The Atlantic on the Mysterious Meaning of the 2nd Amendment

10
216

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?

You can comment on the article after the ads (please be polite to commenters), and subscribe to the Daily Newsletter here if you would like a quick view of the articles of the day and any late news:

PowerInbox
5 1 vote
Article Rating
10 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Henry
2 years 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
2 years ago

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

GuvGeek
2 years 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… Read more »

Papa
2 years 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
2 years 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… Read more »

John Vieira
2 years 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
2 years 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… Read more »

John Vieira
2 years 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
2 years ago

Just curious. Why do you dislike guns?

Henry
2 years ago

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