This is not my work just a very well stated argument and want as any as we can to read!

near Montgomery, AL ·
  • This is long I know. I would like anyone to feel free to comment. If you think I’m way off base, I’d like to know and why. If you agree, I’d like to know and why.

    This is fact, not my opinion as you will see by the following which I’ve taken a great deal time to put together. Our problem is we have unqualified people giving their opinions (interpretations) of our Constitution, instead of defining it. That alone should be against the law!

    The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.

    The right to bear arms predates the Bill of Rights; the Second Amendment was based partially on the right to bear arms in English common-law, and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. This right was described by Blackstone as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state. Academic inquiry into the purpose, scope and effect of the amendment has been controversial and subject to numerous interpretations.

    “Academic” and “interpretations”, this is where the problem lies. Don’t believe me? Maybe this will help.


    of or pertaining to a college, academy, school, or other educational institution, especially one for higher education: academic requirements.

    Okay, this can’t be what the meaning of this word is in the sentence. That’s what we have “law makers” for, right? They would be the ones to “interpret” the Constitution, right? And I’m including the Supreme Courts as law makers.

    pertaining to areas of study that are not primarily vocational or applied, as the humanities or pure mathematics.

    Scratch #2 off as well.

    theoretical or hypothetical; not practical, realistic, or directly useful: an academic question; an academic discussion of a matter already decided.

    This can apply but, is this how our freedoms are determined? Boy I sure hope not!

    learned or scholarly but lacking in worldliness, common sense, or practicality.

    Here’s another one. Does it fit? Not when it comes to our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

    conforming to set rules, standards, or traditions; conventional: academic painting.

    #5, as well has no meaning in this and it’s obvious.

    Okay, with the definitions used for the word academics, why would our God given birth right even be considered up for interpretation through any definition of academics?


    the act of interpreting; elucidation; explication: This writer’s work demands interpretation.

    ????? I had to look up 2 more definitions to even know what this definition meant.

    e·lu·ci·date –
    to make lucid or clear; throw light upon; explain: an explanation that elucidated his recent strange behavior. Synonyms: clarify, illuminate.

    verb – to provide clarification; explain. Synonyms: clarify, clear up, illustrate.

    the act of explicating.

    an explanation; interpretation: He gave a brilliant explication of James Joyce’s book.

    So it appears the first definition of interpretation is a fancy way of saying it’s an opinion. Not exactly hard evidence of what word means.

    an explanation of the meaning of another’s artistic or creative work; an elucidation: an interpretation of a poem.

    Not looking at art, we’re looking at the Bill of Rights here!

    a conception of another’s behavior: a charitable interpretation of his tactlessness.

    Doesn’t apply.

    a way of interpreting.


    the rendering of a dramatic part, music, etc., so as to bring out the meaning, or to indicate one’s particular conception of it.

    Another way of saying it’s an opinion.

    Now, I’ve used this as an example of how our rights are being decimated year after year. The problem is, people are giving their opinions rather than true definitions. If you define the 2nd Amendment, there’s only one conclusion which can be drawn.

    As passed by the Congress: 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 ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
    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

    [keep] Show IPA verb, kept, keep·ing, noun

    verb (used with object)
    to hold or retain in one’s possession; hold as one’s own: If you like it, keep it. Keep the change.

    to hold or have the use of for a period of time: You can keep it for the summer.

    to hold in a given place; store: You can keep your things in here.

    to maintain (some action), especially in accordance with specific requirements, a promise, etc.: to keep watch; to keep step.

    to cause to continue in a given position, state, course, or action: to keep a light burning; to keep a child happy.

    In any of those definitions for the word keep, you can’t dispute the meaning.

    The definition of Bear has many meanings. I’m not posting all of them here, it’s too much and I’m lazy. The only two I found was to keep or to hold, pertaining to anything close to this discussion. And yes, it’s Old English!

    [in-frinj] verb, in·fringed, in·fring·ing.

    verb (used with object)
    to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.

    verb (used without object)
    to encroach or trespass (usually followed by on or upon ): Don’t infringe on his privacy.

    This is the most telling of all. And, is basically, case closed.

    If you have a birth right to keep and bear arms (to have in your possession or to hold) and that right shall not be infringed (to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress – to encroach or trespass), any legislation or amendment, is unconstitutional. Why can’t people see this?

    “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.” YEP!

    I put this together. I did not copy this from anyone. I did copy the quotes and definitions to bring forward the facts. The shame in all of this is I will only have a few people comment and share. The rest are the people that are happy waiting for the government steal their rights as they become more dependent on them.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to This is not my work just a very well stated argument and want as any as we can to read!

  1. Stephen Henderson says:

    I’m honored and really don’t have the words for how fast this has spread. I wrote this just a couple of hours ago and I’m amazed at where it has found it’s way. Thank you!

    • mitzir27 says:

      No thank you for your time it is us the citizens that are going to have to take our country and do right with it!

      • Stephen Henderson says:

        I hear people talk, and it’s many about our rights being abused. I never see or hear people stand up for those rights. I’m tired of it and I’ve been doing my best to tell people to get off their lazy butts and start protecting their rights. Whether they believe in those rights or not, they better start protecting them. If they don’t they will all be gone!

  2. mitzir27 says:

    If you get time read my favorite quotes! I am right there with you! I am inspired with your words and makes me want to dig up some of my older stuff and get it on here this is a new site for me. Was pushed to do so and the more I use it the more I want to say! You and I are on the same page!

  3. Nice work! A bit more to add before the hopeless hoplophobes get here though. The militia, as defined, is all men, and from the common populace. Not the National Guard by any stretch of the imagination. Further, they were to be armed with the best weapons available. The Brown Bess was the “assault rifle” of the day.

  4. Reblogged this on Conservative Libertarian Outpost and commented:
    Not quite a complete essay, but it does not make that claim either. Welcome aboard to the forces of liberty and freedom!

  5. genomega1 says:

    Reblogged this on News You May Have Missed and commented:
    This is not my work just a very well stated argument and want as any as we can to read!
    Stephen Hendersonposted toWe, the People, will be heard

  6. memoirpoet says:

    Thanks for the follow. As a writer, I can use all the readers I can get! 🙂

    • mitzi says:

      I too understand the need for follows, look forward to more of your work. Hope on your next stop through you check out some of my poems. And Thank you for the follow! Peace, Mitz

Please feel free to comment and any input is appreciated

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s