bear arms was a fixed term of art that always referred to militia service.

Huh?

Naturally, their research found that keep and bear arms always meant the militia.

I have Johnson dictionaries from 1838 and one earlier. You won’t be surprised to know that the words, “keep,” “bear,” and “arms” meant exactly what they mean today.

These people sure don’t give up. As Democrats and RINOs make the country far more dangerous and inhospitable, they want us unarmed; now, why is that?

What do you think?


PowerInbox
5 1 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

10 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Henry
Guest
Henry
1 year ago

It is difficult to get a man an Atlantic journalist to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.
–UPTON SINCLAIR

Popeye the Project Boy
Guest
Popeye the Project Boy
1 year ago

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED . . huge letters on my fence.

GuvGeek
Guest
GuvGeek
1 year ago

If you read the Federalist Papers, Anti-federalist Papers, and the minutes of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 kept by James Madison, the 2nd Amendment is absolutely clear. These should be required study in Middle School and High School. This is no longer taught. Liberals just don’t like what it says.

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, shall not be infringed.

First, you have to understand the construction of an 18th Century Militia. It was individual citizens who volunteered. Those who volunteered for Militia Duty provided their own weapons. Well Regulate meant two things. Having the same arms as would an infantry soldier and being proficient in the use of those arms. In the Late 1700s, this meant a rifle, pistol, bow & arrows, tomahawk, explosives (gunpowder), grenades, rockets, and even a Cannon. Pretty much any weapon an individual could fabricate. Some Colonialist of means even had a private Man-of-war, i.e. a gun ship with cannons. “Shall not be infringed” is self explanatory.

The Colonialist were fearful of a Federal Army (or police force). They wanted to maintain the autonomy of the individual States in order to ensure the New Federal Government didn’t amass too much power. The Federal Government was to Protect the Nation’s Borders. The States were to deal with internal matters like criminals and Indians (which were the Illegal Aliens of the day). In the day, the States only saw the Federal Government’s role within the States as that of putting down Invasion and Insurrection as stipulated in Article 4 Section 4 which the US Federal Government routinely tramples over. The Federal Government never ask for permission from the States to intervene in matters related to the States.

What is most disturbing is the Courts have enjoined States from protecting their Borders when the Federal Government fails to. This was the whole idea behind the Militia. The Militia was supposed to act when higher authority couldn’t or REFUSED to follow the Law. This is why Liberals hate the Second Amendment and the idea of the Citizen Militia. The Citizen Militia was to be another check against Federal Government Malfeasance and Corruption. A strict interpretation of the 2nd Amendment would make every gun law in America Unconstitutional.

Another note in History. George Washington picked the location of the District of Columbia. One of the reason for the location is that it is a city that was not defensible against a Well Regulated Militia of the Day. He supposedly told members of Congress it was indefensible after DC was completed, but before the Government moved from Philadelphia. Washington understood that the Government needed to fear The People. We quickly found out that DC was indefensible during the War of 1812. If it wasn’t for a storm, DC would have been leveled.

Papa
Guest
Papa
1 year ago
Reply to  GuvGeek

Guv… Your comment reminds me of my history teacher (1963-67). He was 76 certifed historian in Ancient, World and American history.

GuvGeek
Guest
GuvGeek
1 year ago
Reply to  Papa

US history was a hobby of mine from early in Grammar School into my mid 20’s. I read everything I could get my hands on. Even though History is pretty much useless as a Major, it should be everyone’s Minor in school.

When I went to work overseas, my understanding of our Forefathers gave me the tools to understand other cultures because studying history gave me the answers to why cultures evolved into the way they were. People are products of environment and the Constitution was a product of tyranny and oppression and an inspired effort to create a Government subservient to The People. One thing our Founding Fathers understood was the greed of man and his desire to get something for nothing by using the force of Government.

John Vieira
Guest
John Vieira
1 year ago

Think Adolf, Josef, Mao, Pol etc., what did they have in common??? The ability to exterminate large numbers of their UNARMED citizens….

Peter B. Prange
Guest
Peter B. Prange
1 year ago

I dislike guns and have never owned a gun.
However, I strongly support M. Dowling’s interpretation of the 2nd amendment. I studied the constitution in the 8th grade and again in the 12th grade and believe in it. It is a most remarkable document that amazingly fits 2023 even better than when written in 1787. The foresight of our ancestors is amazing.
If I still lived in the US I would own and regularly practice with both pistols and rifles.
To me trying to change the constitution makes no sense. I despise how much of the judiciary, trying to act in a legislative way, is trying to warp it.
lease support the Independent Sentinel. Encourage people to read it. It is an important tool in the constant vigilance to maintain our freedom, as well as to live with a just system of law and order. We need each branch of government to function in a constitutional manner.

John Vieira
Guest
John Vieira
1 year ago

The US Constitution was the ONLY improvement on the Magna Charta…it took 700 years to accomplish this…and it appears that BOTH are being “debased”, to the point of disappearance…

Popeye the Project Boy
Guest
Popeye the Project Boy
1 year ago

Just curious. Why do you dislike guns?

Henry
Guest
Henry
1 year ago

Some people dislike dogs. Chacun à son goût. Just go with it.