The context of Amendment II

Each time we have another mass shooting the Second Amendment debate is upfront again. The liberal left calls for more control of guns and conservatives cry for preservation of their right to own a gun and indeed encourage citizens to carry a gun to help prevent future shootings.

I have long maintained that the words of the Second Amendment don’t say what those who extract selected words from the document say it does. And further that it cannot be read without careful consideration of the times in which it was written and the then current concerns of the leaders and citizens.

Amendment II (2): Right to bear arms
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.

Amendment III (3): Housing of soldiers
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.


If James Madison had written just “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” it would be clear, but instead he saw fit to explain the context of this right. When I was in the national guard many years ago I was given a gun; it was kept in the armory. When I stood on the streets of Newark during riots I was given a gun and later it was placed back in the armory. When I was in the army I was given a weapon when necessary and then it was locked up. That is a well regulated militia! 1789 was a different time; only a few years after the Revolutionary War and when America still had no standing federal army and a distrust of a strong central government. 

Now focus on Amendment III. Is it relevant today? Does anyone even think about it? Where are soldiers housed today? The 3rd amendment was written in the same context as the 2nd and yet we choose to extract only a few words from the 2nd amendment and use them to justify what may be the largest aresenal of weapons the world has ever seen among a population – reportedly 320 million weapons in the hands of US civilians.

We’re it not for the manipulation of “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” we might be a different society today. If we did not have such an appetite for guns, even the illegal trade could not thrive. Why this obsession with guns among so many?

I hear some on the fringe (I hope) need guns to protect themselves from a federal government out of control, others need protection from other citizens who have guns, still others want to hunt or target shoot and of course, the new call will be protection against terrorists.

The following position by the NRA borders on paranoia in my opinion. Why does the NRA not want government to know a person has a gun?

NRA opposes expanding background check systems at the federal or state level. Studies by the federal government show that people sent to state prison because of gun crimes typically get guns through theft, on the black market, or from family members or friends, and nearly half of illegally trafficked firearms originate with straw purchasers—people who can pass background checks, who buy guns for criminals on the sly. No amount of background checks can stop these criminals.

NRA also opposes gun registration. Expanding background check systems and allowing records to be kept on people who pass background checks to acquire guns would be steps toward transforming NICS into the national gun registry that gun control supporters have wanted for more than a hundred years. Source: NRA Website

Why is it important for Americans to own firearms? Do we truly fear our government? Do we fear our neighbors? Why are Americans so different from other societies? You would think based on history Germans and Italians would be armed in fear of government more than us. 

So, even if you believe that the second amendment does provide the unrestricted right to own a gun, why is that so important? 

No, registering all guns and requiring a license for all guns will not stop all mass killing, but it may get people to think twice, may avoid easy access for a disturbed person and perhaps gradually change our culture a bit. The real issue is why we are obsessed with guns?

Any thoughts?


  1. The National Rifle Association is the nation’s oldest civil right organization whose strength lies in the grassroots support of it’s over 5 million dues-paying members and tens-of-millions more who want their Second Amendment rights protected. The National Rifle Association is not to blame for the San Bernardino terrorist attack, or any other act of violence and neither are our Second Amendment freedoms. The American people understand that an act of evil unfolded in California. They know the government isn’t protecting them. That is why Americans now, as much as ever, want to ensure they can exercise their Second Amendment freedoms to protect themselves and their families. Also to answer the original question because there aren’t many things as much fun as a day spent at the range shooting rifles, hand guns and shot guns. Improving marksmanship and self defense skills are added bonuses. There is no such thing as an assault rifle. Assault can only happen by the hands of evil humans.


  2. There are multiple ways for the lib “gun grabbers” to have their way. Follow the prescribed Constitutional path to change the constitution or elect more nothings to the White House and soon the Federal courts will be completely controller by liberal judges. Consider Justice Kennedy’s reasoning for the sodomite fake marriage decision – His ruling opinion starts out “The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity.” This lib’s nonsense overrode thousands of years of cultural, religious, and judicial precedent.

    When Supreme Court decisions can be justified on nonsense arguments, when a nothing occupant of the White House ignores laws and ignores the Constitution, and when Congress gives their constitutional powers to unelected government officials, we are in deep trouble. Every amendment even the whole Constitution is subject to the whims of people who don’t love the United States and have no respect for the US Constitution. The nothing in the White House gives every indication the he (and especially his wife) hates the United States.

    Those millions of guns in the hands of Americans may be useful when the People understand what has happened.


  3. Dick, you are wrong. The 2nd Amendment needs to be read in light of the language of the day. Remember, when this was written, we were a confederation of states, not a national government. So, you need to also look to the various state constitutions that were contemporaneously written and subsequently amended. Remember that we have not seen any change to the 2nd Amendment since ratification … nothing wrong if Congress and the states want to amend it now. We’ve had plenty of amendments since 1791.

    State constitutions are especially helpful because right to arms provisions are included in 44 different state constitutions. Amendments to that language have been made from time to time since the Declaration of Independence through current date … so, we can see what people were thinking, why they included specific provisions and words. Finally, importantly, arms rights have been created by state conventions, state legislatures, initiatives and referendums – that is, by lawmakers and everyday citizens. Seems to be quite a consensus opinion – other than the law school, weenie elitists.

    Many of the same words and phrases contained in the 2nd Amendment were used in state constitutions – so they have a stable, consistent meaning. Since revolution to today, the words have clearly guaranteed a right of individuals to own and carry guns.

    The Second Amendment was written in 1789 by James Madison and sent by Congress to the States for ratification – achieved in 1791. Four states had contemporaneous constitutional protections. PA, adopted in 1790, provides: “The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.” PA’s 1st Constitution stated: “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up.” Vermont’s Constitution, adopted in 1777, states: “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State — and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up…”

    North Carolina adopted the right in 1776: “[t]hat the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up…” Later, in 1843, the North Carolina Supreme Court explained that “[f]or any lawful purpose — either of business or amusement — the citizen is at perfect liberty to carry his gun.” A post civil war constitution was amended in 1875: “Nothing herein contained shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons”. Obviously, this was intended to limit individual rights.

    Finally, the 1792 Kentucky constitution was nearly contemporaneous with the Second Amendment, which was ratified in 1791. Kentucky declared: “That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned.

    The year after the Second Amendment became the law of the land, Kentucky’s constitutional drafters used the phrase “bear arms” to include bearing arms for personal and collective defense: “in defence of themselves and the state.” This language suggests that “bear arms” was not commonly understood as encompassing only militia service.

    No one has argued that the lack of language “for defence of themselves” in the 2nd Amendment should be interpreted to confer rights in individual states that would not be guaranteed by the federal constitution as well. Otherwise, the feds could confiscate arms that the state would protect? I don’t think supremacy goes that far. .

    Finally, if this were specific to state militias, if this were about the concept of citizen militias and a need to maintain arms at home in case of a conflict and call up, why would the last two states adopt the 2nd Amendment into their state constitutions – Hawaii and Alaska? Obviously, the right was added to those state constitutions to preclude each state legislature from infringing individual rights to keep and bear arms.

    Finally, nothing wrong with changing the language to make it clear in 2015!!! That no one is proposing a constitutional Amendment tells you everything – all agree there is an individual right that an amendment would have to remove … meaning, it ain’t gonna happen. Those who favor such action tend to read the bill of rights as guaranteeing against federal government infringement only 9 rights.


    1. I disagree. The context is very important was considered in several court rulings of the past. Clearly without a standing army the militia is critical and back then the states had a far more independent view of the Country. Without considering the context of the time, why was there any need for that amendment?

      Regardless, the point was not so much the right to bear arms, but the American obsession for doing so.


    1. The need for the bill of rights amendments, one thru ten, is more obvious today than ever before – given the federal government’s aggrandizement of powers that were historically those of the states or of the people. Want an easy example – for hundreds of years,marraige has been part of state law, now one justice has decided (in a 5-4 ruling Windsor, Oberkefell, (sp?)) that states cannot maintain their own laws on marraige, even when part of a state’s constitution – favoring the 14th amendment over the 10th amendment.

      Back then, the standing army, and the federal government, was perceived to be one of a number of potential enemies of everyday citizens. The whole point was to moderate the power of a centralized government – of, by, for the people. So, like other INDIVIDUAL rights to be free of federal government intrusion, the 2nd amendment restricts the federal government … Regardless of the reason… Militia, standing army, whatever.

      Remember, again, each and every state does not / need not guarantee the right to keep and bear arms. So, a state could outlaw guns – which would not violate the 2nd amendment to the U.S. Constitution, unless the supremes agree incorporation applies. Let’s see how justice Kennedy will interpret the tension between the 10th and 14th amendment in such a scenario … At some future date, he might swing in the other direction, favoring state’s rights (arguing the state’s duty to provide for/secure health and welfare for its citizens prevails).

      What a mess we have made.


  4. I read much of Mr. Wilson worthy initial comments with pleasure. Then, maybe with his meds wearing off, he concluded with a rant unworthy of the informative narrative that preceded it. The NRA a cancer! To be eliminated and destroyed forever? It is comments such as these which solidify NRA support. Hmmm, maybe Wilson is a mole for the NRA, stoking the fires of back-lash.


  5. Only one problem….today’s administration. I have more suspicions about the federal government today than at any other time of my life (I am 69). Why are there members of the Muslem Brotherhood in Obama’s administration? Why does the mainstream media continue to downplay or even not report major events which put this administration in a negative light such as executive orders which are unconstitutional? It seems like everyone is asleep at the wheel.



  6. Sorry for the long answer but this is a complex issue. I will try you answer your question as it applies to me and I speak for only me.

    Why is it important to own a firearm and I ask why it is important for you to own a car or sex toys if you want? It is irrelevant. It is legal to buy and to own them all. Now I do not own sex toys and I do not own handguns but it is my choice. I own target rifles, hunting rifles, and shotguns. I still have no desire to own handguns.

    I also own several motor vehicles that use gasoline and pollute our air which causes global warming. Accord to some, I am killing future generations. Should cars be banned? I have not killed anybody with my guns but I am killing others with the pollution from my car.

    Why do people own fishing rods when you can buy fish at the supermarket? Let’s ban fishing rods. I do go hunting with guns and with bow and arrows but I still go to the supermarket to buy meat. I do not own any fishing rods but I still go to both lakes and supermarkets
    Reading some of the posts on this site you would think that we should be in fear of our own government. By your post you are at least aware of how the Nazis disarmed its own citizens and then placed a total gun ban on Jews but exempted members of the Nazi Party from the gun ownership ban. They also used the registration records to disarm and imprison the Jews. I use this example because my statement can be easily verified.

    England at the start of World War II was also disarmed and as a result they did not even have enough guns to defend their own coastline. American sportsmen gave Britain their own personal firearms until the American government was able to produce enough military rifles for England to defend their shores.

    You choose the 3rd Amendment as an example. It states that no soldier shall be quartered in time of peace or war “but in a manner to be prescribed by law”. I do not even know what manner is currently prescribed. Do soldiers have to knock first or just write a note and posted it on the door before breaking it down? Our government can change whatever the current law is any time; think the Patriot Act that allowed for no warrant searches. We currently have “no knock warrants” that the US Supreme Court has validated as legal. I think the 3rd Amendment is still valid in the modern age but it is just not practical to house US Soldiers in peace time as it relates to how large military unit moves today. But in World War II you bet our soldiers found shelter wherever they could find it overseas.

    Fear and paranoid of the government changing the gun laws on a whim is what drives the NRA. Every shooting brings new a round of proposals with of dozens of both reasonable and unreasonable gun ban legislation. In New Jersey, I have bought my long guns legally over the last 30 years. They have passed so many conflicting gun laws I am not even sure if I am legal anymore and I am talking about owning a shot gun to go deer hunting, nothing complex or fancy on my part. I do not know if I can drive down a street past a school to get to the state hunting ground one mile away on the same road.

    People in power will often pass laws to keep themselves in power. As proof I suggest that after every US census, the party in power tries to rewrite voting districts to keep their party in power. History has examples of how governments will disarm its citizens and we know our own government will try to keep its power. Do I think it will happen in the United States, no or am I foolish in that belief?

    World history has proved me wrong time and time again and just maybe the NRA might be correct. After dozens of little logical restrictions, when do you turn around and look over your shoulder and realize that you gave away all of your rights and realize that it is too late to undo the damage. How long did it Germany citizens in the 1930’s before they realized that putting Hitler in power was a mistake? During the Great Depression and post-World War I sanctions, the Nazi propaganda is what the Germany people wanted to hear at first. This is what scares me with Bernie Sanders. His brand of socialism is resonating with so many disenfranchised Americans hearing what they want to hear without regard to reality.

    Since you used the 3rd Amendment, I would like to use the 1st Amendment; should the 1st Amendment be changed? Germany has outlawed hate speech or statements denying the Holocaust with prison terms. Why should we not restrict free speech and Internet access as it relates to ISIS and Islam and all bloggers who even mention ISIS? Should the NSA and FBI be permitted to track all Internet users who google ISIS? Should we restrict any media reports on mass murders or terrorist successes? The press would fight these proposed laws as hard as the NRA. So why is the 2nd Amendment not allowed to be defended?

    I cannot figure out if ISIS or ISIL is a Muslim religion, Islam religion, a political governing movement such as Communism or Nazis parties, or a true revolution driven by the will of the people. The Communisms and Nazis enslaved and killed their own people who did not convert to their principles. The media and these terror groups have blurred exactly what the Islam religion is or what to be a Muslim means other than it appears to me that some of these groups are permitted to murder non-believers. In other words, in the name of religion there are groups of people who feel they can murder me thousands of miles away from where they live. If I recall correctly the Christians believed that they could torture and kill during the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition.

    Should we change the 1st Amendment to ban hate speech and hate religions to prevent “radicalization” of people into terrorist? Who gets to decide what “hate speech” or “hate religions” is? How do we prevent good American becoming racialized?

    Why can’t I racial profile Muslims and avoid them if I know that members of this group want kill me? I would not willingly to walk into a bar full of Hell Angels. That may be just asking for trouble any the smart thinking is to avoid them. But if the Hell Angels take over a bar, then a neighborhood, do I have the right to defend myself and can I use a gun in my own home? It takes time for government and the police to contain them. FBI investigations sometimes take decades to dismantle drug gangs. What do I do until then, roll over? Should I let criminals and terrorist win?

    I am not opposed to some restrictions on gun ownership and the Supreme Court has agreed to both the right to own firearms and restrictions. We have restriction on driver licenses which is not a right but every time a drunk driver kills people by driving into a crowd at a parade do we cry “car ban” and try issuing 30 more anti-car ownership laws or try to change the 21st Amendment back into the 18th Amendment again? No. It is the person who made the bad decision to drink and drive not the car.

    Banning guns will not stop crazy. The bombing in Boston proved that. The terrorist stabbing on the London subway yesterday proved that. Either we give up our freedoms and let the three letter agencies (NSA, FBI, CIA) track our every move or we must learn to live with it. I am not paranoid enough to issue mass conceal carry permits but I also believe that if you think that the police will protect you then you are a fool. The law cannot catch and prosecute criminals now let alone prevent and stop all crimes in progress. Look at the war on drugs that was lost.

    Now for the answer to your question, I think the real issue of why we are obsessed with guns is due to movies, video games, and the way the media reports. Also it seems people in general feel that they have every right to cause harm or death if you insult them for the least minor infraction. Maybe the question should not be why are we obsessed with guns (a tool) but why we feel that we can injury or kill anybody we want (the act of murder) which is what we really want to stop. ABC news was so eager to broadcast the San Bernardino shootings that for hours they broadcasted live not knowing the facts but sensationalizing the shooting as either needing more gun laws or terrorism which just feeds into the glamor for the mass killers and propaganda that ISIS wants. My question is how does a married couple take their child to grandma and then go out and kill? Did they real believe they would be thought as heroes and sit in the glory of their god?

    I think we need restrictions on the 1st Amendment but I will defend the 1st as well as all of the Amendments just as I sworn so many years ago when I enlisted.

    Before I am attacked on my 2nd Amendment views by others in this forum, I remind you that it is the 1st Amendment that allows me to respectfully state my views in the hope that the conversation will aid in finding the solution to murder and to answer why people are obsessed with guns. In the meantime if you do not want a gun, don’t buy one just don’t tell me that I am not allow have one and I will not tell you that can’t state your opinion. I will even suggest that you are allowed to own a car even though it is not a Constitutional Right but I have fewer grounds to support that opinion than to own a gun.

    Just for the record I will also continue to own cars to pollute people to death and even though I might be missing out on something I’ll pass on the sex toys.


    1. But is the issue having a gun or simply having a gun under the condition of background check, permit and registration? Why does the NRA oppose those conditions?


      1. I can’t speak for the NRA but I think I made it clear about the registration part. In the post World War II world, several countries have passed total gun bans and they used those records to come after those gun owners. For the record all gun sales are to be record at both the federal and state level in NJ but I can still give you a long gun if you have a NJ Firearms purchaser card and a new background investigation is not required for long gun purchases but a computerize background verification is still required. I am not against background checks and permits because legal gun owners will pass and criminals do not care or will get around the background checks or steal the guns. They claim California has the strictest gun laws. It only takes 10 days in California to complete the background check. In New Jersey in some places it may take months in violation of the law. To my knowledge New Jersey has not issued any concealed carrying permits which is against the law but backed by the NJ judges. In New Jersey you can be denied a hand gun permit by the investigating police officer due race and gender or physical size (being too small). The NRA is going to issue video proof at 6 am on 12-7-2015 on this topic which may swing me more into their camp if it is true. The President tonight wants people on the No Fly List to be banned from buying guns. I agree that makes total sense except it would not have stop San Bernardino and the list is so secret that once you are placed on that list you are not notified, have no right to access why you were placed on the list and have no right of appeal to be removed from the list. Currently because of the lack of due process they cannot use the information to prevent guns purchases. Now you would think whatever the reason you were placed on the no fly list that the FBI could tell you at least why other than you have the same name of a terrorist which Homeland Security will not even tell you. So the background checks have to be consistent, open, and have the right to appeal and not excessive like in New Jersey. Until those safe guards are built into background checks I’ll be against any additional laws and even if they did have safe guards I am sure most people will not have the money or the time to fight an appeal. I think once again is where will it stop?


  7. A fraud on the American public.” That’s how former Chief Justice Warren Burger described the idea that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual right to a gun. When he spoke these words to PBS in 1990, the rock-ribbed conservative appointed by Richard Nixon was expressing the longtime consensus of historians and judges across the political spectrum.
    Twenty-five years later, Burger’s view seems as quaint as a powdered wig. Not only is an individual right to a firearm widely accepted, but increasingly states are also passing laws to legalize carrying weapons on streets, in parks, in bars—even in churches.

    Many are startled to learn that the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t rule that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun until 2008, when District of Columbia v. Heller struck down the capital’s law effectively banning handguns in the home. In fact, every other time the court had ruled previously, it had ruled otherwise. Why such a head-snapping turnaround? Don’t look for answers in dusty law books or the arcane reaches of theory.

    So how does legal change happen in America? We’ve seen some remarkably successful drives in recent years—think of the push for marriage equality, or to undo campaign finance laws. Law students might be taught that the court is moved by powerhouse legal arguments or subtle shifts in doctrine. The National Rifle Association’s long crusade to bring its interpretation of the Constitution into the mainstream teaches a different lesson: Constitutional change is the product of public argument and political maneuvering. The pro-gun movement may have started with scholarship, but then it targeted public opinion and shifted the organs of government. By the time the issue reached the Supreme Court, the desired new doctrine fell like a ripe apple from a tree.

    The Second Amendment consists of just one sentence: “A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Today, scholars debate its bizarre comma placement, trying to make sense of the various clauses, and politicians routinely declare themselves to be its “strong supporters.” But in the grand sweep of American history, this sentence has never been among the most prominent constitutional provisions. In fact, for two centuries it was largely ignored.
    The amendment grew out of the political tumult surrounding the drafting of the Constitution, which was done in secret by a group of mostly young men, many of whom had served together in the Continental Army. Having seen the chaos and mob violence that followed the Revolution, these “Federalists” feared the consequences of a weak central authority. They produced a charter that shifted power—at the time in the hands of the states—to a new national government.

    “Anti-Federalists” opposed this new Constitution. The foes worried, among other things, that the new government would establish a “standing army” of professional soldiers and would disarm the 13 state militias, made up of part-time citizen-soldiers and revered as bulwarks against tyranny. These militias were the product of a world of civic duty and governmental compulsion utterly alien to us today. Every white man age 16 to 60 was enrolled. He was actually required to own—and bring—a musket or other military weapon.

    On June 8, 1789, James Madison—an ardent Federalist who had won election to Congress only after agreeing to push for changes to the newly ratified Constitution—proposed 17 amendments on topics ranging from the size of congressional districts to legislative pay to the right to religious freedom. One addressed the “well regulated militia” and the right “to keep and bear arms.” We don’t really know what he meant by it. At the time, Americans expected to be able to own guns, a legacy of English common law and rights. But the overwhelming use of the phrase “bear arms” in those days referred to military activities.

    There is not a single word about an individual’s right to a gun for self-defense or recreation in Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention. Nor was it mentioned, with a few scattered exceptions, in the records of the ratification debates in the states. Nor did the U.S. House of Representatives discuss the topic as it marked up the Bill of Rights. In fact, the original version passed by the House included a conscientious objector provision. “A well regulated militia,” it explained, “composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

    Though state militias eventually dissolved, for two centuries we had guns (plenty!) and we had gun laws in towns and states, governing everything from where gunpowder could be stored to who could carry a weapon—and courts overwhelmingly upheld these restrictions. Gun rights and gun control were seen as going hand in hand. Four times between 1876 and 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule that the Second Amendment protected individual gun ownership outside the context of a militia. As the Tennessee Supreme Court put it in 1840, “A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane.”

    Cue the National Rifle Association. We all know of the organization’s considerable power over the ballot box and legislation. Bill Clinton groused in 1994 after the Democrats lost their congressional majority, “The NRA is the reason the Republicans control the House.” Just last year, it managed to foster a successful filibuster of even a modest background-check proposal in the U.S. Senate, despite 90 percent public approval of the measure.
    What is less known—and perhaps more significant—is its rising sway over constitutional law.
    The NRA was founded by a group of Union officers after the Civil War who, perturbed by their troops’ poor marksmanship, wanted a way to sponsor shooting training and competitions. The group testified in support of the first federal gun law in 1934, which cracked down on the machine guns beloved by Bonnie and Clyde and other bank robbers. When a lawmaker asked whether the proposal violated the Constitution, the NRA witness responded, “I have not given it any study from that point of view.” The group lobbied quietly against the most stringent regulations, but its principal focus was hunting and sportsmanship: bagging deer, not blocking laws. In the late 1950s, it opened a new headquarters to house its hundreds of employees. Metal letters on the facade spelled out its purpose: firearms safety education, marksmanship training, shooting for recreation.

    The NRA is a cancer in our society that profits from the increased sale of weapons and ammunitions with fear mongering among our citizens. The NRA cancer must be eliminated and destroyed forever. Mr. Quinn’s call for congressional term limits would nearly eliminate the influence of the influence of the NRA. Hunters and skeet shooters don’t need assault rifles any more than fishermen need depth charges for massive fish kills.

    Thank you, Mr. Quinn.


    1. This is a little bit off topic but, I would like to point out that all 50 states currently have state militias known as Army National Guard and Air National Guard. During my six years in the Air National Guard I was subject to orders of the President and the Governor of NJ. For one year during the middle of my enlistment I went full-time and my pay check came directly from State of New Jersey and I had a New Jersey state pension. I am proud of my time that I served in the 177th FIG in Atlantic City. My son is currently in the NJ Army Guard has has been deployed twice now and was activated for six months after Hurricane Sandy supporting the State of New Jersey.

      A federal program called Civilian Marksmanship Program gives guns and ammo to promote civilian marksman. There is a reason why so many American soldiers can shoot. US Marines are the best trained marksman for your average military unit in the world and the US Army would probably like to disagree with me but the importance has not been lost by our own military and our enemies of knowing how to shoot. The same can be said for Israel and Switzerland. These are countries that know freedom is not free.

      There are countries that are too poor to properly train their troops and the soldiers have no civilian experience. That is a good thing for the American soldier facing those enemies but all countries have a moral obligation to their soldiers to have a chance on the battlefield when asking them to die for their country. Hunting and shooting sports are vital because beside being used as a method of animal control they teach the how to shoot, gun safety, and outdoors skills need for our military and our own personal defense.

      And by the way of some of the past attempts of gun control that failed in New Jersey would have made some “hunting” shotguns assault weapons since there is no definition of what a assault weapon is. That is why the NRA no longer gives any ground to reasonable restrictions. Where is it going to stop.


  8. This is a good article. We don’t need bazookas are rocket launchers. But we should be able to own and carry guns because while many people in our society are human too many are thugs Gorillaz and baboons and two legged swine and when they attack humans they should be gunned down so so smile walk softly talk softly and carry a big gun and when the monster comes after you and your family kill the son of a b****


  9. Side comment – IMHO, you should add the Wall Street Journal to your daily reading list — lightly read the NY Times (never the opinion pieces though) – drop the Washington Post – and read The Economist — The Economist is also liberal but the quality of the articles is far higher than the liberal rags you read.


    1. Read the WSJ first, then NYT, then Washington Post, then USA Today and assorted other publication including the Economist from time to time.


  10. It has been recently mentioned, France has one of the strictest gun ownership and weapons control regimes of any country in the world. This did not prevent the latest tragedy and will not prevent the inevitable ones to follow.

    Regarding the United States where domestic use of guns leads too often to murder, many if not most of the mass murders that have occurred have been from mentally ill people. Americans are too proud of the tradition of saying “its none of my business” .
    Looking at the cases of deranged murderers in the past ten years, there is ample evidence that something was seriously wrong, but relatives and friends stood by the “live and let live” motto.

    In a free society we will never stop all chaos and mayhem. But a respect for our fellow man should not mean abject indifference.


  11. As you know from my other comment, the context of the amendment is not relevant to the truth of the amendment – which is the people have a right to keep AND bear arms and that right shall not be infringed (reduced or stymied). We can own them and we can keep them in our homes AND we can carry them on our persons. And if the libs don’t like it, they can convince the people through their federal and state representatives to change the Constitution. As to why American people feel it is important to own and carry guns — perhaps they don’t like their rights infringed upon. The current occupant of the White House keeps talking about gun control and what do the American people do? Buy more and more guns! It seems to me if the libs don’t like guns in the hands of the American people, they should have shut up. For the record, in years past I was a police officer, trained to use guns but I haven’t owned one for more than 35 years but I still strongly believe in the people’s right to keep and bear arms.


      1. I did a lot of reading since I wrote on this but I still believe the context is not relevant. “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”. Having the first 13 words there or not, doesn’t change the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” in my opinion. My reading did tell me that there is disagreement what “bear arms” means and whether the people only are allowed to bear arms for militia duty etc. (And the extra comma is at least a little pesky.)

        Apparently, what the courts and the state and federal legislatures have agreed upon is that “reasonable regulation” of this right is constitutional. I read today that the US Supreme didn’t take up a case where a suburb of Chicago had banned some semi-automatic so called assault weapons.

        Also why you think Wilson’s plagiarized diatribe is “very good” is beyond me. I would classify it as very bad.

        Like it or not the courts are political — the libs appoint judges who creatively interpret the constitution in a Orwellian manner (to them words can take on any meaning as long as the end result is what those lib judges desire). The libs regularly add new rights to the Constitution (the right for sodomites to pretend to marry and then to force the people to recognize the fake marriages for example). Lib judges add words, subtract words and change the meanings of words to get to what they politically want to achieve. And now it seems that a majority of the people with the Lib judges ways – if they did, they would never elect the nothing that is currently in the White House. The nothing is the one who nominates the judges who don’t respect our history and our Constitution. History has demonstrated that this kind of lawlessness does not end well. When do we get our Hitler or Mao?


      2. If you are correct, why are those first few words there at all? Without setting a context for the amendment only the basic words are necessary if that was the actual point.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s