FLAIT

After the Orlando shooting, I sent this email to a local newspaper columnist who had written about guns before. I did make considerable changes and additions. Other gun-related posts can be found here, and here, the second being a letter I sent to New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg in 2012.

Since you've written about guns fairly often, I thought you could help me with something, and also show you what we're dealing with.

I keep hearing that gun ownership is a "right." Every time there's a mass shooting, even those on the sane gun control side say something like, "Yes, I know, gun ownership is a right, but we have to do something...." And this week was no different. Trevor Noah and Samantha Bee said it on their shows, and I even read it in The Record's editorial on Sunday: "The Second Amendment is an important constitutional right, but a late-18th-century definition of firearms should not be applied to 21st-century weaponry." (Right. But who defined it in the 18th century? And "firearms" isn't in the Second Amendment, "arms" is. And they had cannons back then, so why would "arms" mean guns? More on this below.)

I also heard it from President Obama last January during a photo-op announcing the tightening of some federal gun laws. He said something like, "Yes, guns are a right." But then went even further by saying, "I'm a constitutional lawyer, I should know."

There's more. In an Op-Ed piece that appeared in The Record this week, Democratic Congressman Jim Hines wrote, "I support Second Amendment rights." That wasn't enough appeasement because he continued with, "I enjoy recreational shooting. I even have a tattered musket in the garage."

What do we get from the NRA and guns nuts with all this placating and admitting that guns are a right? Absolutely nothing. Oh wait, I'm wrong. We get accused of being Nazis.

Can we tell the NRA and guns nuts to get lost (I'm being kind here) without kissing their feet at the same time? But what are they talking about? What right? Yes, there was the 2008 Heller Supreme Court decision (which ruled, at least in federal enclaves, specifically, Washington, DC, that individuals have a right to possess a firearm in the home, and also struck down provisions of the 1975 Washington, DC Firearms Control Act and declared that handguns are "arms"). But I don't get the impression that Noah and Bee (at least), nor Himes, were referring to that. They make it sound as if guns were always a right.

But even if they were basing what they said on Heller, they never say how bad and horribly wrong the decision was. So why don't the same people who blast the Supreme Court's Citizen United decision (which allowed corporations and unions to contribute to campaigns just like individuals) and call for it to be overturned, and the Shelby decision (the case that ruled parts of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional), also blast the Heller decision? Again, that's assuming they are referring to Heller, which I don't think they are (but it doesn't matter anyway because Heller, apparently, only dealt with "federal enclaves," such as Washington, DC.).

But in Michael Moore's movie Bowling for Columbine, which was six years before Heller, there was a scene with Charlton Heston, and Moore said something like, "No doubt, you have a right to own a gun."

So this knee-jerk admission that guns are a right preceded Heller.

But throughout the 20th century, it was universally assumed that the Second Amendment did not mean an individual right to own a gun. And rightfully so, because it doesn't. Anyone who can read the Second Amendment can see that (below is my logical interpretation of the Second Amendment. It was in the letter I sent to Mayor Bloomberg).

So where is this "right" coming from? Why does everyone bow to the NRA and admit that guns are a right? Why do pro-gun control advocates go out of their way and admit that guns are a right when they probably don't have a clue about Heller? And if they did, why don't they blast that decision the same way they blast Citizens United and Shelby? Are they that afraid of the NRA and their members?

So that's why I'm writing. What changed? Where did this assumed and unquestioned right come from, even from the gun control side?

The beginning of the end for gun control was with the 1993 Brady Bill because Democrats assumed that was why they got trounced in the 1994 mid-term elections. So they abandoned the issue entirely (or joined the insane NRA/gun rights side). That left an enormous void, and the NRA filled it with a massive amount propaganda and a larger amount of intimidation.

There was, and still is, no counter to that. There is no gun control movement. Heck, Bernie Sanders, a flaming socialist, received overwhelming support for President despite rarely supporting, nor caring about gun control (do you think far right Republican voters would rally around a pro-choice or quasi pro-life candidate in similar fashion?). So gun control hasn't been an issue at all. But on the other side, it's been war for 20 years. And by capitulating and avoiding the issue because of the political consequences, at least on a national level (let that sink in for a moment: gun control is a loser at the ballot box), Democrats handed the issue, and the megaphone, to the NRA. And that allowed them to completely hijack and redefine the Second Amendment to the point that not only have guns become an individual right, but they even got a pro-gun control president to add, "I should know, I'm a constitutional lawyer." Good grief.

So Democrats have been pathetic saps on the issue. And as I've shown, they always start off by putting themselves on the defensive by saying, "I support the Second Amendment, hunters and sportsmen...I'm a hunter myself." And then it's, "We need reasonable (or 'common sense') gun safety measures." Please. That's like walking into a cage of starving lions with nothing but thimble.

When was the last time a pro-life Republican walked on egg shells regarding abortion? When was the last time a pro-life Republican or conservative TV host admitted that women have a right to choose? And when was the last time a pro-life Republican said "We need reasonable (or 'common sense') abortion safety laws?" Never happens. And yet, the pro-gun control side always goes out of their way and sucks up to the NRA and gun nuts by admitting that guns are a right (when they're not and shouldn't be). And then they add the proverbial, "We don't want to take anyone's guns away." But Republicans never show empathy for a woman with an unwanted pregnancy, let alone say they wouldn't take away a woman's right to choose.

So it's an incredible double standard. But that's what two decades of NRA propaganda and intimidation has done.

And it's exponentially hypocritical for someone to oppose abortion rights to "save the unborn," but oppose any and all gun control laws. Heck, their "pro-life" response to the country's gun violence epidemic is more and more guns and less and less gun control. Give me a freakin' break.

For seven years Republicans have repeatedly said that "Obama's going to take your guns away." Just this week, Donald Trump was enraged, practically foaming that mouth that Hillary would "take away the Second Amendment" (he didn't say how she would be able to do that) and "take away everyone's guns" (he didn't say how she'd do that either).

But if Republicans had their way, abortion would be banned. It's already happening in red states where restrictive TRAP laws have forced so many clinics to close that there's only a handful left in the entire state that provide abortion services (last month, the Supreme Court ruled them unconstitutional, at least in Texas).

So two things: 1) Can you imagine if a state passed so many restrictive TRAP laws on gun stores and gun sales that it forced all but one or two stores in the state to shut down? There would be blood in the streets. And 2) Republicans always say "(insert name of Democrat) will take your guns away," which hasn't happened, nor will happen. But Republicans would ban abortion if they could. No question about it.

So how are we going to get anywhere on guns with these glaring double standards – double standards that Democrats and the pro-gun control side never do anything about, and in fact feed into?

Again, what good has all this admitting that "guns are a right" and "we don't want to take anyone's guns away" done for the gun control side? Absolutely nothing. So instead of appeasing and placating the NRA and gun nuts, why not fight them and their hijacked and redefined Second Amendment?

Democrats and gun control advocates never put the NRA or Republicans on the defensive. As I said, they always begin their statements by putting themselves on the defensive. So it's a one sided fight that Democrats and gun control advocates never engage in because they've been intimidated into silence. And that goes for Ted Kennedy, the supposed "Lion of the Senate," who had a darn good reason to demand strong national gun control but never did. He never even mentioned it. Some "lion." And we wonder why no meaningful national gun control legislation has been enacted since the Brady Bill. Actually, we've gone backwards. The ban on assault weapons was allowed to expire in 2004, and in 2009 Obama signed legislation allowing guns in National Parks and on Amtrak trains (and still gets accused of taking everyone's guns away!).

No more. What the Democrats need is a Donald Trump-like presidential candidate that will take the gloves off and take on Heller, the NRA, the gun nuts, and their hijacked and redefined Second Amendment, and put them on the defensive for a change. And most of all, tell them where they can stick their guns in no uncertain terms. I'm serious. With all the blood they have on their hands, it's about time someone did.

You know, maybe if Democrats had been doing that, and maybe if Hillary kicked off her campaign by going on the offensive (no, she didn't, not even close), she wouldn't have had to wimp out by tweeting, "You're wrong...We can uphold Second Amendment rights while preventing senseless gun violence" when Trump said, before Orlando, that she "wants to abolish the Second Amendment." This is what I'm talking about.

Imagine if a smart, Donald Trump-like presidential candidate spoke on gun violence as often as the real Trump talks about immigrants and walls, with all the rage and anger he has when he talks about Hillary taking everyone's guns away. Because when it comes to all this daily gun violence and bloodshed, what we need is rage and anger directed at the NRA and the gun nuts because there never is. Rage and anger, and putting them on the defensive for a change, is how we take the issue back. It's the only way.

Until then, closing the background check loophole and an assault weapons ban are all well and good (and good luck with that). But that's like putting a band-aid on a gunshot wound. We need strong national gun control that includes a one gun limit per person, per month law. We need strict restrictions or an all out ban on hand guns. And we need bullet control, where anyone who buys bullets not only has to show a valid gun license and ID, but the registration for the gun he's buying bullets for. Because if you can't show you're allowed to own a gun and can't show proof you actually own the gun you're buying bullets for, then you shouldn't be able to buy those bullets. What does a hunter need with hand gun bullets? He doesn't. And if someone who wants to buy bullets for a hand gun but can't show proof that they're allowed to own one, and truly does own one (because they bought the gun off the street), then they can't buy those bullets. It's that simple. And if the gun nuts don't like it, too bad. They'll live. That's more than I can say for today's gunshot victims. And tomorrow's. And the day after that. And the day after that. And the day after that. And the day after that. And the day after that. And the day after that...

Also, when you consider the costs that are associated with all the carnage guns cause, there should be extra taxes and fees on guns and bullets. If there's extra taxes and fees on airfares, rental cars, hotel rooms, Internet service and cable TV, and maybe even sugary soft drinks and paper and plastic bags, then there's no reason why they shouldn't be on guns and bullets as well.

Isn't it interesting that in all these decades of higher hidden taxes and fees, we never hear about slapping them on guns and bullets?

But even all that won't be enough. We also must end this sick, NRA-propagated, cult-like fascination, obsession and glorification of guns; which, for the most part, I think, is built on nothing but spite: "Buy a gun and tick off a gun-grabbing liberal." So walking around with a handgun on your hip or an assault rifle around your shoulder is nothing but a political poke in the eye of gun control advocates. Immature spite, that's all it is.

What the NRA has also done, and allowed to get away with, is turn guns into any other common, everyday necessity, like a coffee pot or cell phone. And they're not. And that has to change. Guns should be thought of in the same way as fireworks, power tools, wild animals and x-rays, and be as ubiquitous as a pair of skis in Florida (excluding law enforcement).

Of course none of this will happen until someone has the guts to show rage and anger – and I mean real rage and anger – and stands up the NRA, the gun nuts and the hijacked and redefined Second Amendment.

Until then, the daily shootings will continue. And not only mass shootings, but also the ones we don't hear about on the news.

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.

If the NRA and gun nuts think the Second Amendment means what they say it does, why are words “well regulated militia,” “free state,” “people” and “arms” in there? “State” meant and still means “country.” “Arms” at the time also meant cannons, so it speaks volumes that the Founders didn’t specify guns. Heck, why isn’t the word “gun” in there?

Since guns are “constitutionally protected,” does this mean I can trot down to the Army surplus store and buy a howitzer, tank or surface-to-air missile? If not, why not? I mean, if I have a right to buy a gun when the word isn’t in the Amendment, then I should be able to protect and defend myself with whatever “arms” I want. How about if I went down to Los Alamos and ordered up a bottle of plutonium?

Definitely and obviously not. Those “arms” are illegal, for good reason, and not “constitutionally protected.” Hmmm....

Alright then, if “arms” do only mean “firearms,” and therefore, “guns,” why would the Founders restrict a “well regulated militia” to guns alone, and not allow them to “arm” themselves with cannon and other kinds of weaponry? Or, if the Founders did want to limit “the people” to just guns, why be vague? Why use “arms” (which generally means different kinds of weapons)? Why not be clear with this limitation and use the word “guns,” “firearms,” “rifles” or “muskets”?

The NRA can't have it both ways. Either “arms” has to mean any and all kinds of weapons, or only guns. Which one is it? Doesn't matter, because I just proved neither “interpretation” makes sense.

If the Founding Father’s really wanted all citizens who were not members of a “well regulated militia” to have the right to own guns for self-defense and defense of property, then they would have written the Second Amendment like this:

The security of oneself and property being necessary for a free neighborhood (or liberty), the right of the person (or individual) to keep and bear guns (or firearms or rifles or muskets) shall not be infringed.

But they didn't write it that way, did they? Gee, I wonder why.

I put the words “oneself” and “person” (or “individual”) in there because “people” is used in the Second Amendment. And in the Constitution, “people” meant everyone, collectively, not individually. For example, "We the people..."

See also the 10th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

A single person or individual can not legislate or enact law. So they obviously meant the people, collectively, at the state level, had the “power reserved” (this is why states have so much power and why a vast majority of guns used in crimes in the northeast originate from the southern states where gun laws are insanely weak).

Another example: The House of Representatives was nicknamed “The People’s House” (the Senate, “The State’s House”).

So “people” did not mean individual when the Constitution was written (and still doesn't).

Now let’s take a look at the Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

See that? First it’s a collective right, “people.” But unlike the Second Amendment, the Founders went out of their way to specify the individual from illegal search and seizures by putting in the word “persons.” And they put it in there twice. Therefore, if they intended for the Second Amendment to apply to individuals, then the word “persons” (and/or “oneself” and/or “individual”) would have been in there. And they’re not, no matter what the NRA or any Supreme Court justice says.

Now let’s take a look at the Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb…;

See that? “Person.” That’s in there twice as well.

So the Founders did differentiate between collective rights and individual rights.

Put all this together and its obvious that the Founder’s intention of the Second Amendment was never meat to be an individual right to buy, own or carry a gun. It was meant for the states to have the right to form armed militias (today we call them the National Guard) as a defense against the federal government or foreign enemy. With the word “arms” in there – and not “guns,” “firearms,” “rifles” or “muskets”– it’s an amendment to allow for an organized defense (“a well regulated militia”) of a “free state” (today we call it “national security”). It had nothing do with personal protection, hunting or sport. And those words aren’t in the Second Amendment either (and they did a lot of hunting back then).

So the Second Amendment had nothing to do with protection against an intruder or homicidal maniac. But it has everything to do with state militias protecting against an invading army or the Federal government; both of which the Founders had legitimate concerns about at the time. So their intent, and reason, behind the Second Amendment makes perfect sense.

Also, if the Founders also wanted citizens to have the “right to carry” guns, then the Amendment would have been written like this:

The security of oneself and property being necessary for a free neighborhood (or liberty), the right of the person (or individual) to keep and bear guns (or firearms or rifles or muskets) on their person and their property (such as their horse or pouch) shall not be infringed.

One more point. If the Founders wanted to make gun ownership such a clear and obvious right, why not simply put it somewhere in the First Amendment with the others? I mean, since the NRA and gun nuts are so sure what the Founders meant, then you'd think they would have put just two more words – “a gun” (or “a firearm,” “a rifle” or “a musket”) – in there along with freedom of the press, religion, speech, assembly and petition the government. It would fit perfectly. But they didn't put it in there. Why not?

No, the Founders' intention instead was to ensure that the states had the right to form well regulated armed militias. And that's exactly what they did. Why am I so sure? Because that's what they wrote!

So as you can see, the Second Amendment has been hijacked and redefined. Gee, I wonder why. And everyone, including afraid of their own shadow Democrats, blindly along with it. How did that happen? Intimidation by the NRA cult and their members.

Of course the NRA and gun nuts would say that if my interpretation of the Second Amendment is correct, then it would have been written like this:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, their right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

That's fair. But remember, militias were made up of “the people” of each state - which tie in together, as I explained above - and weren't conscripted.

And then the Founders went out of their way to ensure that these (probably) non-regulated militias did in fact become “well regulated.” And who regulates? Only the state and federal government can.

But alright, fine. I'll give the NRA and the gun nuts a couple of points for that one. But I still win by 12 touchdowns.

Note: The word “abortion” isn’t in the Bill of Rights or Constitution either. But abortion was ruled constitutional in 1973 because of the inferred right to privacy which goes back to Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965. It’s technical, but the point is that it’s an interpretation.

The “right” to own a gun is not an interpretation. The NRA and gun nuts have always used the Second Amendment, and only the Second Amendment, as “proof” that gun ownership is a right. It’s all right there in black and white, unambiguous and unequivocal. No interpretation needed.

So there’s the difference. But they are right in one respect. The Second Amendment couldn’t be more clear.

January, 2018 insert:

I wanted to add something to my point about the word “arms,” as written in the Second Amendment, that it means all weaponry and not just guns.

If we'd hear that “an armed man ran into a building,” we'd assume he has a gun. But that's only because guns are so prevalent and just about every armed man uses a gun, or guns. So of course we're going to assume the man who entered the building has “armed” himself with a gun. But that doesn't mean that “armed” means “gun.”

What if a man ran into a building with a machete in one hand and a hand grenade in the other? Would he not be “armed?” And keep in mind, the 9/11 hijackers were “armed” with box cutters.

So any weapon, or any object that could be used as a weapon, is an “arm.” And the Founders wrote the Second Amendment in such a way as to not restrict “well regulated militias” to just “firearms” (or “guns” or “rifles” or “muskets”).

Therefore, if the right to “bear arms” can be infringed for howitzers, tanks, surface-to-air missiles and bottles of plutonium for individuals not in the National Guard or armed forces, then there is no individual right to buy, sell, own or carry a gun.

So again, contrary to what the NRA and Supreme Court say, “arms” in the Second Amendment does not mean “gun.”

So, correction: I win by 14 touchdowns.

October, 2021 insert: 

The NRA base their entire (cough, cough) "argument" on one word, "bear," as in "bear arms." Their, um, "reasoning" is that "bear" means "carry," which is one of its meanings. And since you can carry a gun and can't physically carry a cannon or howitzer, well, then, of course "bear arms" means there is a constitutional right to have guns, of any kind, because they can be "carried." 

Gee, since hand grenades can be carried, why aren't they constitutionally protected? And just because they're explosives is irrelevant. The NRA is saying that guns are constitutionally protected because "bear" means you're able to "carry" them. Well, you can carry hand grenades. And they are "arms." And what about shoulder-fired missiles, which are also "carried"? And they could be defined as a "gun."   

True, by having the word "keep" in the amendment, either "bear" does mean "carry" or it's redundant. Or both. But, um, bear me out. 

If someone had a gun, or even a stockpile of guns, or a cannon or howitzer, in their basement, garage or shed, they are "keeping" them, but not "bearing arms"? Of course they are. And you can't literally "carry" a cannon or howitzer but sure can "keep" them. What would you call one or two guns in the basement? Certainly not "stockpiling" guns. But you couldn't say that's "bearing" arms? Of course you could. So "bear" is redundant with the word "keep" and doesn't have anything to do with being able to "carry" arms because you can "keep" and "bear" cannons or howitzers but can't "carry" them (and they did have cannons in the 1770s). And they're not constitutionally protected.

If a terrorist or an American fascist who hated America and the Constitution on the way to the Capitol on January 6, 2021, was walking down the street unarmed, but had his bloodthirsty mob right behind him that was armed, couldn't that entire group, including the one unarmed, be describe as "bearing arms"? Of course it could. What if one person in the mob had all their guns (and crutches, flag poles and bear spray) in a car right behind them? Are they not "bearing arms"? Of course they are.                       

But how else would you describe a militia that has "arms"/weapons? No, you wouldn't say "stockpiling," unless they were in the process of "stockpiling." You could say they're "equipped" or "have (a lot of) weapons," or simply "armed." But "bearing arms" says it all, even if none of the members of the militia were actually holding their gun at the time.

The point is, you don't need to be able to hold or "carry" arms to be described as "bearing." Arms can be "beared" if you aren't actually "carrying" them or can't "carry" them.

If someone is holding a candle or a stack of books are they "bearing a candle" or "bearing books"? Not really. Who'd say that? You could say, "He came bearing gifts." But that's less about "carrying" them then bringing them because if you wanted to illustrated he was carrying them, you'd say "He arrived carrying gifts" or "He was carrying gifts" or "He brought gifts."

"Bear" has many meanings (how convenient) and can be used in many different contexts (how convenient). And the NRA has whittled it down to one meaning (how convenient) and one very narrow context (how convenient). It's a stretch to say the least. And we're going to take the their word for it that the amendment strictly means "guns" in the Second Amendment because they can be "carried"? They're a cult out to con the mindless and gullible!

Another definition of "bear" is to "possess."

So if the NRA says "bear arms" means guns are constitutionally protected, then it can also be interpreted to mean "posses any kind of weapons" since I've already proven that "arms" means any kind of weapon including objects not designed as weapons (I go lot further on defining and interpreting "bear arms" then the NRA does because they're stuck with the "carrying" definition. But don't forget about "A well regulated militia."). And possess means "have and hold as property: own." But we possess and own lots of things that we can't "carry."

Maybe they chose "bear" over "possess" and "have" because "bear" is formal and better suited for the Bill of Rights.

If the authors of the Second Amendment did only mean to "keep" and "bear" guns because it comes down to what you can "carry," why not say that? If they meant guns, why not say "carry guns," "bear guns" or just "guns" instead of "bear arms"? Well, that's because they meant guns and cannon and "arms" of all types (again, the only reason why we equate "arms" with guns is because just about every crime and incident these days is with a gun. But as I've shown, any weapon could be an "arm;" such as "armed with a knife" or even "armed with a crutch."). If the Founders wanted to limit "arms" to what you can "carry" - this, um, bears repeating - if the Founders wanted to limit "arms" to what you can "carry," why not specify? How can you limit something without being specific? But why limit a militia outfit only to guns or weapons they could carry? And why be contradictory when they had cannons, on wheels, which weren't "carried"? Why have "bear arms" in there and assume everyone will know over 200 years later that they only meant guns you can "carry"? That's because everyone would know what "bear arms" would mean for a well regulated militia two centuries later. Unless, of course, you're trying to hijack and redefine the Second Amendment.

It's also important to remember that back in the 18th century there were no heavy arms and obviously no means to transport them if they did. So other then cannon, which, I assume, were "pulled," only guns were physically "carried" because that's all they had and could carry. And they had to know, from history, that heavier arms and more powerful weapons would eventually be developed. But according to the NRA, the Founders wanted militias to be at a great disadvantage as the decades and centuries went by. Oh wait, they erased that part of the amendment, never mind

So the NRA chopped up the Second Amendment, removed most of it, put a single word under a microscope, dissected it, and stretched it out as much as they could so they can rewrite it to say: "Since they can be carried, the individual right to guns shall not be infringed." Really? That's what the Second Amendment says? That would be like chopping up the Fourth Amendment and stretching out a single word for it to "say," "The government shall not search a person's pockets."

So the NRA's, um, "interpretation" of the Second Amendment boils down to two things: 1) ignoring half the amendment, and 2) focusing on a single word, splitting hairs extra fine and molding its meaning to what they think want need it to mean.

"Bear arms" means what it meant when it was written because "bear arms" couldn't be more clear. What other words could they possibly have used to ensure that local well regulated militias were constitutionally allowed to arm themselves for the necessity "of a free State?" "Possess arms"? "Have weapons"? "Equip themselves"? Same thing. And they could have left out "A well regulated militia being necessary for a free State." But they didn't.

And there are contradictions with the second half of the amendment.

Instead of simply putting "a gun" or "arms" in the First Amendment which is for all individual Americans, the Founders carved out a separate amendment for "A well regulated militia" since the country's defense was already spoken for in the Preamble to the Constitution ("provide for the common defense"). But in the Second Amendment, they proceeded to write, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." It should be "their" (the militia's) or its right to keep and bear arms" without "people" since it doesn't mean the individual (as I've shown, they didn't use "persons" as they did in other amendments). Maybe "the" is a bit more formal. But I'll give them that.

And as I said, the amendment is also redundant because of the word "keep" (and bear arms). What's the point of "keeping" arms if you can't "bear" them? If you can "bear," "have" or "carry," then "keep" goes without saying and isn't needed. And if "bear" basically means "store," "have," and "keep," which is what I've shown, or even "carry," then there's no need for "keep." And "bare" would be enough.

On the other hand, they could have done away with both "keep" and "bare" altogether and said, "..the (or their) right to arm themselves shall not be infringed." That would have been enough because if you can "arm" "well regulated militias," then "keeping," "storing," "bearing," and "carrying" also goes without saying. You're going to allow militias to be "armed," but not allowed to "keep," "bear," "carry" or use them "to secure a free State"?

But I will admit the first and second parts of the amendment seem to contradict one another (if you interpret "people" as individuals). And that leads to questions, on both sides. However, the first half of the amendment and the reason for the amendment - "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free State" - is quite clear and can't be ignored. But if you wanted to hijack and redefine the Second Amendment's meaning, you would have to ignore the first half and take exaggerated liberties with the second. And then create a massive cult, and turn it into sick, rabid political issue wrapped up in so much vitriol, that the members of the cult will be kept in a perpetual state of rage at the "gun grabbers." Mission accomplished.

And when you have an "opposition" that abandoned the issue decades ago, and intimidated into silence, and actually appeases gun owners, it allowed the maniacs to hijack and redefine the amendment. And here we are.

If the NRA was on solid ground with the Second Amendment, they wouldn't have to use propaganda and dogma to prove it. Meanwhile, I've used facts, logic, reality and history to prove my point without ignoring any part of the amendment; nor have I stretched words passed the breaking point or split a single hair (other then to mock how they're interpreting the word, "bear").

But I'm not done yet.

If the Second Amendment allows for individuals to have guns, then what allows states to have their own National Guards? Oh right, the Second Amendment. It's either one or the other because it's not two separate amendments or separate sentences within the amendment. It can't be both. Even the NRA isn't saying that because according to them, the first four words of the amendment - actually, the first 13 words - aren't even there.

And...

We get so caught up in the wording in the amendment. Put the dictionary down and move context and the split hairs aside. Do you really believe that the Founder's intent, and desire, behind the Second Amendment was to have so many daily shootings and bloodshed? Is this what they wanted? An epidemic of gun violence? Do you really think they wanted someone to be able to walk into a school and shoot seven and eight year olds and their teachers? And then throw up your hands and say, "Well, there's nothing we can do because that's exactly what the Founders intended when they wrote the Second Amendment"? Who in their right mind would believe that?

Everyone says the Founders were "smart" and "brilliant." So if they were so smart and so brilliant, why would they knowingly, willingly and deliberately create a society where shootings were happening just about every minute of every day and kill 40,000 every year? Do you really think this was the Founder's plan? Their intent? The same men who wanted to "insure domestic Tranquility" and "promote the general welfare"?

And I don't want to hear that they wanted guns to be a right for individuals outside "A well regulated militia," but had absolutely no idea, and certainly no intention of it resulting in so many shootings and deaths. If that's the case, then where's the NRA demanding strong national gun control so we can adhere to what the Founders intended? Where's the universal background checks? Where's the ban on hand guns, assault rifles and bump stocks? Where's the "one gun a month" laws? Where's the reasonability? My God, where the hell is the sanity!

I also don't want to hear that back then you had to jam gun powder down a barrel of a rifle each time you wanted to fire it and the Founders had no idea that one day you'd be able to shoot more bullets in a second then you could back then in half an hour. Again, they knew, from history, that guns, weapons, arms and even war ships advanced over the centuries ever since a rock was thrown and a raft made from tree logs was placed in the water. Every military in the world tries to stay one step ahead with a better gun, a better bomb, a better fighter jet and better "arms." You don't think the "smart" and "brilliant" Founders thought the same way in the 18th century?

So it's obvious the Founder's intent behind the Second Amendment were for "arms" be "kept" and "beared" only by legitimate and responsible militias for local "security" because the amendment begins A well regulated militia being necessary for a free State. Who knows? Maybe they meant it so states or the federal government can have what we call today a police force.

So, no. No one in their right mind would think this sick mass proliferation of guns and assault rifles by individuals, and making them easier to obtain and stockpile then it is to vote, was the Founder's intent behind the Second Amendment. Not at all. And not even close. But only a cult, a sick demented cult, would con you into thinking it was.

Make that 20 touchdowns.