The Truth About The Right To Keep And Bear Arms

By 339 Comments 4,664 views

“I don’t think legitimate sportsmen are going to say, ‘I need an assault weapon to go hunting,’” Cuomo said, according to the New York Times. “There is a balance here — I understand the rights of gun owners; I understand the rights of hunters.”

Cuomo indicated the state will likely force some kind of permit process on owners of semi-automatic “assault weapons.” In addition to generating revenue and expanding the size and reach of government, the effort will allow the state to confiscate the weapons of citizens who do not comply.

Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it,” the governor said.

constitutionThis is the governor of one of the largest states (population-wise) in the country! We have devolved to a point in the gun rights argument that we’re reverting back to the very thing from which e sought independence. The Declaration of Independence lists several grievances that led to the Revolutionary War.

King George was an oppressive ruler. He quartered troops in private homes to keep the citizens in check. He forced sailors to take up arms against fellow contrymen. He taxed them into oblivion without any representation. He made up laws on the fly to deal with trouble makers and denied them due process.

In Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803), St. George Tucker, a lawyer, Revolutionary War militia offcer, legal scholar, and later a U.S. District Court judge (appointed by James Madison in 1813), wrote of the 2nd Amendment that, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government.”

Yes, I’m a nerd. I read and RESEARCH the meanings of the Constitution, especially the most fundamental and important of our rights. Delving into the Appendix, Tucker explains further the meaning of the 2nd Amendment (emphasis is mine).

This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty …. The right of self defence 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 colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.

secondamendmentSound familiar? Today’s progressive movement has sought to turn the 2nd Amendment’s meaning into something it isn’t. Our lofty politicians – protected with their throngs of security guards, armored vehicles, and other protections – and their lapdog media have succeeded at convincing the “low information voters,” as Rush Limbaugh likes to say, that this right is meant to apply to hunters only. Or in your home only.

In addition, they have tried to tell us that even if we were hunters, we “don’t need those kinds of weapons for hunting.” Nearly every argument I have with a progressive gun grabber usually incorporates the statements that there is no use for any type of magazine that can carry more than 10 rounds or to own a weapon that looks black and evil. Personally, I think that’s racist that they are trying to ban so-called “black rifles.”

Another constitutional scholar to our Founders, William Rawle, wrote a book in 1829 called, “A View of the Constitution of the United States of America.” In this book, he talks about the reach and authority of the 2nd Amendment while also discussing the limitations on those that would attempt to circumvent it. He, rightly so, points out that the 27 words that make up the 2nd Amendment are composed of two, separate clauses; not one run-on sentence. Of the first clause (a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free state), he writes:

Although in actual war, the services of regular troops are confessedly more valuable; yet, while peace prevails, and in the commencement of a war before a regular force can be raised, the militia form the palladium of the country. They are ready to repel invasion, to suppress insurrection, and preserve the good order and peace of government. That they should be well regulated, is judiciously added. A disorderly militia is disgraceful to itself, and dangerous not to the enemy, but to its own country. The duty of the state government is, to adopt such regulations as will tend to make good soldiers with the least interruptions of the ordinary and useful occupations of civil life. In this all the Union has a strong and visible interest.

Some would point to the National Guard and say that this is what constitutes the “well regulated Militia” of the 2nd Amendment. However, such is not the case. The National Guard is frequently called upon to take on standing military operations. Our politicians and government have done a stellar job at preventing “the people” from forming their own “well regulated Militias” by labeling such groups as extremist, hate, or seditious collections. Can anyone honestly say that if our government became so corrupt as to turn on its own people that the National Guard would be in place to oppose the regular military forces? We all know that the Guard’s troops are equipped with mostly secondhand equipment and arms. If – and this is a very long shot – the country was ordered into martial law either the National Guard would be called up to augment the active forces or would be defeated without support if it stood up for the people.

This is why militias comprised of “the people” are included in the Constitution. Imagine if the people were allowed to form these militias in Los Angeles before the LA riots. Neighborhoods of people could defend their homes and businesses. Heck, one only needs to look at this picture from the riots of what property owners were doing to defend and protect their property. These citizens were protecting Korea town.


There are videos online of the LA Riots of literal gun battles between looters and armed merchants protecting their assets. There were no police officers anywhere nearby and it was left to the citizen to protect himself and his belongings.

But, Rawle pointed out the distinctions in his book between the two clauses in the 2nd Amendment and there are two. Of the second clause – the right of the people to keep and bear arms – he said the following:

The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious (ie: criminal – CJ) attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.

Rawle also understood that such rights are encumbered with certain responsibilities. Just because you have a right to “keep and bear arms” doesn’t mean you have a right to be an ass. Obviously, there is a certain etiquette to exercising all of our rights. For example, you can’t shout “FIRE” or “BOMB” in any crowded environment so as to induce panic. Rawle identified the limitation to exercising your 2nd Amendment rights this way:

This right ought not, however, in any government, to be abused to the disturbance of the public peace.

An assemblage of persons with arms, for an unlawful purpose, is an indictable offence, and even the carrying of arms abroad by a single, individual, attended with circumstances giving just reason to fear that he purposes to make an unlawful use of them, would be sufficient cause to require him to give surety of the peace. If he refused he would be liable to imprisonments.

In other words, ordering a Big Mac with fries and a Diet Dr. Pepper with a pistol in your hand would probably be defined as a “disturbance of the public peace.” Walking around the mall with an AK strapped to your back would probably also qualify as “an indictable offence.”

Rawle makes it quite clear that “the People” refers to individuals and not the military, or Militia. This isn’t someone over 200 years after the amendment was written trying to opine as to the true meaning of its words. This is of a man who was present during the debates and knew what the Founders meant when it was written.


Another founding contemporary was Justice Story, a Supreme Court Associate Justice appointed by James Madison in 1811. He wrote a book called “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States” in 1833. Again, this is a man that was present for the ensuing discussion and explanatory speeches by the Founders and writers of our Constitution. He obviously never imagined that we would have such Constitution-hating liberals filling offices to which they were sworn to protect and defend the very thing they hate.

The modern-day Democrat party talks more about the need to change the Constitution – and specifically the need to change the 2nd Amendment – than they talk about defending and supporting it. Without studying the words of those actually present during the 1880s to 1890s, they deign to just make up stuff and simply define that sacred document as “living” and “breathing.” Mayor Bloomingturd and Governor Cuckuomo obviously never “duly reflected upon the subject” of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. 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.

In his essay “Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution,” which was published in the Federal Gazette on June 18, 1789 Tench Coxe wrote that it is the responsibility of the people (again, speaking as individuals) to be the final check on government. He writes:

As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly 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 next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

I could go on and on. There is simply no factual basis behind the 2nd Amendment referring specifically to hunting or even that it was intended to restrict certain arms simply because of their physical appearance. Today’s liberal elite and their zombie-like followers won’t “carry [them]selves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed” as Thomas Jefferson wrote to William Johnson in 1823 (please read the great book, “The Complete Jefferson” to find other nuggets of intellectual knowledge on the founding of this country). Instead, they assign new and evolving meaning that suits their collective agendas.

“The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” — Thomas Jefferson

Perhaps, this is really why the rulers in Washington are so intent on taking away our weapons. Let there be no doubt now as we engage our intellectual inferiors on this subject about the true meaning and intent of our Founders when they debated and passed the Bill of Rights and specifically the 2nd Amendment. It’s time to put gun control to bed once and for all.

And as for the belief that “if we just ban high capacity magazines, the shooter won’t kill as many people” I offer you the following video on just how long it takes a trained or practiced shooter to change the magazine on these so-called “assault rifles.”

339 Responses to “The Truth About The Right To Keep And Bear Arms”

  1. 151

    Richard Wheeler

    Redteam In my mind CJ is questioning whether there is PROOF that Lanza is the shooter. That should be the debate based on that singular question. Of course, we can also debate WHERE they were shot and by what type of weapon. Those are separate questions.

  2. 153

    Richard Wheeler

    CJ Didn’t you question whether there was proof that Lanza was the shooter?
    Fortunate that I didn’t get too close to exploding IEDS. Arty and mortars—yup.

  3. 155


    I say anything I think of it,


  4. 156

    Richard Wheeler

    CJ #154 OK. Would have been crystal clear if you’d simply said. ” what proof do you have that the kids were shot( in the face)* with an AR-15?
    * in or out.

  5. 158


    Richard Wheeler
    you misunderstood the 98, CJ WAS ONLY QUESTIONING TOM IF HE KNEW THAT
    SO CJ wanted to know if the facts where coming from himself, where he got it, was it a credible source ecetera
    lay off that, get lost

  6. 159


    Richard Wheeler
    you and TOM should apologyse for using bad grammar,
    to CJ

  7. 160

    Richard Wheeler

    BEES #158 I readily admit I rarely have a clue what your gibberish is about.
    I do believe you’re right of Atilla the Hun and that provides some comic relief.

  8. 161


    Richard Wheeler you should read in between the lines,
    that’s why words where invented,
    C J can read between the lines
    I guess it’s part of his experience,

  9. 162


    I’m personally sure that Lantz went in the school and shot 26 people and killed them. I don’t think it matters much ‘where’ they were shot. I think it is still questionable whether they were shot with handguns or rifles, but that only matters to the anti-gun people. I’m sure it’s not an important question to the relatives of the people that were victims.

  10. 164

    Richard Wheeler

    Redteam Never questioned YOUR statements or beliefs on this issue although I don’t think you can speak for the relatives.
    Your thoughts on my #151 and #156
    Bees says Between the lines? That’s the ticket.

  11. 165


    Got a response from Colonel Danny Stebbins, Commander of the Connecticut State Police.

    “The Bushmaster was the primary weapon used based on casings found on scene.
    Additional crime scene investigative results are still pending.”

    I’m confused by these responses. So far, no one has told me that the Bushmaster was at the scene. How is it they can tell me that “casings” were found, but not the weapon. Did the shooter kill those kids, run the rifle back to his car, then go back and shoot himself? Something isn’t adding up here.

  12. 166


    YOU ARE SO METICULOUS we get lost behind your probing on all the minute details,
    the casing was found on the scene, and from LT VANCE the bushmaster was used to commit the crime,
    we know that right?
    where are the guns?
    NO, I don’t think he went back to his car,
    it doesn’t make sense, leaving the scene before he shot himself with what weapon did he shot himself?
    he might have had his two guns in his pockets,
    it was two guns right?

  13. 167


    @Richard Wheeler:your 151:

    Redteam In my mind CJ is questioning whether there is PROOF that Lanza is the shooter. That should be the debate based on that singular question. Of course, we can also debate WHERE they were shot and by what type of weapon. Those are separate questions.

    your 156:

    CJ #154 OK. Would have been crystal clear if you’d simply said. ” what proof do you have that the kids were shot( in the face)* with an AR-15?
    * in or out.

    151:I don’t think CJ was questioning whether Lanza was the shooter.
    156: CJ never question IF Lanza is the shooter.

    I sure don’t claim to speak for the relatives. But I will say that I had a son that got killed in a car wreck. There was a question as to whether alcohol was involved (there were no other persons in the accident) the coroner asked me if I wanted to know the results of his blood test. I said no, it wouldn’t make any difference. I don’t think minor details will matter to these parents either.

  14. 168


    CJ, my interpretation is: IF he had used the Bushmaster, the answer would be. He used the Bushmaster.
    since they are parsing their words and answers about casings, etc. he likely did not use the Bushmaster.

    That’s kinda like the Warren Report. If Lee Harvey Oswald were the only person involved, every record, every piece of evidence would have been published immediately. Sealing the records for 75 years kinda tells you they are hiding something. But that’s a different subject.

  15. 171


    @ilovebeeswarzone: yes, I agree that he said that, but the problem is he has said other things also. Initially, for 2 days or so, they repeatedly said that the bushmaster had been left in the car, only the handguns were used, but the story changed as time went on. I don’t have a clue what the truth is.

  16. 173



    In other words, LT Vance doesn’t even know except that what he’s heard “more than once.”

    Perhaps there are other communications between you and Lt. Vance, but based on what you have shared that is a mis-reading of his statement. He informed you that he has publicly answered your question more than once, the possible implication being why are you asking again.

    Furthermore, if you are insinuating there is a conspiracy or cover up, you are therefore calling into question the veracity of the CT State Police, the very thing I pointed out previously that you took such offense to. I am not aware of the CT State Police ever stating on the record the AR was in the car. That was a media report, and the media got a lot wrong. Do you have a link to the State Police stating the AR was in the car?

  17. 174



    I see you’re still dodging my questions in post #115 on this thread.

    Although you continue to be nothing more that a sick joke, you have ceased to be amusing.

  18. 179



    Listen, asshole, I’m getting tired of your game playing. My questions, ALL FIVE OF THEM, on in my post #115 on this thread. If you’re that stupid that you are not able to read them, just say so.

  19. 182


    very confusing, who else will come out with another take,
    the more I think of it, the more I believe the rifle was used because of so multiple shots on each one,
    that is the one I keep in mind , the vision torture me each time it come,
    so in order to do so many of them, he had to have the riffle,
    or am I wrong

  20. 183



    Sorry, CJ. That doesn’t cut it. That is not an official CT State Police statement, which I’m sure you are well aware of. The CT State Police spokesman, Lt Vance, definitively stated for the record that the AR was found on the person of the shooter and that it was the primary weapon used in the shooting. What you are attempting to insinuate, that the official CT State Police story regarding the weapon has materially changed over time, is simply not true. You seem to not be convinced that the AR was the gun used. That leaves two possibilities: either the CT State Police are mistaken about which weapon was used, which seems highly improbable, or they’ve released false information, perhaps, as you’ve theorized, to advance a pro-gun control agenda. Why don’t you just tell us all in plain English which it is that you believe?

  21. 186


    your link give us ABC on december 15 story,
    they where still mixed up then,
    so the rifle is not credible to be in the car, because of older news,
    THAT IS THE RIFLE commit the crimes,
    am I right?

  22. 189



    I never stated I had a secret source of insider information. That is something you misunderstood. I simply stated that I find it offensive that you are calling the veracity of the CT State Police into question. You continue to sow suspicion regarding the weapon used in the massacre, even though publicly, and through private assurance to you, they have confirmed it was the AR. I asked you to clarify your position, rather than make insinuations. So far, you refuse to do so. So how exactly did I mischaracterize your position on the public statements made by the CT State Police?

  23. 191



    You never answered my questions, posted three times, and number #115 on this very thread, no matter how you want to obfuscate and pretend you did. You are a smuck, Tom. With a capital S. You play dumb, but it has become obvious, it is not an act on your part.

    So, why don’t you take all my questions from post #115, one at a time, and answer them? Or are you still playing your game, wanting me to repost the questions, so you can ignore them for the fourth time?

    You really are a jerk, Tom. No surprise you’re a liberal.

  24. 193


    @Tom: You stated that you’ve personally spoken with CT police officers and when I questioned your secret source, you assumed I was disrespecting the force as a whole. You never did divulge your mysteriously fake source. Try to keep up. May need to be checked for senility or testosterone.

  25. 194

    Richard Wheeler

    CJ As an F.A. author please do us all a favor and cut the personal B.S. about senility,testosterone etc.
    Conduct unbecoming.
    Appreciate your research on this tragedy.Do you have the straight scoop on the A.R?

  26. 195



    You have things very confused. I stated that you disrespected the CT State Police when you called their veracity into question regarding the weapon, and even the killer. Of course you have yet to show us any evidence that they changed their story, although you continue to push that incorrect angle. The CT Police NEVER stated for the record that the AR was in the car. If you can disprove this, I invite you, again, to do so.

    The fact that I was born in CT and know police is merely context for why I find your pro-assault weapons political agenda in the face of a tragedy so disgusting.

  27. 196


    @Richard Wheeler: Don’t lecture me on conduct unbecoming until you set a standard across the board. I’m not your child and I don’t work for you.

    That said, I use a Vortex Razor HD 5-20x50mm scope on one and an EOTech holographic red dot scope on the another. I also have one with straight iron sights.

  28. 197


    @Tom: Don’t cloud the issue. The claimed to have spoken with CT police friend(s) which constitutes inside information. You can’t reinvent the past and pretend that a later issue answers my criticism of an earlier one. I once lived in Alabama, but that doesn’t make me an expert on the civil rights movement just because I know people in Selma.

  29. 199


    Richard Wheeler
    before you tell other to cut the bulshit. TO COVER ON TOM
    you better check on TOM BULSHIT ATTACK ON C J,

Leave a Reply

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