Anti-Second Amendment Academics Shot Down in Texas Case

By Dean Weingarten

Empty Holster Protest on Campus
Dean Weingarten
Dean Weingarten

Arizona -( 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.


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

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.”)


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 thoughts on “Anti-Second Amendment Academics Shot Down in Texas Case

    1. 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, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

      Amendment 2
      A well regulated (governed by restriction) Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, (the governing restriction) shall not be infringed.

        1. 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, and almost no personal decoration. That’s it. In place of a slender blade sight on the front of the barrel, a small block of iron. The firearm was the exact same in construction of stock, lock, and barrel. Funny too. I happen to be building a Transition rifle which would have been revolutionary period(circa 1750 to about 1808) of 62 Caliber (Same bore size as the smooth bore fowling pieces), with a period lock(Flintlock as it should be), and a maple stock. To be honest though, the maple stock is probably the biggest upgrade to the whole rifle, as a real revolutionary period rifle coming out of Virginia would have worn a walnut or Cherry stock for more wear and tear.

          Of course, you can keep posting the same document by the same acid tripping Canadian named Geoff Smith(Who by the way couldn’t tell his backside from a hole in the ground.) But Geoff Smith does not replace the Founding Fathers own statements on whether or not it is an individual right. So here they are.

          “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…”
          – George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
          “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
          – Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
          “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.”
          – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
          “What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”
          – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
          “The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
          – Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
          “A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785
          “The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”
          – Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
          “On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
          – Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823
          “I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence … I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy.”
          – Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778
          “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
          – Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
          “To disarm the people…[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them.”
          – George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788
          “I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”
          – George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
          “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”
          – Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
          “Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.”
          – James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
          “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”
          – James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
          “…the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone…”
          – James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
          “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”
          – William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783
          “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms…  “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
          – Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
          “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.”
          – Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778
          “This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty…. The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”
          – St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803
          “The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance ofpower is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves.”
          – Thomas Paine, “Thoughts on Defensive War” in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775
          “The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
          – Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
          “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
          – Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833
          “What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty …. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.”
          – Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789
          “For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion.”
          – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, December 21, 1787 
          “If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.”
          – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
          “[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.”
          – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788
          “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
          – Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

          Boy….. James Madison…. “…the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone…” Of course, he is only known as the Father of the Constitution but what does that matter compared to the likes of a gun hating Canadian like Geoff Smith and his acid trip of an article, an article which by the way is published on Medium because it could not get published in a honest peer reviewed legal journal! Case closed.

          1. 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 it was recognized by some of the top men who drafted the constitution that it was ahead of its time and they knew they would only have one shot at the perfect constitution for the future of their nation. That being said.. The quotes from James Madison, George Washington , Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin , John Jay and John Adams are the only relevant ones. In my publication I explain the letter of that Thomas Jefferson wrote about exercising with a gun. It is a cipher. The form of exercise he is talking about is a purely mental one. He is asking that the mind be exercised beyond emotion alone in understanding the folly of lethal weaponry unleashed into a society. He is asking that people be courageous and it that it will take much pondering, especially for the pro-gun advocates. The resin of a 224 year old dogma revealed as fallacy will take time to remove. The first one that George Washington speaks of includes of course disciplined. This relates to the laws, the restrictions.but disciplined to understand that lethal weaponry has no place in a society if gun violence is to be the judge. Now I demonstrated that the 2nd amendment can in fact be read objectively, with only its text. It should be readily apparent that this was a ‘secret” and it had to be for at least 100 years according to John Adams in another letter. James Madison states this… Sept 15 1821 to Thomas Ritchie..

            “In general it had appeared to me that it might be best to let the work be a posthumous one; or at least that its publication should be delayed till the Constitution should be well settled by practice, & till a knowledge of the controversial part of the proceedings of its framers could be turned to no improper account.”

            A few sentences later James Madison goes on to say this.

            “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”

            The intentions of the body are the other quotes you speak of. This letter was written 30 years after the Bill of Rights was ratified and yet James Madison is being aloof. Why? Whats the big secret. It is of course that the instrument must be derived from its text alone, and since the 2nd amendment can be read in that manner as I have shown, and since it is a reality based gun control amendment where reality (ie gun violence stats etc) must be measured constantly because the guns are now on trial, it is in fact “an instrument”.
            Thomas Jefferson states the following at around the same time on June 12, 1823 and he too is being aloof. He also talks of publications but refers to it in the public view. Both refer to a future time as inferred by posthumous and as you will see “History may distort truth”..

            “History may distort truth, and will distort it for a time, by the superior efforts at justification of those who are conscious of needing it most. Nor will the opening scenes of our present government be seen in their true aspect, until the letters of the day, now held in private hoards, shall be broken up and laid open to public view. What a treasure will be found in General Washington’s cabinet, when it shall pass into the hands of as candid a friend to truth as he was himself!
            Again, the men in the cabinet are the only ones who knew of the truth of the 2nd amendment. The reason the letters were ‘private” is because they were ciphers. The reason that they were hoarded is because they were all meant for one singular purpose and created to wait in limbo for a future time. This in itself is a cipher and was the 145th one I had located out of what is currently now over 300. There are 75 in the book itself which all point back to 2nd amendment like a laser beam but only when it is read objectively. It is the “key” that opens these very carefully crafted letters. It is the context. The labors of these men span 82 years. The last letter was written by James Madison which he titled “Advice to my Country”. He asked that it be opened only after his death. Its very short and in it he talks of “Pandora’s box” having been opened. The box was opened on Dec 15, 1791. It was when the 2A was would be read subjectively, as it had to be to become ratified, and ‘unregulated” Arms would begin to stream into the public domain. Chaos and gun violence would logically ensue, hence Pandora’s box being opened.
            In a letter written to William Stephens Smith in 1789 by Thomas Jefferson he states..
            “the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tryants. It is it’s natural manure”.
            Again this is another cipher and I defer to the intelligence of Thomas Jefferson’s abilities to craft them.
            The tree of liberty is the constitution and its 3 branches of government which of course includes the 2nd amendment as he anticipates it. He speaks only of two times to describe a span of time. The first time is Dec 15, 1791, the same date pandora’s box was opened.
            The second time he anticipates due experience and suspicion growing over time as per the manure. The experience is gun violence along with the recognition that the real checks and balances are keeping a tyrant from showing up at the gov head. The patriots are the victims of gun violence and the tyrants are the criminals. Head count is so far over 1,000,000 people. Liberty has been bleeding for “We the People” for a very long time. Now the 2nd time has come and gone. It was on Dec 2 2015 that I first read the 2nd amendment objectively in over 180 years and definitely for the first time in the public domain. What Thomas Jefferson discerned was correct, because I suspected that the 2A could not be what it was thought to be. I didn’t know what it was, until it actually told me what it was with only it’s text. The tree of liberty MUST be refreshed by SCOTUS because the 2nd amendment “shall not be infringed”. Yes, James Madison was the “ultimate” authority but he did not draft the 2nd amendment he only transcribed it. It was first “crafted” by Benjamin Franklin by at least the year 1752. Like it or not, I am currently the world’s leading expert on the full history of the 2nd amendment. This is ground zero. This is new. This has been arrived at by impartial research and this is also the final legacy of the United States Constitution. The opinions of the framers and text of the constitution have more value to “We the People” than passion and cherry picking words.; The cat sir, is out of the bag. I am the “Candid a friend to Truth” to whom Thomas Jefferson refers too, because the book I have published “Militia Stand Down” is the public view which reveals those privately hoarded letter. He and a few other men, have my back on this. The very men who gave you your constitution. The book is the final chapter from the hidden side of the gun control debate.

            1. 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, I have to forgive you for being ignorant of US History. I’ll explain exactly why I am saying that, and why it breaks your “Cypher.” You are using conjecture and personal opinion(With a predetermined result in mind no less) to claim the Thomas Jefferson comment on the “Tree of Liberty” is referring to the Constitution. Here is why that in itself is a failure. Our actual founding document is the Declaration of Independence.

              “When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
              We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

              Ok, time to explain. Under the American system Liberty, as a right, comes from God or is also found present in nature, at no time does it acknowledge that it is a construct of man. It goes on. Governments only have power depending upon the consent of the Governed, and only as a means of protecting Individual citizen held rights. So to do this, a “Government” of some form is “Instituted” among men. The word “among” in this case means group, or the whole. It further states that should the instituted government ever become destructive or restrictive as to those natural rights(such as self preservation, I.E. Self Defense) it is the right of the people to abolish that very government. That is abolish in the full sense of the word. To destroy.. Obliterate… To erase from existence. The why… Because rights, or liberty, do not descend from Government or its structure. They exist independently and separately from, and are therefore outside the control of the form. They predate it, and they exist in the absence of it. The Constitution itself is therefore no more than a Charter, a set of bylaws not written to control the people but instead the club to which they belong.

              Since you said your actual career was as a computer programmer, I will explain it to you in this way. Liberty, or freedom and rights make up a computer. At the Keyboard/input is God or the Laws of nature. The internals, The Processor, the motherboard, and power conduits are made up of the people. The Declaration of Independence is the Bus between the people and what is stored on the Hard drive. Lastly, we have the Constitution, which is the Code currently stored on the Hard Drive itself. It is nothing more than ones and zeroes. Without the Bus, the system by which it communicates, it is worthless. In fact, you can completely format that drive, wipe every single bit of code from it leaving a blank canvas, and everything else needed to turn the computer on will still be there. New Code can be written and put onto the hard drive without any influence from the last. The Coded operating system does not dictate the existence of the rest of the machine, as they exist before the code does. All the code does is help communicate between parts. Now I have simplified this down as much as I can for people who do not understand computers, much the way you do not understand the United states or its history and therefore have to have it simplified down for you.

              Since the Declaration of Independence already broke your “Cypher”, the quotes I am about to post are going to finish destroying it completely. I will start first with a quote from the very first Congress held in the American Colonies to form the United/Confederated states.

              “Men trained in arms from their infancy, and animated by the love of liberty, will afford neither a cheap or easy conquest. ” — From the Declaration of the Continental Congress, July 1775.

              Men, having their own firearms and acting in a sense of self preservation to their own liberty and freedom, are not a force which can easily be conquered. So from the very start, right at the beginning Before the Revolutionary War even got into swing they are stating Private ownership, and the use of firearms from a young age is the very reason liberty prevails over Tyranny in plain English. Now lets look at Thomas Jefferson and see if he truly believed “That the use of firearms is in no way linked to freedom” as you are trying to claim.

              “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government” — Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

              “I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.” — Thomas Jefferson, Letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

              “The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it always to be kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the Atmosphere.” — Thomas Jefferson, letter to Abigail Adams, 1787

              “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.” — Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

              Yes, Thomas Jefferson is advocating violence, in his own words, so that people(and especially the Government) do not forget who holds power. That is Pandora’s Box. True Liberty, held by the individual, not handed down or snatched away at the whim of a tyrannical government.

              Now for a word on the Federalist Papers. Most people point to these as the impetus by which we should measure the Constitution. That is wrong. Our US Constitution was passed because of the Anti-Federalist papers. The proof is that we have a Bill of Rights(Prohibitions against the Government). Without acquiescing to the Anti-Federalists, our constitution would never have been ratified. The Federalist papers argued that it should be accepted without a bill of rights, straight up. That viewpoint lost, so the Anti-Federalist message must also be examined since the Federalist Papers along cannot reason to final document. Such as that is, James Madison said this.

              “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

              “…the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone…”- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

              If what just happened is not clear to you, then I will explain. If James Madison’s intent was that a “Key” could not be taken from his words, or “Any of the body”, then what are you doing trying to use what you claim as his original intentions is already nullified. He wrote the Federalist papers instead of saving them for Posterity. Not only that, but if you accept the Federalist papers view and that his hidden meaning for writing them is there, then he is automatically also correct in saying that Individuals, the people governed under the constitution are the ones who hold all rights no matter what the government thinks. But that wasn’t good enough. If you know programming, you also need to understand math. He used the term “Derivative.”

              “The derivative of a function of a real variable measures the sensitivity to change of a quantity (a function value or dependent variable) which is determined by another quantity (the independent variable).”-

              So, Wherever the change or sensitivity is, wherever the event which arose from the very nature of said topic, Too Bad! It is officially off limits because “It Resides in the hands of the Citizens, the People.”

              You had given a statement before, a few days ago. I am no going to quote you on it. These are you own words, repeated.

              “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 it is”

              If that is true, then you are a liar and a hypocrite. You are not following your own advice objectively! Why? Because you have an agenda. You want Civilian ownership of “lethal weapons” restricted and phased out. That is why you don’t want to acknowledge the fact that repeatedly the same item is coming up, not just in the constitution, but in the personal writings, political, and judicial documentation stemming not just from the beginning of the US as a nation, but from before it reached conception. Over and over again the subject of “The Right of the People”, “This is an individual Right”, “Individual Civilians should both own and be well versed in how to use weapons to protect their Rights from government.” At every turn, you ignore objectivity in your delusional quest to tell American’s what rights are ok for them to have. I have some news for you Mr. Geoff from Canada. You are no friend to Thomas Jefferson. Were he alive today to hear it, or you back then, the very mention from you that he has no right to a lethal weapon or suggesting he be restricted in its use would have you looking down the muzzle of his large caliber pistol for a very, very short time period. He had just fought an abusive tyrannical monarchy for that very reason.

              I want to ask you, were you very good at Computer Programming and trouble shooting code? You should stick to that, because as a Historian/Cryptographer you are an abject failure, dwelling in the realm of delusion and insanity in opposition to reality as you invent conjecture for the furthering of your own personal opinions. As I said before. Patriotic Americans will never bow to your desires, opinions, or edicts. We have our weapons, the teeth that are our Pandora’s box, which prevent you from taking them away. We will keep them peacefully, the responsibility our walks with them teaches us, to wait for the time when someone comes to take them or any other rights from us forcefully Just as Thomas Jefferson advised. From an American to a Canadian, go back to Canada because we are doing just fine down here without you.

            2. 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 Canadian Sphincter Vision, Geoff could definitely take out a patent for his case of said affliction.

          1. @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.

            Or, to put it simply, he’s a putz…. Great hearing from you again oldvet.

          2. 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.

            1. @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.

          3. @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.

      1. @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 Firing in the line of Battle as was common for militaries of that time. Familiarity of arms notwithstanding, this is the training which would have been practiced. It does not have anything to do with restricting possession.

        You quote Clause 15 of Article 1 Section 8, but you are missing a very important point. “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union…” THE MILITIA… Congress has the power to call it up for service. The Militia is understood to exist outside of Government mandate in that it is already present in the People within the individual states. Secondly, the duties of officering and training were the States rights, as they had been prior to the Constitution, and since it was not specifically declared within the Federal Governments mandate it is still expressly reserved to the individual states. It was not until the National Defense Act of 1916 that the federal Government took control of the “Militia” reorganizing it as the National Guard, and decreeing that the service age should be between 18 and 45.

        Third, The service of the Milita under the Federal Government was restricted. Congress could only call forth the Militia for a very limited time before they would return home. This is something that caused problems in the war of 1812, and the Civil War. That is why the Draft was instituted at that time. The maximum duration under Clause 12 of the same article is two years. Clause 13 Mandates that the only permanent “Standing” military force be the Navy,
        And Clause 14 is what states Congress Shall make Rules by which the Regulation(Training, supply, and Marshalling) of the Militia and navy both Shall be governed.

        Fourth, Firearms at the time were individually crafted and hand fit. Individual possession was a necessity for preparedness for war. It was not until Eli Whitney introduced the concept of Interchangeable Parts that preparedness through production would become feasible.

        Your argument lacks historical basis in fact, and intentionally dilutes several documents into one. You are Cherry picking pieces out, such as the Militia act of 1792 and trying to twist it to fit your narrative, while ignoring the personal writings of the Founding fathers expressly stating that “The Right of the People” is exactly that, not the Federal Government, not the states, but the Citizens of the United States as individuals. Ultimately, your opinion and personal interpretation that arms should be restricted means nothing, because A. The second amendment is still acting as a Check on Government of all levels with the statement “Shall not be Infringed”, and B. it requires the Forced disarmament of a free and well armed people. Essentially, we the people have the right and the Teeth to say “No!” to the Federal Government by nature of the bill of rights, and more importantly as it was expressed in the Declaration of Independence which is the Document that defines the purpose of the Constitution.

        Source Material

      2. 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.

        1. 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, funny. It is a fact that they used hyphens in the 18th century. It is a fact that they used the word “regulated” in the 18th century and it is a fact that the word “well” was used in the 18th century. It is also I think a reasonable observation that there was a damn good chance that Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson may have been a bit more familiar with the usage of the English language than the home schooled George Mason was. I have also discovered historical articles where Benjamin Franklin said that “English” was a bit different in Virginia than the other States. I have also discovered a letter where Benjamin Franklin has stated that “hyphens” were often not used by printers when fixing the typesets. The ONLY TIME IN HUMAN HISTORY that “well-regulated” has ever been attributed to mean “well regulated” is through the historical research of ONLY THE 2nd amendment. Bias maybe? lol. My understanding of these words is fine. You guys are cherry picking my article. I honestly don’t think you have the faculty to understand it. I really don’t know. I find it rather astonishing. Is it the habit of the gun debate? Is it that you think its a team sport or something? You ignored those plaques, but they are real. I’ve connected the dots and your logic is you don’t like them, so you ignore them.
          Your framers were highly intelligence but it appears to me that you can’t even recognize intelligence when its put right under your noses. Not a clue. Oh well. When the movie comes out I think they will do a better job of explaining it than I perhaps am. Pictures will probably help.

          1. @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?

          2. @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, “… That would in fact be re-authoring it.” What is the it and whom do you think is “reauthorizing”? And you need some commas around that nonessential clause, buster.
            So we see you failing to use commas, and failing to identify your antecedents in just your two sentence opening paragraph. I think that a simple declarative sentence comfortably ensconced in a cogent paragraph is beyond your purview.

          3. @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 mind to your own Constitutional Civil Rights? Oh, don’t have any? I hear that Constitutional scholars in Sudan could use your help.

            1. @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.

          4. @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 his cottage on planet venus! You alone could decipher the true meaning!! Right, and by the way, I have an island I will sell to you really really cheap. It’s underwater now but if you get in on the ground floor you could make millions!!!

            Yes, They used the word Regulated in regards to rifle sights. In regards to training drills. In regards to shotgun barrels. The definition there is bringing together at a single point. Remember? You failed dictionary class? That’s why you also don’t understand the word “Objective”

            Objectivity requires having no predetermined or desired result. Reading your scratch notes, theories, and delusions it is very clear that is not the case. You set out from the start to try and find a reason to say an “Individual right to owning Arms” never existed. That automatically negates any claim you have to being objective. Boy, talk about bias! Maybe if you had a dictionary you would have gotten that word too, since it is the opposite of objectivity and you reek with it! Guess what, this is fact, and this is reality. Definitions don’t change just because you want them to, what the Founding fathers said does not change just because you want it to, and no matter how many times you claim that what “is” does not exist, it does not remove it from reality.

            Indeed, when it comes to your article, your definition is that of a hypocrite and liar! You will quote Ben Franklin so long as it suits you, but then turn around and immediately claim that a quote he made doesn’t actually say what it says. You can stomp up and down all you want, screaming at the top of your lungs with tears streaming down your face that “It’s not fair! It only works when I do it !!!!” all you want. It does not alter reality. Perhaps, someday somebody might figure out how to flip reality around and negate every law of physics and logic in the Galaxy. When that happens, perhaps your work might actually have merit. Until then, it’s barely useful for wiping clean the north end of a south bound bull. In fact, lets hit another dose of reality! Let me introduce you to BEN FRANKLIN!!! (Use announcer voice for caps)

            “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!” -Benjamin Franklin

            Boy, there is that word again. Maybe you want to tell us how the word “Well” means heavy when Ben Franklin uses it one way, but in this case it’s something else because if you use it this way, it defeats your argument that Ben Franklin favored liberty through gun control.

            Hmmm. You argue that the Government has the power, and there fore the teeth.. That must be the wolves, the Federal and State Governments. The lamb, whose rights must not be infringed must be the People, the citizenry. Allow me to introduce you to Lambo, with dual M60’s on each hoof and bandoliers of ammo crisscrossing his mutton. Make his day!!

            So, mr. Canadian. If you are right, then surely you will volunteer to go door to door across America and collect all the Arms, BY. YOUR. SELF. I’ll tell you straight up. I don’t think you have the balls. I think you are a coward. I think you would sit up there on your large rear end fighting a case of hemorrhoids talking about the 70 million well armed and mean American lambs who just laughed in your face when you tried to explain that their rights never existed and they had to hand over their guns, and then having to switch to a new diaper each time when they dared you to try and take them! But then again, down here in the States, we already know that your best attempt… BEST….. To Contribute to the world is Justin, Freaking, Bieber…….. Come on!!!! You could have found two rocks somewhat close together in a field and claimed that they magically grew out of the soil like that and it would have been better! No Wonder Britain left. Heck, there are thousands of Canadians in the western provinces who would love to become Americans! The reason they cant is the criminals running Washington right now told them they have to come over the southern border.

            And by the way, thanks for making me ten dollars! I had a bet when you wrote you would not be back on here, that you wouldn’t last 24 hours before you had to see what people wrote. You couldn’t even last longer than 12!!!! How sad is that??!!!

          5. “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,”

            The etymology of “regulate”:
            Meaning “to govern by restriction” is from 1620s.

            Based strictly on the definitions provided above, 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”.

            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”.

            1. @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 Citizenry. It was never meant to be a state or federal level of armed garrison. But as you have finally pointed out(Your other comments were non-descript in this area), the privately held arms in the hands of the Citizenry are a check against Government abuse of power. From me to you, Good Job, just need to polish your presentation.

      3. “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 late 1700s, ALL adult male citizens were considered to be members of the militia. They were to keep their own arms, and if called to service, were expected to BRING their personal arms WITH them (the gov’t did not provide them, the citizens did). In fact, the national Militia Act of 1792 *required* all men between the ages of 18 and 54 to own a gun (musket), bullets, and powder, so they could be armed and called to service if needed.

        …One of the challenges of our nation flourishing and lasting so long (almost 250 years) is that over such a long period, our language has evolved and changed. We’re in a awkward time period where our founding documents *appear* to be readable, but in fact are written in a dialect that is actually unfamiliar to most, and only those learned in the language of the time (late 1700s) can interpret them accurately. In another 100 years, that probably won’t be an issue — our language will evolve further, and it will be much more obvious that our founding documents are written in a language other that contemporary English.

    2. 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 called out and under control of Congress and the President as provided for in the paragraphs of the Constitution shown above, the “security of a free State” is then dependent upon “People” (those not then in the Militia) being able to “keep and bear Arms”.

      1. 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.

        1. 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 right of the people to keep and bear Arms” as found in the Second. Having war equipment ready to use does not “govern by restriction” the “Militia”.
          The Second “Amendment” is “amending” the Constitutional provisions for a “Militia” found in Article 1, Section 8, paragraphs 16 and 17 and can’t be understood apart from knowing what is being “amended”.


          “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

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

        1. 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 the Constitution. “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe.” But that is just Noah Webster of course, the man responsible for the modern dictionary. After all you are you going to trust, Webster, or K? (Heavy on the Sarcasm here Folks)

          1. 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. Dictionaries are not baloney, wishfull thinking and fear based logic though, usually is. If you cherry pick the constitution, liberty will bleed for “We the People” . Those plaques are not baloney, they exist. You can choose to use your intelligence to study them, or take the very short path and use emotion alone to deny them. It takes courage to face fear. It takes courage to be a patriot.

            1. 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 at what Courage is when being a patriot. After all, it is “We the People” who bleed for Liberty, not the other way around. What is the argument for Gun Control? It is emotion based fear based on the idea that a law abiding citizen has a right to own something that that fearful liberal/progressive idiot finds “Scary!” I am simply saying that my rights and my Liberty are off limits to you and your cohorts. I’m ready to die to protect that, against any level of opposition because I won’t let a fearful idiot make me a slave to his opinion. That is Courage. Patriotism is not just when you do that for yourself though, it is when you do it for all. So nice try Grasshopper.

            2. @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 given me, which by the by includes my freedom.

              All the conjecture through our 21st Century glasses about what our Founding fathers said becomes moot, because it comes down to what one believes. I believe they saw it as a God given, inherent right, not to be regulated by the State meaning government. They said in the Declaration (which is where our beliefs as American’s are enshrined) that the government draws its “just powers’ from consent of the governed – in this case the term “Just” means LIMITED. Amendment 10 is very telling about what the Founders believed. So from reading your verbose replies I can see that you believe the government has the right to say what we can and can’t do – I say you are full of the stuff that makes the flowers grow.

              I will render to Caesar what is Caesar’s, but God gave me freedom and I follow His marching Orders.

              “Self defense is a primal law of nature which I have not surrendered by compact to any other entity, nor would I if I could” – John Adams

              “For those that will fight for it…FREEDOM …has a flavor the protected shall never know.”

              Semper Fi!

              — L/Cpl Edwin L. “Tim” Craft, B Co 3rd AT’s, Khe Sanh Combat Base, February, 1968

            3. @ 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


              God Bless!!

    3. The etymology of the adjective “well”:
      “in a satisfactory manner,”

      The etymology of “regulate”:
      Meaning “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.

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

    4. 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.

      1. 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 actually read to you in its very text.. You have ignored the proofs of my article which may be a combination of your bias, emotion based logic or due to an ego that is unable to allow an intelligence to exist beyond your own. I defer to the intelligence of the framers. You defer to you own. I choose the value of their opinion 1,000,000 over your own. You don’t even know what the word “liberal” even means and you use to just to label people to make better sense of your world. Intelligence exists sir. Its not an alternative fact. Show some courage and become patriotic to your constitution and not to your own fear.

        1. @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.
          Then, “…as if that strengthens your ignorance.” What an odd choice of words. Ignorance is generally considered a weakness. And then, “I come from a place of ground breaking research.” Where Bellview? You continue, ” …You are ignorant to that ground…” Terrible phrasing, terrible. I think that you are just one of those people that has nothing to do but type all day.

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

      1. 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

        1. 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.)

          1. @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 enough trouble.

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

            2. 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.

            3. @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.

            4. @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…


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

            6. @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?

      2. 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 2A and the Virginia right in the Virginia constitution is the same. Punctuation and spelling were not uniform. As the writer of this tripe points out, Webster’s dictionary wasn’t even existence yet.

        I could easily refute the rest of his diatribe, but anyone that can agree with his contorted reasoning will not agree with rational thought and logic.

        I, too, write code, and debugging code is part of the process. He is not unique in ability nor intelligence. His faulty logic and reason makes me wonder how competent he is at his job.

      3. 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 you want about how it is for the militia, or other such nonsense as the rag you quoted, but you have lost the argument before you ever started it. The Founders’ viewed it as an unalienable right (which means it cannot be taken away except by due process in Court. But the fact remains it is recognized as a God Given RIGHT – not a privilege which government CAN grant. You need to take the Hillsdale College course on the Constitution … Constitution 101 which can be signed up for at Best of all its free! Go study up and then get back to me, until then you’re a dilettante playing at being a “historian”.

        “For those that will fight for it…FREEDOM …has a flavor the protected shall never know.”

        Semper Fi!

        — L/Cpl Edwin L. “Tim” Craft, B Co 3rd AT’s, Khe Sanh Combat Base, February, 1968

        1. 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.]

      4. 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 and balances in place, can still devolve into tyranny. The framers understood that the greatest threat to the sanctity and inviolability of each person, each American citizen—is the threat that the Federal Government might one day devolve into autocracy, into totalitarianism, into tyranny. To guard against this possibility, to offset the insinuation of tyranny, lurking behind the corner of every government formed by man, the founders of our Nation and framers of our Constitution, established, as a critical component of our Nation’s Constitution, an indelible Bill of Rights.”

        “The Bill of Rights comprises a set of primary, primordial, fundamental, natural laws that Government must adhere to lest Government devolve into tyranny. These natural laws rest well beyond the power of the Federal Government, lawfully, to destroy. Preeminent among the natural laws that constrain the possibility of a despotic Government is the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

        The framers understood that an armed citizenry protects the entirety of the Bill of Rights and that an armed citizenry is the single best guardian against and check on a Federal Government run amok and that an armed citizenry is the ultimate bastion against tyranny. Some jurists, though, do not appreciate the threat posed to a free Republic, in the absence of an armed citizenry. They don’t accept this. They are philosophically predisposed to regard an armed citizenry with trepidation, with suspicion; as a potential threat against public order. So, they don’t accept the necessity of an armed citizenry. They do not and will not accept the emphatic command to the State, to a State’s Government, to the Court itself, as a component of the State, of the Government. They do not accept, will not accept the idea that the Second Amendment is to be revered, respected, preserved, strengthened, exalted, as the framers intended. They don’t accept this. But, they must. The Heller holdings and the legal and logical reasoning of the Court’s majority, as penned by the late Justice Scalia, fell upon those courts, that find the Second Amendment anachronistic, like a ton of bricks. They don’t like the holdings and they do not agree with the Heller majority’s reasoning. So, they slither around Heller, pretending to adhere to it rather than truly complying with it, rendering decisions, antithetical to Heller, and, therefore, antithetical to the import and purport of the Second Amendment.” _ The Arbalest Quarrel
        In fact go to their website – and look for this article –

        Rather lengthy but it will answer the question.

        1. 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 that gave you the constitution. They were highly intelligent men. If they debated pro guntrol in that time passions would have erupted. Kind of like now. If this group of men had debated for guncontrol and then suddenly caved and adopted the 2A it would have been highly suspicious. They of course fully accepted the 2A because they knew what it really was. The rest of the delegates simply read what they wanted to from a place of raw emotion and used their own spin of mythology to support it. The rubber hits the wrong with the laguage of it. History is not required to explain and neither is yout conjecture. It is one sentence. It can be read. It is a check and balance against power as it says it is. I am here to educate grasshopper. This is new. This is supported by over 400, 000 words by the titans of the framers who were at the very core of your consitution. Put on your critical thinking cap. Don’t let your own bias and fear make your intelligence it’s slave. You are now imagining question marks where none exist. Sort of like that hyphen that is not their. The word “well” existed in the 18th century. The word “regulated” existed in the 18th century. Hyphens existed in the 18th century. People who got sloppy and forgot to use them or did not know how to use them also existed in the 18th century. This is how reality works and it doesnt really care about opinion or passion.

          1. 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.

            1. “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 required to give it. That is a moot point. Civilized countries though with real democracies generally protect their population and don’t arm them to the teeth causing what is essentially a war within its borders. That’s silly and so was the SCOTUS interpretation. “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms” is nonsense. It never existed. Only the 2A does. The third clause is NOT THE 2ND AMENDMENT IN REALITY.

            2. @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, then by the laws of nature or nature’s creator, we also have the right to self preservation/defense. If we have the right to defend our lives, then by necessity we have the right to make use of the tools that allow us to do so. Furthermore, if the right is inalienable, then that means it is beyond even the government’s reach or power to touch. That is why the Third clause is there. Just because an lcd tripping, computer programmer wants to force his opinion on others in opposition to historical fact does not make him a historian. Just a moron. More evidence you don’t know what you are talking about. Canadian Sphincter Vision at work.

              in·al·ien·a·ble~ unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor
              synonyms: inviolable · absolute · sacrosanct · untransferable · nontransferable · nonnegotiable · indefeasible

          2. 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.

          3. 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 December 1774.

            On the other hand were the COlonials, all of them in the COlonies under the lawful authority granted them by their various Charters to colonise. For well over a decade, it was evident that the present situation would play out i one of two ways: they would either lay down or be run over by the British Crown, or they would end up having to fight. Strong general sentiment was toward the latter most unpleasant outcome. NONE wanted it, but it was more and more evident that was the direction chosen by the Kid King. With that in full view, the COlonials intensified their preparations… forming local milita out of the local citizens, arming and training, laying in stores of arms, ammunition, other supplies… the raid on Lexington and Concord was the FOURTH such “powder raid” launched by General Thomas Gage…. but the first of which the Colonials had got sufficient warning so as to be prepared to meet the attack, and to secure their own arms against seizure by Gage’s goons. What you, as a Canuck, may not recall (MR History? Not so much) is that, between the time two men (Paul Revere and Billy Dawes) left Dr. Warren’s home in North Boston about nine PM 18th April, and about the same time Wednesday morning 19th) more than FOURTEEN THOUSAND armed and “well regulated” militia had taken the field to stand aginst General Gage’s puny force of eight hundred British Regulars, later reenforced by another twelve hundred.

            No, the “Second Ammendment” did not exist that morning. Not “officially” at any rate. But the underlying RIGHT, named and codified into law some fourteen years later, DID exist, and is what propelled these Colonials to act as they did.

            READ that Bill of Rights once more… now LEARN your history of that time from the point of view of the COlonials. EVERY WORD in that Bill of Rights was a direct response to one or more of the tyrannical abuses George the Kid had been tormenting the Colonists with for years. Those men had LIVED THROUGH that tyrannical abuse, had their “long list of offenses” well in mind, and vowed never to allow any such tyranny to arise in the new nation. The right to arms was recognised by all…. denied the exercise thereof by far too many, but to deny that right is to acknowledge it in the first place.

            Well regulated DOES indeed mean praciced, equipped, functioning effectively. It is abundantly clear from the writing of the times that “militia” was quite simply “the people” armed and trained of their own accord and expense and ready/able to defend their hoes and lands against any threats… whether bears, Indians, drunken frenchmen, or General Gage’s troops.

            1. 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 the Militia is called out and under control of Congress and the President as provided for in the paragraphs of the Constitution shown above, the “security of a free State” is then dependent upon “People” (those not then in the Militia) being able to “keep and bear Arms”.

            2. @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.

      5. 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 own) three-day supply of food, clothing, and ammunition (powder and ball)… enough to last until the existing logistical “supply chain” could re-supply the troops. THAT is the 1770s meaning of “well-regulated.” It is the only meaning applicable at the time, and that definition was exactly what the citizens understood it to mean.

        Geoff is a typical, verbose, Liberal who – since he cannot contribute to society in any meaningful way – became part of the “education” establishment… where the act of writing illogical [but syllable-crammed!] articles (that at least SOUND impressively complex) is sufficient justification for the writer’s existence.

        1. 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 the Federal Militia to disarm the people. ALL armed Federal authority today is “well governed by (the) restriction” of millions of “people”, only as long as they maintain “the right to keep and bear Arms”.

          1. 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.


            “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.

            1. @ 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 a war of which one of the reasons was that Britain quartered a standing army amongst them, pillaging their homes and in many cases their livelihoods. So great was their hatred against government owned “Standing Armies” that a majority of the Founders/Framers labeled them the greatest threat to liberty. I am now going to speak without sarcasm based solely on facts. This is why you are not a historian. Until you can look at that very fact, even if it is the least among many others that have been presented before you here by multiple individuals, until you are able to recognize that most of your article is based against most of these long standing and well documented FACTS, you are not a historian. Historians do not deal in philosophical theories and cyphers. For example, Mesa Verde National park. We know that people lived there over a thousand years ago because they built their town into the side of a cliff. They disappeared leaving no trace of where they went. Now, some people look and there are no bodies there, no signs of war, it’s just empty and they question why. A Historian looks at the same site, sees the buildings, sees that it is man made, and he can say without a shadow of a doubt that Those people existed because the structure exists. In much the same way, when we read the Text of the Second Amendment, it tells us what exists. That “the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed.” The problem now is that you refuse to read the amendment exactly as it is written. You refuse to follow your own rules, making up new ones as you go along because you want to dictate to people you have no control over what they can or cannot do. History does not work like that, America does not work like that, and they never will. That is why you fail time and time again, and why you’re never going to win a debate here based on what you have written. End of story.

      6. 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.

    Leave a Comment 71 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *