McDonald, Poetic License, American Lit 101

Yesterday, SCOTUS decided McDonald et al. v . City of Chicago, Illinois, et al., in favor of McDonald.  This news has swept through the nation, accompanied by congratulations and mourning, depending on an individual’s political view of gun ownership.

I take no pleasure in this news, not because I think gun ownership should be restricted, it should not, but because the Second Amendment has been so obfuscated by the poetic license musings of the ruling class over the years that individuals no longer trust their own knowledge and understanding of the words within the Second Amendment, as presented to them by the founding fathers.

The Second Amendment, runs a total of twenty-seven (27) words, which are as follows.

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.

These twenty-seven (27) words have been mashed, bashed, pureed, and mouthed with a baby’s zeal for a zwieback, resembling not so much a learned discourse of knowledge and wisdom, but a bunch of college freshman in an American Lit 101 class analyzing a Shel Silverstein poem, and not understanding it.

I suppose, if an individual is content to waive their inalienable rights, kneeling as a supplicant before the power of the State, pleading for the right of property ownership, the SCOTUS decision will appear as a victory over the State, but it would be an unprincipled victory, as illustrated in these words from Billy Beck.

I have more principled reasons for my stand on owning firearms, and I don’t care one whit in the world for the Second Amendment. It means nothing to me. My rights have nothing to do with the U.S. Constitution, and when it dawns on people that it has finally been erased—the principal danger of all political premises posed as “social contracts”—my rights will still validly exist, even if I die defending them.  I own firearms because I have a right to private property.  That is the First Thing.

But let’s return to those twenty-seven (27) words of the Second Amendment.  There are three (3) words, only, within the amendment, if individuals believe they are constrained by the State, which actually bear analyzing.  Those words are “keep,” “bear,” and “infringe.”

When the founding fathers wrote The Constitution of the United States, it was written in a language which could be easily understood by the common man.  Meaning, a class of individuals, the majority at the time, with rather rudimentary educations as compared to today.  Thus, the words keep, bear, and infringe, as utilized by the founding fathers, would be understood to mean the following:

Keep:

4 a : to retain in one’s possession or power

b : to refrain from granting, giving, or allowing

c : to have in control

Bear:

— bear arms 1 : to carry or possess arms

Infringe:

1 : to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another

These three (3) small words were not misunderstood by individuals when The Constitution of the United States was written.  “To keep” meant exactly what is implied, “to retain in one’s possession,” ownership; “to bear” meant exactly what is implied, “to carry or possess;” and “shall not be infringed” meant exactly what is implied, the State shall not violate the right to own or carry arms, yet today these three (3) small words are so misunderstood that Justice Thomas Clarence required fifty-six (56) pages worth of words to support SCOTUS’ decision that individuals do have a right to keep and bear arms in the City of Chicago.

Individuals can slice and dice the Second Amendment all they want, but the fact remains that any law restricting ownership or the carrying of firearms is unconstitutional.  Period.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/29 at 06:31 AM

  1. While I am no fan of Hamilton, he certainly was correct in what would happen to the Bill of Rights.


    Federalist Paper No. 84, by Alexander Hamilton, states:

    I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous.

    They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted.

    For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?

    Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?

    I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.

    They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.

    Posted by C. Cope  on  07/03  at  12:21 AM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


Next entry: Porcfest 2010 - An Optimistic Report on Liberty

Previous entry: Zen Thought of the Day

<< Back to main