Anti-Second Amendment Academics Shot Down in Texas Case

By Dean Weingarten

Empty Holster Protest on Campus
Dean Weingarten
Dean Weingarten

Arizona -(Ammoland.com)- In August, 2016, two professors from the University of Austin, Texas, and an Associate Teaching Assistant Professor, sued the Attorney General of Texas, Ken Paxton, the President of the University of Texas, Austin, and the Members of the Board of Regents of the University of Texas at Austin.

A number of frivolous claims were offered in an attempt to stop the Texas statute allowing exercise of the Second Amendment on Campus from going into effect.

The claims included that the law is vague, the law violated the plaintiffs' First Amendment, Second Amendment, and Fourteenth Amendment rights.  The arguments were childish, irrational, emotional rants.

Here is an example:

48. The Texas statutes and university policies that prohibit Plaintiffs from exercising their individual option to forbid handguns in their classrooms violate the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, as applied in Texas through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. These policies and procedures deprive Plaintiffs of their Second Amendment right to defend themselves and others in their classrooms from handgun violence by compelling them as public employees to passively acquiesce in the presence of loaded weaponry in their place of public employment without the individual possession and use of such weaponry in public being well-regulated. This infringement lacks any important justification and is imposed without any substantial link between the objectives of the policies and the means chosen to achieve them.

Judge Lee Yeakel heard the claims, read the suit, and concluded that the plaintiffs had no standing because they had not suffered any harm.

From reporternews.com:

A federal judge has dismissed a long-shot lawsuit filed by three University of Texas at Austin professors seeking to overturn the state's 2015 campus carry law, which allows people to carry concealed handguns inside most public university buildings.

District Judge Lee Yeakel wrote in his decision that the professors — Jennifer Lynn Glass, Lisa Moore and Mia Carter — couldn't present any “concrete evidence to substantiate their fears” that campus carry would have a chilling effect on free speech.

From the decision, at texasattorneygeneral.gov(pdf):

The court concludes that Plaintiffs have not established an injury-in-fact, nor that the alleged injury is traceable to any conduct of Defendants. Friends of the Earth, 528 U.S. at 180-81. Accordingly, the court will dismiss this cause for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Crane v. Johnson, 783 F.3d 244,251 (5th Cir. 2015). (“Because [appellants] have not alleged a sufficient injury in fact to satisfy the requirements of constitutional standing, we dismiss their claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”)

III. CONCLUSION

IT IS ORDERED that UT Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint (Clerk's Doc. No. 64) and Defendant Ken Paxton's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint (Clerk's Doe. No. 65) are GRANTED

The results of the lawsuit are were expected. The claims were frivolous to those who actually read them.

It took nearly a year for the court to reach that conclusion.  Some Minnesota students attempted to duplicate the Texas protests. No serious incidents have been associated with the restoration of Second Amendment freedoms on Campus.  Other than the Minnesota copy cat protests,  protests related to Texas Campus Carry have withered away.
©2017 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.

Link to Gun Watch

 

About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

  • 71
    Leave a Reply

    Please Login to comment
    7 Comment threads
    64 Thread replies
    0 Followers
     
    Most reacted comment
    Hottest comment thread
    16 Comment authors
    CalarThe RevelatoroldvetKWild Bill Recent comment authors
      Subscribe  
    Notify of
    K
    Guest
    K

    For those not yet aware that the Second “Amendment” was in fact an “amendment”, here is the only other place that “Militia” is written in the Constitution that the Second Amendment “amended”: Article 1, Section 8 1: The Congress shall have Power…….. 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers,… Read more »

    The historian
    Guest
    The historian

    Yes, they would be supplying military grade public arms that would otherwise not be allowed into the public domain, which is where the Militia live. The 2nd amendment is a right of the people to reality based gun control, hence, well regulated. There are two parts to a miltia.. people and Arms. https://medium.com/militia-stand-down-the-first-objective-reading-of/militia-stand-down-the-first-objective-reading-of-the-2nd-amendment-58d51f2d42e4

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    Military Grade Public Arms….. Boy howdy. The gun makers who were making private arms made the same arms for the civilian market. The most common military arm of the day was the smoothbore musket. Do you know the only differenence between that firearm and a Fowling piece(or Fusil de Chasse) is? Apparently just about as much as you know about the constitution, the second amendment, and history so not very much. The only difference between a military musket and a fowling piece would have been a small block soldered on the tip of the barrel for mounting a ring bayonet,… Read more »

    The historian
    Guest
    The historian

    As stated I’m a historian. Hopefully we agree that the meaning of the constitution must first be derived from its text alone , but where it’s confusing then history and quotes from the framers should be visited to glean further information. I have taken the same approach, but I have uncovered a narrative you are not aware because it was hidden by design. Some of the men you quote, like you, at least before I published that article didn’t have a clue that the 2nd amendment could be read objectively. It was “crafted” so that it would be ratified because… Read more »

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    You are about as much a Historian as Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are honest people. Philosopher maybe, historian no. “Some of the men you quote, like you, at least before I published that article didn’t have a clue that the 2nd amendment could be read objectively. ” One problem with that, the men I was quoting were the ones who wrote the Constitution and the Amendments in the Bill of Rights. They didn’t have to look at it objectively because they wrote it! They knew exactly what it meant. There is no cypher to it. Now, being a Canadian,… Read more »

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    For everyone else, Notice in his latest post, Geoff is no longer talking about “highly dangerous Military style arms” since it was pointed out the materials, mechanisms, and manufacture were identical to Civilian arms, and were in fact less advanced. The story had to change pretty darn quick when he found out not everyone is gullible enough to buy into his fiction. I was forced to live in Canada for a brief time in the early 90’s when my father was stationed there, and while I can attest to the fact that not everyone up there has a case of… Read more »

    oldvet
    Guest
    oldvet

    @Revelator… Gil sure jerked your chain didn’t he.

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    @Oldvet, Naw. Mostly, I write in a form of dry satire while expounding evidence pointing to straight interpretation. Doing so is largely easy as I sit here often chuckling and rolling my eyes at the lunacy some individuals will go to trying to insist that something does not say what it actually says, that they alone are the true prophet sent down to arbitrate the rules of interpretation(Of course to which they themselves are exempted), all while intently claiming the bastion shield of “Objectivity” while being at a complete loss of understanding or comprehension of the definition of the word.… Read more »

    TheHistorian
    Guest
    TheHistorian

    Man. I’m almost going to feel guilty. Anyway I won’t be back here. The news can update you or if you choose to take a remedial course in history there will be a new book out. You will be able to locate some of the previous ones beside another book called Mother Goose since they will be re-classified.

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    @Delusional Historian
    Trust me, History Courses here don’t rely on Canadian Cannabis, LSD, or Molson induced hallucinations. In fact, our progressive/socialist politicians here have been doing all they can to stop the teaching of history because in the US it is based on hard facts and reality, something they avoid at all costs(Just like your article).

    About the only worthwhile information the news could give us concerning your little delusional machination is where to find a copy if the entire country ever runs out of toilet paper.

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    @EveryoneElse.
    Here’s a hint to how I am using Gil’s name. His car got stuck in the Mudd(Spelled correctly), causing him to be Munsoned at the corner of Puerile and Pernicious.

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    @K, Any reason you were too scared to reply directly to my comment? Again, If we look at the documents of the day, each state, and quite a few localities had laws on what was to be kept by the Militia in preparation for war. Items and accoutrements included a specific supply of powder, balls, casting equipment, and the individual’s firearm. The Militia was made up of individual Citizens who were considered Freed Men(funny how the part about race not mattering for that is left out of history class) of military age. Regulation Drill was the practice of Loading and… Read more »

    nobody
    Guest
    nobody

    Your understanding of “well-regulated” is incorrect. It has nothing to do with restriction in the political sense. To be “well regulated” means to be well trained such that you function properly.

    The Historian
    Guest
    The Historian

    Lets pretend we are using the English language and not making it up to make the 2nd amendment work because that is beyond the purview of its interpretation. That would in fact be re-authoring it. Now if George Mason in his original text had used “well regulated’ from the Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776 there is no question that HIS interpretation of that language was “well-regulated” or “well-ordered” or well trained. He simply forgot to dot his “i”’s and cross his “T”‘s. To think this man was the 18th century authority on how to write English is simply, well,… Read more »

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @Herstorian, What country are you in? You don’t write English the way we do. For example, your use of the word plaques. Here in America, plaque is an ornamental tablet usually made of brass or sticky stuff on your teeth due to bacteria. So what the heck are you trying to say?As for cherry-picking your article, who would wast thirty seconds reading anything you ever wrote?

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @Hey Histrionics, You write, “Lets pretend we are using the English language and not making it up to make the 2nd amendment work because that is beyond the purview of its interpretation. That would in fact be re-authoring it.” First, I think that you are the one pretending to use the English language to make yourself appear more educated than you are. You use too many pronouns to write clearly. For example: “…that is beyond the purview of its interpretation.” That is a pronoun. What is the antecedent? And, its is a pronoun. What is your antecedent? You write, “…… Read more »

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @Heresytorian, You write, “…Your framers were highly intelligence but (sic and sic)…” I find that your choice of the phrase “Your framers” curious. Why not “Our framers”. The answer is that you are not a citizen of the United States of America. You have no standing to interpret anything in our Constitution. You have no standing to opine about any of our Constitutional Civil Rights. You have been unmasked, by the Relevator. You are a Canadian named Geoff Smith! As a Canadian, OUR Constitutional Second Amendment Civil Rights are none of your business. Why don’t your turn your keen foreign… Read more »

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    @Wild Bill
    I didn’t unmask him. He unmasked him self earlier. Apparently, no one told him the super hero code. Step one, get a pair of glasses as a disguise. Step two, never share your alter ego information.

    Man, I haven’t laughed this hard since Antifa cried and wrote about how unfair it was that they lost the battle of Berkley because our gun ownership prevented them from being able to trample on our rights the way they actually want to.

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    @Geoff Smith Considering that you yourself have demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the English language, the base concept of intellectual honesty, and apparently the knowledge of how to use a dictionary. You were the one who said we needed to read the founding fathers’ wisdom as it was written, word for word…. Except when it actually came to what they wrote where it completely and totally contradicted your argument. Then you said “ignore everything they wrote!” and that you alone have the magical sky key passed on from the gremlin king of Montreal before he returned home to… Read more »

    K
    Guest
    K

    “Historian” your argument against the meaning of “well-regulated” is not an argument against anyone commenting on this site. If you choose not to agree with the accepted dictionaries on this phrase, first take your argument up with the authors of those dictionaries and see if you can change the officially accepted history of “well-regulated”. Just in case you missed them or since forgot, here again are the links to view and then reach these authors through: The etymology of the adjective “well”: “in a satisfactory manner,” http://etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=well+regulated The etymology of “regulate”: Meaning “to govern by restriction” is from 1620s. http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=regulate&allowed_in_frame=0… Read more »

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    @K You finally got it right! “The genius of the Second is that still today, ALL armed Federal authority (not just the old “Militia”) remains “well governed by (the) restriction” of millions of “people”, only as long as they maintain “the right to keep and bear Arms”. Your wording before was incorrect, this post actually shows you do understand the nature of the second amendment. Please be careful in your future wording. The only part still at issue is that the Militia has nothing to do with the Federal Government. The Militia are entirely made up of “Freemen” amongst the… Read more »

    Calar
    Guest
    Calar

    “A well regulated (governed by restriction)” — NO, your parenthesized comment is a complete misinterpretation of the phrase “well regulated”. In the late 1700s when it was written, “regulation” had NOTHING to do with “restrictions” (as it often means now). Back then, it simply meant “running smoothly” — like you would say that a clock mechanism is “well regulated”. That interpretation may be common, but it is erroneous. Our Constitution can only be read accurately in the language in which it was written (which is NOT our modern English). The whole concept of “Militia” has changed, also. Back in the… Read more »

    K
    Guest
    K

    Etymology is study of the history of words and their origins and how their form and meaning have changed over time. By extension, the term “the etymology (of a word)” means the origin of the particular word. The etymology of the adjective “well”: “in a satisfactory manner,” The etymology of “regulate”: “to govern by restriction” is from 1620s. In the Second Amendment, the Militia once under the expressed powers provided in Article 1, Section 8, paragraphs 15 and 16 is only “governed” “in a satisfactory manner” “by restriction” of People as they keep and bear Arms. Once the Militia is… Read more »

    Vanns40
    Guest
    Vanns40

    A note on that, it won’t happen. The National Guard may be called out but Congress & POTUS will not enact that. I’ve seen that argument before and the only scenario under which it could conceivably be used would be a foreign invasion so severe that the survivability of the Nation depended upon it. In other words, not a chance in hell.

    K
    Guest
    K

    What may or may not happen today does not alter the intent and meaning of the Second Amendment as enacted 228 years ago. Unlike so often seen today, “Well regulated” as found in the Second has nothing to do with things like polished boots and using the term that way drastically alters the true meaning of the Second. When the phase “Well regulated” referring to the Militia was chosen it meant “to govern by restriction” “in a satisfactory manner”, which is the only meaning that can provide any use for the term when connected to BOTH the “Militia” and “the… Read more »

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @K so what is your point?

    The Historian
    Guest
    The Historian

    https://medium.com/militia-stand-down-the-first-objective-reading-of/militia-stand-down-the-first-objective-reading-of-the-2nd-amendment-58d51f2d42e4

    “Well” existed in 18th century
    “Regulated” existed in 18th century
    Hyphens existed in 18th century
    Some men didn’t know how to or were sloppy in not using hyphens, including George Mason.
    george mason was not the authority on 18th century language.
    James Maduson chose not to use a hyphen.
    This is how reality works and us independent of century unless proven otherwise in ALL cases

    oldvet
    Guest
    oldvet

    @V40…What would you consider that which is happening on our borders now? LOL but I do believe it is detrimental to our country.

    Vanns40
    Guest
    Vanns40

    Baloney

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    Vanns40, You nailed it. He’s full of it. The term well regulated at the time meant “Well Trained”, and also was a term used to describe whether or not the sights on a rifle were in alignment. K is also leaving out that Congress had the power to raise standing armies, and that the Militia were individual citizens bearing their own arms in defense of their country as well as their own personal liberty. Since he brought up trying to define the word, I might as well quote Noah Webster on this when he was writing to urge ratification of… Read more »

    The historian
    Guest
    The historian

    Conjecture and bias ( not sarcasm) Noah Webster, at the time, defined liberty as ” the state of being free” ( fact ) Sound familiar? ” being necessary for security of a free State “, which has been “affirmed” to be part of the “prefactory clause” ( more conjecture with no bias to the 2nd amendment ( as a sentence, which it is. (Fact))). Its just a sentence. No need to overthink it and fumble around in history to try and make sense of it. If you choose to actually read it then it will tell you what ot is.… Read more »

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    Historian, What defines a “Free State” As the second amendment points out, it is The People to be free of dictatorial infringements by the government on their rights. This is further solidified in the Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments. And you are right, it says exactly what it intends to say! “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” This is the action of the amendment. As was stated , the “Security of a free state” is the reason for that action. Like I have said, its in Plain English. Fact…. So lets look… Read more »

    VE Veteran - Old Man's Club
    Guest
    VE Veteran - Old Man's Club

    @The historian. You throw around the concept of freedom, but did you ever put your a** on the line for it? I have and I can say that no government has the right to tell me what I can or cannot use to preserve my family’s or my own life. As far as I’m concerned, what ever I choose to use, the more painful to the adversary the better. Its funny about pain, folks seem to remember that better than any “Oral Warning or written prohibition (Law)”. And I plan on defending that which God my Eternal Maker has graciously… Read more »

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    @ VE Veteran.
    From my father to you, Semper Fi!!
    From myself to you Acta Non Verba and Si Vis Pacem Para Bellum

    Thank you for your service from the bottom of my heart. My father also made Lance Corporal as well.

    “The thing that sets the American Christian apart from all other people in the world sir, is that he will Die on his feet before he will live on his knees.” ~George Washington

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaxGNQE5ZLA

    God Bless!!

    K
    Guest
    K

    The etymology of the adjective “well”:
    “in a satisfactory manner,”
    http://etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=well+regulated

    The etymology of “regulate”:
    Meaning “to govern by restriction” is from 1620s.
    http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=regulate&allowed_in_frame=0

    In the Second Amendment, the Militia once under the expressed powers provided in Article 1, Section 8, paragraphs 15 and 16 is only “governed” “in a satisfactory manner” “by restriction” of People as they keep and bear Arms.

    The lack of this Arms restriction by the People results in no “security of a free State”.

    joe martin
    Guest
    joe martin

    The so-called historian obviously has never heard of the Federalist Papers or read Jefferson’s and Adams’ comments on the Constitution and Bill of Rights and the intent of the 2nd Amendment. Clearly the authors and signers knew what they meant and then chose to clarify their intent and meaning for future generations, should any questions arise, including politically correct liberal “historians” attempting to pass for intellectuals who would prefer revisionist history rather than facts.

    The Historian
    Guest
    The Historian

    Actually I have. I’m actually the first person to actually read them other than their original authors. You use words like “clearly” as if that strengthens your ignorance. I come from a place of ground breaking research. You are ignorant to that ground because this is NEW. Can you understand that concept? My next two books that are coming out are based on the Federalist Papers and will send all previous INTERPRETATIONS to the Mother Goose section of the library. Incredulity is not an argument sir. Neither is emotion. I cite SOURCE DOCUMENTS. You have NEVER heard the 2nd amendment… Read more »

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @The His storian, No, you are wrong. Joe Martin uses the word “clearly” in reference to the authors knowing what they meant when they wrote. Even you clearly know what you are writing, wrongstorian. The question is why are you attempting to subvert meanings that are well documented, well known, and undisputed? On one hand, maybe you are not very intelligent. On the other hand you are intelligent, but not very honest. You say, “Actually, I have. …actually the first person to actually…” Three actuallys in the first two sentences. At least you do not claim to be a writer.… Read more »

    oldvet
    Guest
    oldvet

    @WB … Any education he may have is obviously recently acquired from a left liberal socialist center of misinformation.

    rob
    Guest
    rob

    the professors — Jennifer Lynn Glass, Lisa Moore and Mia Carter should be fired, commie bastards.

    joe martin
    Guest
    joe martin

    ALL anti-gun arguments are childish, irrational and emotional rants.

    TheHistorian
    Guest
    TheHistorian

    It’s time to stop this vitriol and nonsense.. the right of the people to keep and bear Arms never existed.. https://medium.com/militia-stand-down-the-first-objective-reading-of/militia-stand-down-the-first-objective-reading-of-the-2nd-amendment-58d51f2d42e4

    Will Clayton
    Guest
    Will Clayton

    Come and take them if I never had the right! You are a blow hard- many scholars have read the same line “shall not be infringed.” SNOWFLAKE

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    The Second Amendment lists a personal, individual, human, civil Right that existed, even, before the U.S. Constitution. See D.C. v Heller and McDonald v Chicago. (Even if the Right to bear firearms had never existed, up to this very morning, that Civil Right does now exist, because the American people want it, and sovereignty resides in the American people.)

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    @Wild Bill And it is directly tied to the Unalienable right to life. You cannot possibly have a right to life without the same equal right to defend that life. It predates the constitution, not just because the American people want it, but because it is a right stemming from the “laws of Nature or Nature’s Creator” as the Declaration put it. Public or governmental opinion do not erase a right. Good post Brother. Sadly, I think GIL has chosen his new nickname. Do you think he might be trying to play off of mine? Lord knows I caused him… Read more »

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @R, Yes, true. That too. He could be as he has done that before. We will gather more evidence. Have a good weekend.

    The Historian
    Guest
    The Historian

    Yes it is, but only in the context of “We the People” and not “Me the People”. Its a reality based gun control amendment a reality you choose to ignore with only the logic of fear.

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    @Historically Challenged
    There is no such thing as a “Reality Based gun control argument” because the argument for gun control automatically believes that criminals will stop breaking laws if we just write more laws.

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    @WildBill
    Doing my best. Frankly, Historical is even more fun than America’s funniest Home Videos. You see him up on the roof getting ready to jump into the pool 10 feet away, and you can already see what is coming. Predictably, the idiot jumps and smacks his dingle berries on his kids swing set bar before he even gets half way. With Historican’t, its on a loop though. He does it over, and over, and over…

    =D

    oldvet
    Guest
    oldvet

    I agree with Revelator I still think he sounds like gill, I think I may have stated that somewhere before.

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    @Oldvet
    It is Possible, but I think Unlikely. I have just taken to referring to the gloriously deluded as “Gils”, much like Samuel Mudd. Essentially, its applying to his name the definition of one who ignores reality and facts at all costs. Why? Because Gil has all the intelligence and appeal of toilet water…. In a truck stop restroom…. And who wants to be compared to that?

    Heed the Call-up
    Guest
    Heed the Call-up

    That was a verbose load of bovine excrement. He had to contort structure and meanings to get to his end result. It is easily refuted by one part of the beginnings of the USA, the minutemen’s use of arms in preventing the seizure of arms and powder when the Brits marched on Lexington and Concord. They had the right to keep and bear arms, which is why they had them. When the Brits attempted to infringe on those rights, we fought back. The other part of his manifesto regarding hyphen usage is equal debased, since the writer of the federal… Read more »

    VE Veteran - Old Man's Club
    Guest
    VE Veteran - Old Man's Club

    For calling yourself a historian, you sure don’t know sh*t do ya? The 2nd Amendment codifies and recognizes the previously held GOD Given (*gasp* I know how liberals hate that name) RIGHT that is held from the moment of conception. Liberal pukes have never agreed with this as they don’t believe in Natural Law which is God Given Law. Ergo that right to bear arms is given by the Almighty, of which there is no greater power and government isn’t high enough on the food chain to take it unless they use force. You can read all the spin that… Read more »

    JoeUSooner
    Guest
    JoeUSooner

    Hi, Tim… you make some excellent points!

    [I passed through Khe Sanh in December of 1969… although I was a ground-pounder, I spent some time (before being med-evaced out in September of 70) near Hue.]

    VE Veteran - Old Man's Club
    Guest
    VE Veteran - Old Man's Club

    For your further edification – “The framers of our Constitution accepted, as axiomatic, that a critical component part of that Constitution —the normative rights and liberties, of the Bill of Rights—are, in a critical manner, wholly unlike the main body of the Constitution. For, although the structure of Government is man-made, the rights and liberties codified in the Bill of Rights, are not man-made. The rights and liberties, set forth in the Bill of Rights are not social or political constructs, conventions, contrivances, or mechanisms. The framers knew that any Governmental form they created could, even with the best checks… Read more »

    Thehistorian
    Guest
    Thehistorian

    An answer to what? Did you see a question mark? Why did you not address those plaques? Is it because it didn’t fit your current knowledge if history. It is no theory that they exist and that is a puzzle to be solved. What I speak of is a conspiracy of sorts, but it is no theory of mine. There was a gun debate in the 18th century and what you cite are the documentation and opinions of the pro gun side. The pro guntrol side did not publicly debate this issue at all. They were the same liberal thinkers… Read more »

    Vanns40
    Guest
    Vanns40

    There is no debate when it comes to “gun control” no matter how you may want to spin it. The ability to defend oneself and having the means to do so predate the Constitution. It is an inalienable Right and no person, no Govt. has the right to limit it in any way. Therefore yours and anyone else’s arguments are moot.

    The Historian
    Guest
    The Historian

    “therefore”? LOL. People learn their history from historians. A historian learns history through research source documents and should be completely impartial to what is discovered. This is how I conducted my research, period. Liberty : ‘the state of being free” (Merriam Webster Students sections). “being necessary to the security of a free State” There lives the inalienable right, nested in the so called “prefatory” clause. You can defend yourself with anything you can get your hands on. What exactly is your point? I fail to see any? The planet has a right to self defence , a sentence is not… Read more »

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    @Historically Challenged. No, people learn through presentation of evidence, compare and contrasting, and critical thinking. They do not learn however from bogus phonies trying to pass off their cultish opinions on the impetus that somehow the glorious leader in pursuance of the noblest of causes is the only one who can spoon feed people what they need to go through life because they don’t know what is best on their own. You bring up inalienable rights, but you are too clueless to understand them. Liberty is an unalienable right, yes, but so is LIFE. If LIFE is an unalienable right,… Read more »

    Heed the Call-up
    Guest
    Heed the Call-up

    Thehistorian, well if you agree with that tripe in the link you posted, and excepted a part of here, you are right, as I stated earlier, there is no argument because rational thought eludes you.

    If you want to be led by the horns, that’s your choice, but we choose freedom.

    Read some of the original literature from that period and you will see that his argument based on grammar and spelling is baseless. Pasting it here doesn’t make it any more valid than it was on that website.

    Think for yourself, be a free man.

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    Heed the Call,

    He wrote it. That’s the hilarious part. He’s the nutjob.

    Tionico
    Guest
    Tionico

    Oh there WAS INDEED a debate over Gun COntrol in the mid to late 18th Century. On the one hand was George Three, the Kid King Tyrant, who, barely wise enough to realise he’d never prevail against armed colonials in the Americas, had issued an order disarming ALL of them, this order was sent to his stooge, his Commanding Officer and illegally apppointed GOvernor of all the American COlonies, who was stationed in Boston Massachusettes, that city having been largely cleared of Colonials by the action of aforementioined Kid King’s Boston Port Bill. The disarmament orders arrived in Boston in… Read more »

    K
    Guest
    K

    Etymology is study of the history of words and their origins and how their form and meaning have changed over time. By extension, the term “the etymology (of a word)” means the origin of the particular word. The etymology of the adjective “well”: “in a satisfactory manner,” The etymology of “regulate”: “to govern by restriction” is from 1620s. In the Second Amendment, the Militia once under the expressed powers provided in Article 1, Section 8, paragraphs 15 and 16 (becoming Federalized) is then only “governed” “in a satisfactory manner” “by restriction” of People as they keep and bear Arms. Once… Read more »

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    @K
    Etymology not withstanding, the founders stated exactly what they meant behind the amendment, regardless of what translations you are using.

    They held that the restriction, or INFRINGEMENT(Did you look that one up K? Since it means “To Restrict:Place Burden Upon”) would be a threat to liberty, and the ultimate tool of governance by which tyranny can enslave people under its jurisdiction. As they stated, you cannot have a Free state without a well armed people capable of standing up to governance when their liberty is threatened. Feel free to try again soon.

    Vanns40
    Guest
    Vanns40

    Responding to “K”: Since Governors of States have concurrent authority to call out militias along with the President I believe this reinforces the theory that it’ll never happen. A little education:
    http://www.heritage.org/constitution/articles/1/essays/55/militia-clause

    JoeUSooner
    Guest
    JoeUSooner

    Presuming this Geoff character actually IS employed as a so-called “historian,” he needs to find a career more suited to his limited IQ. The term “zero credibility” comes immediately to mind, in describing this cuckoo-clock. Geoff wrote… “well-regulated” means to be well ordered or well trained” and that, in a limited sense, CAN BE a correct statement in the 21st Century. But back in Colonial days, it meant (it was in common usage as) simply being prepared – supplied and equipped – to the then-existing standards of 1775 militia service. Every militia member was expected to have (to provide his… Read more »

    Vanns40
    Guest
    Vanns40

    Hmm, I’d made a reply earlier, still waiting…..

    K
    Guest
    K

    If “well ordered” or “well trained” is the Constitutional meaning of “well-regulated”, how does the “right of the people to keep and bear Arms” cause the “Militia” to be “well ordered or “well trained”? In simpler words, how does ownership of a gun today “train” anything? The intellect and writing skills of the Founders was much better than that. The intent of the Second was to provide a written safeguard against the possibility that once the Militia was “federalized” as provided in Article 1, section 8, para.15 and 16, that Congress or the President then in authority would not use… Read more »

    The Historian
    Guest
    The Historian

    The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with Militias. The word itself was only used to encapsulate “people and Arms”. Once you know that , then you can read it. It will tell you exactly what it is with only it’s text.

    https://medium.com/militia-stand-down-the-first-objective-reading-of/militia-stand-down-the-first-objective-reading-of-the-2nd-amendment-58d51f2d42e4

    “the legitimate meaning of the Instrument must be derived from the text itself; or if a key is to be sought elsewhere, it must be not in the opinions or intentions of the Body which planned & proposed the Constitution”
    James Madison to Thomas Ritchie Sept 15, 1821.
    https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/04-02-02-0321

    The Revelator
    Guest
    The Revelator

    @ Geoff Smith You are still not a Historian, but for once you got one thing correct but with an addendum. The second amendment does not have anything to do with Militias, at least not as we know them today. What it did have to do with was Militia’s as they were understood in the 1770’s and 1780’s. Citizens were the Militia, that is why, being necessary to the security of a free state, those citizens have an inalienable right to possess arms for the purpose of using them to defend against a tyrannical government. They had just finished fighting… Read more »

    Ostlander
    Guest
    Ostlander

    The presence of civilian firearms ownership predating the French and Indian War make the individual right de facto law and that makes your long winding, layered conclusion irrelevant. Stay in Canada. You are not welcome here.