'Well Regulated' Tyranny
The fallacy behind one of the primary attacks on the Second Amendment
If you need proof that Globalists who despise Liberty - in all Her glorious forms - will engage in manipulative wordplay to achieve their nefarious ends, look no further than their crafty interpretations of the Second Amendment to the United States’ Constitution. Ensconced in the American ‘Bill of Rights’ [BoR], it is undoubtedly the most hotly-contested of all those Natural rights.
Of course, we could wax philosophical about their toxic motivations and why they do what they do, and as one who loves Liberty (and strongly believes that She cannot survive - much less thrive - where guns are strictly ‘regulated’), it would undoubtedly be a spirited discussion. However, this is written for a different purpose: I wish to review the aforementioned amendment, and demonstrate how grossly they have corrupted the interpretation of it.
What you choose to do with my own ‘interpretations’ after reading them? That… is entirely up to you…
One of the tricks those self-appointed Globalist overlords have effectively utilized - during this deliberate corruption - is misrepresenting the first quarter-sentence of that ‘second right.’ Let us take a moment to examine the entire amendment, for the sake of context…
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.
Brevity, at its finest.
Of course, said-brevity has lead to over 200 years of curious Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decisions about its application. Right now, thanks to the quasi-conservative lean of the court, the most-recent of those decisions have largely gone the way of gun advocates.
However, as we learned from the mid-twentieth century, it only takes one activist court to destroy years - even decades - of precedent. Liberty is never more than one generation away from extinction, to paraphrase a former president, and a radicalized SCOTUS is one of the biggest threats to said-Liberty.
And the most threatening legal narrative currently being bandied about? It is based on that aforementioned ‘quarter-sentence:’ A well regulated Militia…
Those in Authority and academia have disingenuously twisted these words around - applying modern-interpretations to 18th century language - to suggest that ‘regulated’ means something which is ‘governed’ by… well, government. They further assert that the word ‘militia’ only applies to government-controlled, ‘national guard’ like organizations, and not privately-organized, citizen-based groups.
They claim that the overall intent of Enmienda Dos was to regulate state-sponsored ‘militias,’ and further regulate those who were members of such organizations. In a warped way, they have attempted to use this amendment to actually justify ‘gun control.’
This is a diabolical fallacy. And a dangerous one, too.
First, let us dispense with the ‘militia’ argument. A majority of the original BoR advocates saw government-based military (i.e. ‘standing armies’) as enemies of Liberty and of ‘the People,’ and would have viewed today’s versions of the ‘National Guard’ as tyranny-in-proxy; to them, ‘militia’ meant ‘voluntary citizen soldier.’
As such, when the, “Only for the ‘militia…’” argument is used today - in the manner in which they use it - it is a gross misrepresentation of the original intent, and should not even be entertained as an informed, viable opinion.
Secondly - and most importantly - is the discussion around, “regulated.” At the time the amendment was written, this word simply meant ‘disciplined,’ or ‘trained.’ It was basically saying that in order for there to be a ‘well-trained’ militia - to protect the ‘free state’ - it was vital to protect the citizen’s Natural right to keep and bear arms.
Individual citizens, not collectives of citizens.
That brings us to another vital point. Of the ten near-sacred Amendments which make up the BoR, not a single one of them - not ONE - was written to protect the rights of ANY federalized ‘collective.’
In fact, aside from the Tenth Amendment, they were written exclusively to protect individual, Natural rights; as to that Tenth, it was crafted to protect the States (which, in their parlance, constituted ‘the People’) from federal authority. All ten were meant to serve as restrictions on our nation’s capital, because those men knew - as well as anyone - how ‘power’ can corrupt.
So no, the ‘well regulated’ debate has no legs upon which to stand. However, in case you still have doubts? There is still one more factor to consider…
Join me on the Notes app, for up-to-date posts, unique content, and other shenanigans!
We must remember, while exploring the meaning of items written two-plus centuries ago, that the individuals mapping out the future of our nation were learned men who wrote in proper English. Unlike many of today’s college graduates, who cannot be bothered with pesky things like spelling, capitalization, and sentence-structure, how they wrote something was equally as important as what they wrote.
Back then… ‘grammar’ mattered. A lot. And Amendment Two is a prime example of that.
For example, the words, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…” is an incomplete sentence… an incomplete thought. Standing alone it is meaningless, as it is entirely dependent upon what follows it. It is of secondary importance, irrelevant without additional context, so someone quoting it as a singular point is running a fool’s errand.
Meanwhile, “[T]he right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed,” IS a complete sentence; it can stand on its own, without any qualifiers. It is the primary point, and what precedes it merely enforces it; it is not, in any way, diluted by that secondary point.
The Founding Fathers knew this, of course, because - again - the ‘how’ they wrote something was vital to the point they wished to convey, especially something with legal ramifications (many of them were lawyers, after all). As such, it would have been assumed that anyone reading it years, decades, or even centuries later would have understood how they meant it, and interpret it accordingly.
These were forward-thinking men, yes, but they were not prophets; they had no way of foreseeing how corrupted our education system would eventually become.
So - acknowledging this proper sentence structure - if the Second Amendment were to be written today, it may look something like this…
Every individual citizen has the natural right to own and carry arms, and to stand alone or band together with fellow citizens, for the protection of their state and themselves, and no government entity can take any action to prevent an individual from exercising this right.
Not anywhere near as eloquent as the original, I know, but I believe it makes the point.
So when they start spinning their shifty narratives - all while deploying their usual strategies of lies and misdirection and confusion - in an effort to deprive you of rights bestowed-by-nature, be of good cheer and know you are in the right. Indeed, “… shall not be infringed,” actually means just that:
Shall. Not. Be. Infringed.
Period.
Support me and my work, by becoming either a free subscriber or a paid member! Annual subscriptions are 50% off the monthly rate, and include a seven-day free trial! Join Today!
Notes…
-- Unless otherwise credited, all images were created by the author, using Substack’s AI Image Generator.
If people were to speak the same way that these documents were written I believe the world would be a better place. And no translations would be necessary from anyone
The rights in the Bill of Rights can be directly correlated to events leading up to the American Revolution. All you have to do is think about the Battles of Lexington and Concord to understand this right. The British tried to confiscate all weapons and ammunition from the Americans. In response to the tyranny, the Minutemen (ordinary people, not a formal military organization) fought to protect their rights against the British army. They could do so because they were experienced, trained, disciplined, and dedicated.
The second amendment is basically saying: "In order to prevent tyranny, we need to ensure that the people of the United States can always be like the Minutemen."