Your 2nd Amendment explained

In the debate about gun control, many gun enthusiasts argue that the Second Amendment to the Constitution was written, not for the purposes of hunting or even self-defense, but specifically to give people the ability to rise up against the government when they no longer support that government.

These gun enthusiasts further hold the reference to the word militia in the Second Amendment refers to the armed populace in general. As such, this militia has the right to own the type of weapons that would be required to overthrow the government if need be.

Let’s take a look at exactly what the Founding Fathers put in the Constitution and other laws about the Militia:


Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution lists among the powers of Congress: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; 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;

Article II, Section 2: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

Amendment 2: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment 5: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;

That is every reference to the Militia in the Constitution. The description of the Militia in Article I sounds very much like our country’s National Guard. It is supposed to be well-organized with officers and training.

From Myth

Do you have a right to vote?

From Attorney General Thurbert Baker.

“The Governor’s proposal to take away people’s right to vote for four constitutional offices is simply wrong. In a state where the right to vote was fought for and advanced, it is insulting to propose taking that right away from people, especially for critical policy making positions that affect so many lives. These offices exist to serve the people, not to be political trophies for the politicians who would like to control them.”

There's a back story to this that I assumed most people knew.

The current lame duck Governor of Georgia got out his 'Sonny to do list' yesterday. From his list he picked out, "Take decision making away from the people."

The right to vote has been contested in the streets and in the battlefields. We won. We proved that monarchs and Kings have no right to appoint councilors and cardinals. Well, that was kind of way down the Right to Vote list, okay?

No one has a right to rule based on a parents station in life. And Sonny Perdue has forgotten that. He wants to amend the Georgia Constitution so that voters don't have to decide who controls executive branches. Perdue wants the future Governor to just make some appointments. These appointees will be just like the councilors and cardinals under King George of England a couple hundred years ago.

Yeah, there's quite an argument that voters just don't have the time to study all the issues or the intelligence to vote for the 'right guy.' And I did say 'guy' for a reason and not to just slam the women around these parts.

But for those who think that, why do we have a Democrat running the Attorney General's Office and a Democrat running the Department of Labor in an all red state?

Maybe Perdue et al know that voters really don't vote a straight party line. After all, we aren't just Republicans. Some of us are independent SOBs.

We fought for a right to vote. Don't let Sonny sell it.

What does the Constitution mean?

I had to answer this today. Nothing in life, not my education, not my faith, nothing prepared me for the simple reality.

I am not a Constitutionalists Cult member.

The Constitution is just a historical document. The meanings are not found in the ink and are not contained by the four edges. We cannot find those meanings in diaries and writings of the many authors or supporters of ratification.

Or in variations on that theme that the meanings are in the intent of the ‘framers,’ the ‘founders,’ or ‘Federalists.’

The meanings of the Constitution are not in the thoughts of the authors nor anywhere on that parchment.

The meanings were (and are) in the people who one by one cast a vote towards ratification.

What did they think it meant to ratify this 'treaty' between former colonies?

What were they willing to lay down and sacrifice for a new union?

What burdens did they accept for themselves and unknown generations by casting a ballot by saying Aye, as in “I” will conform to my duties and obligations as citizens under these rules.

Those are the answers to that question and these are questions that I cannot answer as I have not yet made all my sacrifices, withstood all the burdens, or received the final benefits of union.