2nd Amendment Grammar...It Isn't Complicated...At All

Whenever I get bored of organizing my dryer lint collection I will look in on the lunatic left and their fellow travelers, the ignorant and stupid soft left. One of their favorite Straw Man arguments against the 2nd Amendment is the laughably incorrect grammatical analysis they prefer; that the independent clause clearly stating the right that is being codified and defended is somehow modified by the first part of the sentence: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State."And of course it gets even dumber, because they don't understand what "well regulated" meant in the 18th century.

How's this?

A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.

Probably not, but it's fun to poke them anyway.

What is particularly galling is that the definition of "militia" Has been a matter of law for a long time.

This is from UNITED STATES v. MILLER et al. Decided May 15, 1939!

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

The 2nd Amendment has been at the forefront for me for several months, because the People's Republic of New Jersey has been busy trying to eviscerate the clear, unambiguous Supreme Court holding in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen that negated the clearly unconstitutional restrictions on the right of the people of New Jersey to keep and bear arms. Tomorrow the legislature will vote on a collection of vomit-inducing restrictions on the right to bear arms, including making it illegal to carry in one's own car! They are copying the hysterical reaction of the New York state legislature after the Supreme Court smacked down NY's ridiculous anti-gun laws. And like NY, NJ will get a prompt beating from the federal courts.

But the damage will be done. Until the new laws wend their way through the court system the legality of public carry in most of New Jersey will be confused. The state police are enthusiastic in their attacks on legal gun possession, and I very much doubt that a murky and confusing set of laws will prevent them from arresting and jailing law-abiding citizens on the flimsiest of pretexts.

Never mind that the gun crime rate among legal carry permit holders in America is lower than the gun crime rate among cops.

Never mind that there are millions of defensive gun uses each year!

Just how many defensive gun uses are there each year?

Trying to understand the mushy thinking of the gun grabbers is an exercise in confusion. But the goal is more important than their reasoning. They want to disarm the people so that the only power in America is the government.

Why is that?

Just ask the people of Venezuela...the people of Cuba...the people of the Soviet Union...the people of communist China...the people of North Korea...and on and on and on.

posted by CBD at 12:00 PM

| Access Comments