Why the Supreme Court is wrong

Y-A-O-O-L!

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution 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.”

Note! Subject—”right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”—is properly informed, guided in interpretation by its predicate—”A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.”

“State” means the state at the time—one of the thirteen original colonies.

Y-A-O-O-L!

A couple obvious definitions. Always (as some seemingly have not been) mindful of context in which ALL must be interpreted. Namely, fledgling late eighteenth-century America, not yet a nation in mind or actuality, not yet the “United States of America,” but a time when thirteen independent, self-governing colonies, each jealous of its territory and welfare, wary of motives and behavior of competing colonies, was its own sovereign state.

“free State,” made mention of in the Second Amendment, refers not to the aborning nation, the United States or States as a collective, but to each individual State-Colony (!!).

Y-A-O-O-L!

“Militia” referred to in the Amendment means, therefore, militia of each of the thirteen colonies, then, now, herein deemed “states,” numbering fifty—Alaska to Wyoming.

“People” referenced in the Amendment is corollary to aforementioned Militia and State(s). “People” is therefore those who would constitute militia of each state! It is the right of people who would coalesce (come together) to constitute militia of each state to bear arms, thus, “well-regulated” militia of each State that is sought to be protected (!!).

Not right of each individual citizen in general, member of militia or no, to bear arms!

Y-A-O-O-L!

The (overlooked) Common Sense Reason Why

The totality of the Second Amendment and its proper interpretation is further informed by logic (to follow) that seems conveniently to have escaped purview of jurists eager to pursue twentieth and twenty-first century political agendas.  Continue reading →