A) THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

B) THE WORD “MILITIA.”

C) THE PHRASE “FREE STATE.”

D) GETTING BACK.

 

 

A) THE 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.”

 

 

B) THE WORD “MILITIA”

 

 

The controversy comes about over the meaning of the word “Militia.”

 

Modern day anti Second Amendment proponents (who have no legal association with or have any law background) have it meaning as such:

 

“The Second Amendment doesn’t actually allow people to own guns.  It only allows the state to own guns in order to form something like a National Guard.”

 

The actual original meaning of the Founding Fathers was:

 

“A Militia is composed of all free men who are capable of bearing arms.”

 

According to the “Supreme Court of the United States of America,” in a case titled, “District of Columbia Verses Heller,” dated March 18th, 2008 (quoting; this is just a short summery of said conclusion):

 

“[T]he term ‘militia’ should not be confined to those serving in the military, because at the time the term referred to all able-bodied men who were capable of being called to such service.

 

“To read the Amendment as limiting the right to bear arms only to those in a governed military force would be to create exactly the type of state-sponsored force against [the people of the U.S.] which the Amendment was meant to protect. . .

 

“Because the text of the Amendment should be read in the manner that gives greatest effect to the plain meaning [all able-bodied men shall not be restricted from owning guns] it would have had at the time it was written, the operative clause should be read to ‘guarantee an individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.’

 

“This reading is also in line with legal writing of the time and subsequent scholarship [AND “subsequent scholarship” in other words, quit attempting to force a new meaning to an old proven law].  Therefore, banning handguns [the case was focused upon “handguns” only; but should, as the Founding Fathers understood it, apply to all guns, tanks, etcetera], an entire class of arms that is commonly used for protection purposes, and prohibiting firearms from being kept functional in the home, the area traditionalloy in need of protection, violates the Second Amendment.”

 

 

C) THE PHRASE “FREE STATE”

 

 

Another part of the controversy comes about over the meaning of “free State.”

 

Modern day anti Second Amendment proponents (who have no legal association with or have any law background) have it meaning as such:

 

“A State is comprised of one of the 50 states in the United States.”

 

The actual original meaning of the Founding Fathers was:

 

“A ‘state’ of being.”  Meaning, protection of any territory for the “well-being.” Of the people.

 

According to the Supreme Court of the United States of America, in the same case titled, “District of Columbia Verses Heller,” dated March 18th, 2008, quoting:

 

“The phrase ‘security of a free state’ meant ‘security of a free polity,’ not security of each of the several States. . . It is true that the term ‘State’ elsewhere in the Constitution refers to individual States, but the phrase ‘security of a free state’ and close variations seem to have been terms of art in 18th-century political discourse, meaning a ‘free country’ or free polity. . .

 

“Moreover, the other instances of ‘state’ in the Constitution are typically accompanied by modifiers [anti Second Amendment proponents] making clear that the reference is to the several States -- ‘each state,’ ‘several states,’ ‘any state,’ ‘that state,’ ‘particular states,’ ‘one state,’ ‘no state.’

 

“And the presence of the term ‘foreign state’ in Article I and Article III shows that the word ‘state’ did not have a single meaning in the Constitution.”

 

The Bottom Line, is that the Second Amendment, in order to be understood in PLAIN ENGLISH today would read:

 

“A well-regulated BODY OF FREE MEN, being necessary to the security of a FREE NATION, the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

 

 

D) GETTING BACK

 

 

Getting back to the actual Second Amendment, the First part, or the “Prefatory Clause:”

 

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

 

This explains the REASON why this Amendment was necessary and instituted in the first place.

 

The Second part, the “Operative Clause:”

 

“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

 

This explains what the Right actually is:  “shall not be infringed.”

 

Keep in mind that this Amendment was written just after the “Revolutionary War,” and was not written in order for the people to go hunting for dinner.  No, No.  It was written to keep Tyrant governments, such as Great Britten, or one’s own government, from taking away “FREEDOM.”

 

Somebody [Patrick Henry] back then stated:  “Give me Freedom or give me death.”

​