The Second Amendment - The Keeper of Liberty
© Mark Pitrone; May 7, 2004

Article the fourth [Amendment II]

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.

As the title says, the 2nd Amendment is the keeper of our liberty in these united States of America. George Washington said,

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the
people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them [guns] by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference [crime]. When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." (Address to 1st session of Congress)

To keep is not merely to hold onto something, or to put something away where it may never be seen or used again, like a Social Security card. The American Dictionary of the English Language compiled by Noah Webster and published in 1828 (hereinafter referred to as Webster's 1828, or W1828), was the dictionary that, more than any other, standardized the American language. We find among others the following definitions for 'keep'; "To hold; to retain in one's power or possession…, To preserve from falling or from danger; to protect; to guard or sustain…, To tend; to feed; to pasture; as, to keep a flock of sheep or a herd of cattle…, To practice; to do or perform; to obey; to observe in practice; not to neglect or violate; as, to keep the laws, statutes or commandments of God..., To maintain." It is in all those senses that I mean the 2nd amendment is the keeper of liberty, for without the right to keep and bear Arms America would long since have fallen into an abject despotism that England's king George III could only dream about. As we investigate the amendment, let's 'keep' this assertion that the 2nd amendment 'keeps' our liberty in mind.

Thomas Jefferson said,

"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." (June 12 1823, Letter to William Johnson).

Would that our Supreme Court justices were the Constitutional scholars that Jefferson was, or even that they consider themselves to be.

Noah Webster is counted among the founders of our country, and his 1828 dictionary is to my knowledge the best resource at our disposal to determine the meanings of the words used by our founding fathers. Let's use it to see what our founders meant as we examine the amendment clause by clause.

What did the founders mean when they said "A well regulated Militia?" This has been the clause that gun control activists have most mishandled and twisted from its intended meaning. They assume the 21st C. Washington, DC meaning of 'regulate', to pass laws to govern. Webster's 1828 has this for

"REG'ULATED, pp. Adjusted by rule, method or forms; put in good order…"

So a Militia that has been put in good order is one that practices its duties 'regularly', i.e.; it drills and trains as a unit to standardize (makes and adjusts its rules pertaining to) its methods and forms.

These same gun-control activists insist that the 'Militia' is the State's National Guard. But is that what the founders thought?

According to W1828,

"MILI'TIA, n. [L. from miles, a soldier; Gr. war, to fight, combat, contention. The primary sense of fighting is to strive, struggle, drive, or to strike, to beat, Eng. moil, L. molior; Heb. to labor or toil.] The body of soldiers in a state enrolled for discipline, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies; as distinguished from regular troops, whose sole occupation is war or military service. The Militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades, with officers of all grades, and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations."

In colonial and revolutionary times, in fact until shortly before WWII when the draft was initiated in preparation for war, local Militias were the backbone of America's defenses. The colonists who fought to escape the tyrannical rule of England's George III were, in large part, church congregations, led in drill and eventually into battle by their own pastors. In fact, it was still a law on the books of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as late as 1990 (though never enforced) that all men were to carry their weapons with them to church on Sunday so they could practice close-order drill between services.

Regular troops numbers were kept low because there was a general fear of a large standing army. Alexander Hamilton said,

"...that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms." (Federalist Paper #29)

"Little more can be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped." (Id)

{Responding to the claim that the Militia itself could threaten liberty} "There is something so far-fetched, and so extravagant in the idea of danger of liberty from the Militia that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or raillery (mockery)." (Id)

It would seem that Hamilton was afraid that a large standing army might move against the country in a coup d'etat, or the administration might use the standing army to infringe or abridge the rights of the people, as was the norm in Europe, and that the Militia would be the thing to stand in its way.

In relation to the first 2 quotes by Hamilton, until the 1990's there was an Army run program called 'The Office of Civilian Marksmanship' which was headquartered at Camp Perry, Ohio. The national marksmanship contest was held there yearly. The purpose of the program was to equip the States' Militias with serviceable weapons and the training to be effective in battle in the event the Army needed to call up the Militia in time of war. Until it's disbanding the OCM provided an M1 Garand to anyone who would agree to spend 2 weeks/year at Camp Perry to train in it's proper care, feeding and use. President Clinton disbanded the OCM and then started to use the Army to police not only hotspots overseas, but hotspots right here in America (Waco, Texas and the Branch Davidians jump immediately to mind - Gen. Wesley Clark was the CO at Fort Hood, TX, the source of the tanks that gassed, burned and tore the place up) in direct violation of the Posse Commutatis Act. It seems, in light of the disbanding of the OCM, that well trained civilian Militias were formidable to the aspirations of the President. I guess he never saw Hamilton's third quote above. The citizen Militia, as the citizen legislature in 1776 (see the Declaration of Independence), is formidable to tyrants only.

A Constitutional Militia is comprised of every man able to bear arms into battle. And in order to be well regulated it must have weapons of the same grade and capability as the regular Army, be trained in that weapon's proper care and use and attend regular training, as IN THE PAST was done by the Office of Civilian Marksmanship.

The next phrase is, "being necessary to the security of a free State". I think the salient word in this phrase is 'free.' W1828 says this:

FREE, n. [Heb. See Frank.]
1. Being at liberty; not being under necessity or restraint, physical or moral; a word of general application to the body, the will or mind, and to corporations.
2. In government, not enslaved; not in a state of vassalage or dependence; subject only to fixed laws, made by consent, and to a regular administration of such laws; not subject to the arbitrary will of a sovereign or lord; as a free state, nation or people.
3. Instituted by a free people, or by consent or choice of those who are to be subjects, and securing private rights and privileges by fixed laws and principles; not arbitrary or despotic; as a free constitution or government. (emphasis added)

The definition we're interested in here is the 2nd. A free State is not enslaved or a vassal to any other government. And the founders' intent in the 2nd Amendment was to keep the States free of the general government. Somehow we've gotten the whole system that our fathers gave us completely backwards, where the States and people of the States are vassals of the general government rather than its creator and thereby its master. And much of the blame for this is in the unConstitutional gun control laws of the 20th century, sold to us with a slick marketing campaign perpetrated upon the people by the government controlled schools and major mass media.

The last defining clause in #2 above is the most important in the founding revolutionary sense, "not subject to the arbitrary will of a sovereign or lord", because that is EXACTLY what the majority of the people of America have become - subjects to the arbitrary will of the President's Executive orders and decision directives. Washington, Jefferson, Adams, et al 'went to the mattresses' over less egregious offences. They set up a nation of self-governing people. The people were to govern themselves using as their rule the principles found in the 10 Commandments. American Republicanism has been termed 'an experiment in self-government.' As long as we were true to the founding principles, we were the envy of the world.

One reason there have been usurpations by our general government in the last century is its nearly total disregard of the 2nd amendment RIGHT to keep and to bear arms and its nearly total commitment to reduce that right to impotence and then remove it altogether. The States are no longer free of the general government because the people are no longer free of it. They have accepted the 'free lunch' of government paid (actually taxpayer paid) welfare and 'personal safety' over the free exercise of God-given rights. Ben Franklin was right when he said,

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Nov 11 1755, from the Pennsylvania Assembly's reply to the Governor of Pennsylvania.)

And so we have neither, in part because our people have not bothered to learn what the Constitution says regarding what ensures their freedom, the 2nd amendment.

"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms" is our next phrase. The declaration of Independence says

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…

It is these unalienable rights that the Bill of Rights sought to protect from the general government. The Declaration of Independence says that the people were endowed with rights from YHWH, not privileges from Washington, DC. W1828 says about

ENDOW'MENT, n. The act of settling dower on a woman, or of settling a fund or permanent provision for the support of a parson or vicar, or of a professor, &c.
1. That which is bestowed or settled on; property, fund or revenue permanently appropriated to any object; as the endowments of a church, of a hospital, or of a college.
2. That which is given or bestowed on the person or mind by the creator; gift of nature; any quality or faculty bestowed by the creator. Natural activity of limbs is an endowment of the body; natural vigor of intellect is an endowment of the mind. Chatham and Burke, in Great Britain, and Jan, Ellsworth and Hamilton, in America, possessed uncommon endowments of mind (emphasis added).

It is this endowment from our Creator that makes the rights unalienable. W1828 says

UNA'LIENABLE, a. Not alienable; that cannot be alienated; that may not be transferred; as unalienable rights. (emphasis added)
ALIE'NE, v.t. [L. alieno.]1. To transfer title or property to another; to sell.

Our rights, then, are our property, which, like the inheritance of the Israelites, cannot legally be removed or transferred from the owner/inheritor, even if he wishes to sell it or transfer it to another. We may choose to not exercise our endowment, but it cannot be removed for any reason. No matter how many laws the general or State government passes to constrain our right to keep and bear Arms, all such laws are unConstitutional. From the 'Citizen's Handbook" published by the Fully Informed Jury Association:

"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no right; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."
Norton vs Shelby County118 US 425 p.442 (Supreme Court precedent)

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them;"
Miranda vs Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491. (Supreme Court precedent)

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." 16th American Jurisprudence 2d, Section 177 late 2nd, Section 256

"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it."

I think that makes the point. No need to beat a dead horse (though there are quite a few more whips and blunt instruments at my disposal). Suffice it to say that your right to keep and bear Arms, as your rights to trial by jury and privacy in your person, papers, property and effects, et al, is non-transferable and non-unbridgeable.

The last phrase in the amendment is, "shall not be infringed". Infringed? That is a strange word to our 21st CE century ears. When I see the word infringe I think of those buckskin coats that were all the rage in the late 60's and early 70's with the fringes on the sleeves. Those fringes were not essential to the garment, being strictly ornamental. They were useless, but they looked cool. Any law that would lessen or abridge the right to keep and bear Arms would be similar to trimming away the fringes of the coat and destroying the property of the individual. Government isn't even allowed to touch the fringes, the most incidental and inconsequential feature, of this right, much less the essence of it. But what did the word mean to Madison, Hamilton, et al? W1828 has this:

INFRINGE, v.t. infrinj'. [L. infringo; in and frango,to break. See Break.]
1. To break, as contracts; to violate, either positively by contravention, or negatively by non-fulfillment or neglect of performance. A prince or a private person infringes an agreement or covenant by neglecting to perform its conditions, as well as by doing what is stipulated not to be done.
2. To break; to violate; to transgress; to neglect to fulfill or obey; as, to infringe a law.
3. To destroy or hinder; as, to infringe efficacy. [Little used.] (emphasis added)

The fact that the general government infringes our right to keep and bear Arms is evident in the unConstitutional laws it passes and in itsneglect to enforce this amendment when it becomes necessary (as happens when any police agency or government bureaucrat deprives a law-abiding citizen of his right to self-defense or of his liberty for having exercised that right). It is up to we, the people, to exercise our rights or lose them. The right to keep and bear Arms is under vicious attack by the socialistic Communist (Socialist Democrat) and Fascist (Socialist Republican) legislators (mostly BAR members - 'esquires' [a title of nobility] of the British Accreditation Registry) in our general, State and local governments. They fear an armed populace for the same reason that we've never been invaded by a foreign army. How do you mancipate (W1828 enslave) 80 million people who hold weapons to defend themselves? They need to get the guns to totally subjugate us. Until then, they have to rely on our voluntary compliance with draconian laws, while hiding their true nature behind familiar labels, like Republican and Democrat. (Jefferson, who was a member of the Democratic Republican Party, would cringe at the use of each word to describe today's major parties.)

Americans need to emancipate their minds from the chains into which they've been placed by the federal education system and THINK about what their political 'leaders' say and how they act in relation to their words. Does your representative, senator or President say he is pro-2nd amendment and then vote to take your guns from you? This is a fundamental issue relating to YOUR FREEDOM and Liberty. Don't just brush it aside as if it didn't matter. Too few people realize the precarious nature of our liberty. Too many take their liberty for granted. This is a very dangerous attitude, because those who are in power don't like the limitations the Constitution has placed on them, and will do whatever it takes to remove the shackles our founders imposed on them. We need to be vigilant. We need to pay close attention to their every word, take heed to their every vote, watch their every move. If we don't the America our founders gave us will be gone forever. And it will be our own faults.

America's inflation-proof currency 100% backed and redeemable in gold & silver.