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.
To wit: Think about it! Does the Constitution overall in any wise other than guarantee of “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” seek to guarantee, say, right to breathe or drink water?…
Of course not. For the simple, obvious reason that such acts—breathing, drinking water—are so integral to being alive and functioning as to be beneath any but an absurdist notion of what needs to be protected.
Similarly, in an agrarian era (1789) in which near every male citizen owned a gun for purpose of hunting for daily food—deer, squirrels—, protection from wild animals and, yes, protection from feared Native Americans whose lands and way of life had been usurped, could there have been a thought that right of such individual citizen to own and bear arms necessary to such daily purpose needed guaranteeing, any more than guaranteeing the right to breathe and drink water?
Not likely!
Y-A-O-O-L!
Moreover, can it be gainsaid (contradicted) that right to bear arms relating to “well-regulated militia necessary to the security of a free State” (emphasis supplied) implies weaponry integral to arming of such “well regulated” militia, not to arming of citizenry in general in capacity
unrelated to well-regulated militia?
Y-A-O-O-L!
Today, of course, well-regulated militias deemed in need of insuring right to bear arms for each State exist—Alaska to Wyoming. They are called the National Guard of each State!
It is for safeguarding of right of National Guard of each of the fifty States to bear arms that any logical read of the Second Amendment right to bear arms must be interpreted.
It is right of a national guard and participants therein to “bear arms” that must be discerned as protected in any logical read and interpretation of the Second Amendment.
Right of ordinary citizens to own only weapons reasonable for hunting and self-defense—pistols, hunting rifles—may be inferred first from weapons available to a State militia at the time the Second Amendment was conceived!—deer rifles, pistols, not cannons! Also from right to such necessities as breathing and drinking water deemed not in need of protection (because obvious in
the context of 1787).
Right to own weapons of war by ordinary Joe Citizen—AR-15-type rifles, military carbines, machines guns (ownership of which by ordinary citizens found not to protected by the Second Amendment!), automatic pistols, tanks, and the like—, the logical necessary province of a “well-regulated militia” today—I,e., National Guard of each of the fifty States—clearly may not be found to be a right guaranteed to a non-national guard member, but only to an active national guard member, and then only in his/her capacity of active national guard membership and on
duty by any logical read of the Second Amendment.
Only rifles for hunting and arms for ordinary self-protection in the home can be read into Second Amendment protection afforded individual non-militia-related United States citizens.
The same as right to breathe air and drink water.
Y-A-O-O-L!
And only a reasonable number of “arms.” Perhaps several. For hunting of game and home protection.
Accessible and used only by persons of reasonable age unless under direct supervision of a responsible adult.
Although it must be acknowledged that in 1787 children much younger than eighteen, male and female, likely hunted with arms and were expected to defend hearth and home with arms.
Y-A-O-O-L!
Wherefore, thus, in conclusion, and were The Wolf elected to public office—never an ambition!—I would forthwith demand relinquishment of all non-protected weapons in the hands of all citizens not active, on-duty members of state national guards or the U.S. military—i.e., “militia”-
related entities. I would forthwith take, authorize all steps necessary to find and confiscate most of the 450 million arms at present possessed illegally by American citizens.
Yes, come, discover, pry them from, if necessary, cold dead hands, ye persons thinking you rightfully possess other than ordinary hunting rifles and pistols!
Y-A-O-O-L!
* * * *