Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

The 2nd Amendment Is Clear, The Founders Meant It

December 27, 2012 by  

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.” -2nd Amendment

Infringe— to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another. (Merriam-Webster)

There has been great hue and cry from the 1 percent that a “serious discussion” should be had in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting that left 28 (20 of them children) dead.

Make no mistake: the 1 percent (the psychopaths in government who work daily to deprive you of your liberties) understands that gun laws will not stop incidents such as this from occurring in the future. Gun laws have the sole purpose of enslaving the populace. The Founders understood this well. Let them explain:

“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?” -Patrick Henry

“The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside…Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them…” -Thomas Paine

“The Constitution shall never be construed … to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” -Samuel Adams

“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed; unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” -The Federalist, No. 46, James Madison

“Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good” -George Washington

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” -Cesare Beccaria On Crimes and Punishment, quoted by Thomas Jefferson in Commonplace Book

“A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.” -Jefferson

“One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them.” -Jefferson

“No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands].”-Jefferson

“[T]he people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.” -Zachariah Johnson, The Virginia Ratifying Convention

“[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, –who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them…” -George Mason, The Virginia Ratifying Convention.

“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? It is feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” -Tench Coxe

The liberty lover will reject any laws that infringe upon the right to possess a gun.

Bob Livingston

is an ultra-conservative American who has been writing a newsletter since 1969. Bob has devoted much of his life to research and the quest for truth on a variety of subjects. Bob specializes in health issues such as nutritional supplements and alternatives to drugs, as well as issues of privacy (both personal and financial), asset protection and the preservation of freedom.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “The 2nd Amendment Is Clear, The Founders Meant It”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • cawmun cents

    The sad part here Bob,is that most people who read this probably think you are blowing more smoke up their posteriors than Diane Feinstein is.
    -CC.

    • Paul White

      How can we ever expect the gun grabbers to get the 2nd amendment down right if the suporters can’t write it correctly. The way you have written it in your article, with three commas, is from the next to the last draft of the bill of rights, not the final draft. With the three commas, it makes no gramatical sense. When it was submitted to the full congress, they made the drafters correct all the gramatical errors and punctuation errors. The two extra commas were removed before it was submitted to the states for ratification. The second amendment was approved with only one comma, after the word “State”. The radical left dug up this three comma version in the mid 1990′s and have been printing and promoting it that way ever since, because it muddies up the meaning of the amendment. They use this wording to claim that the right to arms is only for a militia.

  • http://yahoo Glen

    Great Article. However it falls on deaf liberal ears.

  • CZ52

    It will be most interesting to see the anti-gun zelots eddie and Flashy respond to this excellent article.

    • Bill

      We already know how they will respond, it is very predictable.

      It will probably be Bush’s fault

  • JJM123

    “There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword, the other is by debt.” John Adams
    We are well on our way to debt enslavement, we cannot unconditionally surrender by forfeiting our arms.

    • GALT

      The third way is by BS…….

      ” To conquer, first DIVIDE!!!!!! ” ( and then HANG separately )

  • GALT

    “From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . .”

    Very true in that for invading trespasser’s determined to steal what didn’t belong to
    them being well “armed” makes sense……..let’s see, that would be “might makes right”
    which is “all of history”……and all the rest of “history” mere pretense…..which may make this the most intelligent observation Mr. Livingston has ever made ( by accident, of course) and since now that we KNOW the “rules”, we can get down to business.

    If nothing else, it does SAVE a lot of time….

    • JimH

      I don’t think “might makes right”. If you are in the right and it is being infringed upon, is it wrong to use might to defend it?
      Might was used to defeat Hitler.(one who believed might makes right, how ironic)
      Police use might against criminals.

      • GALT

        Were you trying to say something? Learning to read will help…..get back to me….when you do………unless……..these little dots……..make you even more disfunctional, than you have already demonstrated yourself to be………

      • JimH

        You can’t understand what I wrote? I guess you’re not the super intelectual you fancy yourself to be. Any normal person gets it.
        Maybe I used English instead of pseudo-intelectual, and it was to far beneath you to understand.

      • GALT

        That you don’t think “might makes right”? Who gives a damn sonny…….you have all of history saying “up your’s”……and you can’t read……now doesn’t that just SUCK!!!!!!

        and you were “trying” to respond to ME, were you not?

        So that leaves us with…..

        “Were you trying to say something?”

      • GALT

        That you don’t think “might makes right”? Who gives a damn sonny…….you have all of history saying “up your’s”……and you can’t read……now doesn’t that just bite the big one!!!!!

        and you were “trying” to respond to ME, were you not?

        So that leaves us with…..

        “Were you trying to say something?”

      • GALT

        Be better if you just responded directly BOB…….after all, you know why I am confused and why I am here……….or are you figuring out that the TRUTH is bad for business?

      • JimH

        Galt, You’re the one who brought up might making right.
        All I asked was if you are in the right, is it OK to use might to enforce it.
        You’re the one who got all surly.
        Not just with my post,but other’s too.
        It’s pathetic you didn’t understand such a simple post and question.
        Just who pi&&ed in your corn flakes this morning anyway?(does your high pseudo-intelect understand that question?) Or are you just not a nice person?

      • JimH

        PS, does posting your rude comments twice, make you twice as right, or wrong?
        Just wondering, not having that superior pseudo-intelect and all.

      • phideaux

        “superior pseudo-intelect”

        If Galt had even half the superior pseudo-intelect he thinks he does he would be almost as smart as the post at the back corner of my manure compost pile.

  • http://google Richard

    The 2nd Amendment was designed for one reason and one reason only. That is: To protect the people of the USA from a government with tyrannical intentions. It was not designed so that we could have weapons with which to hunt. Can you imagine what it would be like, or will be like, once the government and the police are the only ones with firearms?? I guess we could always use our knives, swords and pitch forks to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government–much like the one we have now. Where will our military stand once the inquisitions starts and they come for our firearms?

    • Walt

      Richard,

      With our open borders as they are, and will most likely remain so, it won’t be difficult to access weapons from Canada and Mexico. After all, all the high-tech weaponry of the most powerful army in the world has been unable to defeat the Taliban, who arguably are not the most sophisticated soldiers fielded to date. As to where our military stands, I believe that you only need to look back to 1936 Spain to see how the “professional soldiers” reacted to a “democratically elected government” hell bent on turning a conservative, traditional country into a socialist/communist state. History does tend to repeat.

      • Motov

        Can you imagine red necked people hiding out in Kentucky woods? Or (Wisconsin version of red necks) Die Hard packer fans hidden out in the woods? Or whatever hillbilly, farmer, outdoorsy types people you have,…. That should put fear into any liberal who wants to tell these people how to line their lives.

  • ROGER, Irish-Canadian LIBERTARIAN

    What do THOSE, who wish to see Americans disarmed, think, is preventing the Psychopaths in government from just NOW declaring a Dictatorship? Could it be that those same Psychos know that Americans are ARMED and will defend their RIGHTS, by those same arms? Their FEAR of Death, by american patriots, is what is keeping Dictatorship away from the “gates”.

    • PGHYinzer33

      you make a very valid point, one that I have not considered yet. We can only hope that the people wake up and see another twist to enslave the populace. They are trying to get the American people to disarm themselves by having “gun-turn-in” days. The question I have with this is: since those holding these “events” are law -enforcement divisions, the people who pay their taxes, pay the police and the police are telling them to turn in their guns… has no one thought of the fact that they are in effect funding their own enslavement?

  • Gary L

    Armed, we are citizens. Unarmed, we are subjects. It is just that simple.

    • GALT

      Stupidity makes you a “subject”, give you a gun, you are just “armed and stupid”.

      • http://N/A Jackie Smith

        @Galt – And you would be unarmed and dead, as well as stupid.

      • Ted G

        Don’t degrade or disregard simple wisdom Galt, it makes you look foolish and petty. And for what just to one up with more simple albeit cynical wisdom.

      • GALT

        non sequitur……but I will be laughing from a distance.

      • ROGEr, Irish-Canadian LIBERTARIAN

        Actually,”Galt”, STUPIDITY, per se, does NOT necessarily make one a “subject” and I am sure you know that, so what is your REAL point???

      • Bill

        As in the famous words of John Wayne,
        “Life is tough, it is even tougher if you are stupid” I will keep me guns, it is better to be judged bt twelve than carried by six

  • rubby

    really no gun no killing.Indian mahatma Gandhi had proof without gun India independent in 1949 so please no gun,no gun if i have gun i kill u but no gun no kill

    • PGHYinzer33

      yes, that would be great, but you would have to also disarm and have all the governments of the world have no arms, no arms for the governments, no arms for the people… keep dreaming…

  • http://www.facebook.com/underthebusremovaltool Charles Bird

    this is like cash for junkers, and all it did was get rid of parts we need for our cars,instead it developed more cost. turning in guns for credit cards, is like throwing history down the drain, dictatorship will never happen in america and obammacare will fall on its face,so when fear stares you in the face, remember they fear us just as much, they make a big deal out of things that happen, while they sit idle , it should be a learning process, but no ,its a gun grab or just another take away from america, if we keep letting these persons in washington doing the grabbing go on there will be nothing left, its almost way pass time to stand up against this wantobee dictator. and the spending, who in their right mind would give a president a credit card w/no limit , when he can’t make a budget period

    • GALT

      Not his job dummy……..his job is to sign or veto and then execute the laws…….after it is passed by the house ( first….whose job it is to propose ) then the senate, if they “concur”……

      “Do you concur?” ( see Catch Me if You CAN!!!!!! )

  • http://www.facebook.com/raven1041 Jack Collins

    The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution (As I see it.)

    It seems to me that the simple use of a dictionary fully explains the God given rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

    2nd 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.

    A well (successful or effective) regulated (accurate and properly functioning) Militia(An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers) being necessary to the security (Freedom from risk or danger; safety) of a free ( Not imprisoned or enslaved; being at liberty. Not controlled by obligation or the will of another) State, (the condition or circumstances of a person or thing, a sovereign political power or community, the territory of such a community) the right (a freedom or power that is morally or legally due to a person) of the people to keep (To retain possession, have a supply of or maintain for use or service.) and bear (To carry from one place to another; transport.) Arms (weapons considered collectively. Any instrument or instrumentality used in fighting or hunting. The term (or) not being preceded by the word either means that both fighting and hunting are applicable, not either one or the other), shall not be infringed. (To transgress, violate, defeat, invalidate or encroach on someone or something;.

    Therefore according to the definitions of the words as they were used should have meant the following.

    A successful, effective, accurate and properly functioning army of ordinary citizens, being necessary to maintain the freedom of the people or the nation from anyone or any government trying to take away that freedom, the moral and legal freedom or power of the people to possess, have a supply of or carry or transport weapons or any instrument used in fighting or hunting, shall not be transgressed, violated, defeated, invalidated or encroached upon.

    As far as I can tell by the definitions of the words used in the 2nd Amendment the Federal, State or Local Governments may not tell the people what type of weapons they may have, or how many weapons they may have, nor how or what weapons they may transport with them. Nor may they make any laws, regulations or bans concerning what weapons a person chooses to own or how and where they choose to transport them. In other words there are to be no infringements on this right whatsoever. If a person were to use those weapons in the commission of a crime then the governments may prosecute them according to law. However, maintaining our freedom is not only, not a crime, it is the duty of every American.

    • CZ52

      I have said the same on more than one occasion however you have said it much better than I was ever able to.

  • HKaufman

    Well here is another zippy statement which fits.. “The computer say’s he who lives by the GUN will DIE by the GUN.. Go peddle second amendment to the 20 plus family’s who have had their lives shattered because of the right to bear arms . They would string you up and fly you higher then a Macy’s Thanksgiving day Parade Balloon.

    A need exists that will update the 2 amendment :”THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS AND NUTBAGS WITH A Weapon of Mass People doom.. That way the second amendment will justify and make sense to all of the great white hunters and the NRA can go to bed every nite with a clear mind. “THE AGE OF MANKIND COMMING TO AN END AND GIVE RISE TO THE CONQUER WORM” Rap on Brother Rap on!!!!!

    • Ted G

      Well your only legal and Constitutional choice then is to call for a constitutional convention and simply have the 2nd amendment changed or abolished.

      But based on the law of the land right now you can “Make no law” that infringes on the right to bear arms of any US citizen. You simply do not have the right nor the power under our Constitution!

    • Bill

      HKaufman
      So, if the age of mankind is coming to an end, then you need guns more than ever. So, go buy some more guns

  • Dee

    It’s just too bad these dumocRATS don’t believe in the constitution.

  • Motov

    I guess that loony-toon in NY is not such a good anti-gun poster boy,…
    We will need tougher anti-hammer laws and anti-arson laws as well,
    Let us not forget knives, baseball bats, lawn darts, rocks, cars, coins, toys,
    Almost anything can be used as a weapon, some are more deadly than others, but to blame inanimate objects, or even society because “there were no laws against such use”
    Is totally insane. The real question is,… How do WE turn off the lunatic inside a person before he/she goes out on a rampage?

    Democrats failed that one,… again and again , They choose to ignore this kind of behavior because it benefits them, Democrats love groups of people, anyone outside these groups are politically incorrect, and therefore, ok to make into agendas of more government intervention into their lives.

  • Chris

    Richard is right. Maybe what needs to be done is to have Psychiatrists give over to the authorities the names of their patients so the authorities could run a gun check against the nutballs and confiscate any guns in their homes. If anything is going to be changed in the constitution about the right to bear arms, it should be “unless you’re a nutball”………same goes for criminals who have committed crimes with guns. None of those herein should be allowed to have any guns available to them.

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.