Skip to content

Comment of the Day: An Ex-Soldier and Social Studies Teacher Explains The Second Amendment

October 4, 2009


From Ex-Soldier commenting on Claude Cartaginese’s One Scared Elderly Man is About to Make the Country Safer:

“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.”

Speaking as a veteran (20 years) social studies teacher in a public high school and as a former social studies Teacher of the Year (for my school), AND as a former US Army Officer, let me address this one:

“Well REGULATED MILITIA” A lot of folks seem to think this is referring to some sort of national guard as we understand that organization today. Yet that organization wasn’t even created until right before our involvement in WWI. In the days pertaining to the American Revolution, MILITIA meant ALL the people, bearing their own weapons. This fact is currently reflected in the state constitutions of several states. For example my home state of Florida has the organized militia and the UNORGANIZED militia ready for call up in the Constitution. This was actually used unofficially after Hurricane Andrew when it was a common sight to see citizens patrolling their own neighborhoods with slung AR15s or AK47s to deter looting and often chatting with local police — the cops took no action. WELL REGULATED doesn’t refer to a legal term of art, it is concerned with military logistics: Similar arms and ammunition.


“ARMS” is a phrase that is quite interesting and it is no accident that it is used by the Founding Fathers. Do you think that the FIRST rifles were flintlock rifles or the sort used in the American Revolution? In face firearms technology had been evolving for over 300 years by that point. It would evolve again during the course of the war as the first rifled barrels started showing up, offering vastly increased range and accuracy. A new kind of soldier appeared with this new wrinkle: SNIPERS. That kind of marksman still makes his presence felt on today’s battlefields. This is why the UZI, the M4, the M60 and SAW and other types of military firearms fall under the 2nd Amendment. If you refer to the writings of the Founding Fathers, even in the Federalist Papers (#46) you will see clearly that if the infantry has it, the PEOPLE must have it too but in greater numbers! Does this include things like artillery or armed aircraft? Probably not under the 2nd Amendment. It seems clear that the weapons probably must be limited to those that can be handled by a single man rather than those requiring a team like a mortar. This why I am certain the 2nd covers my 1911A1 45 pistol today AND my hand PHASER tomorrow.

However, the artillery and other weapons of military might are covered under the Constitutional letters of Marque. Back in those days, this is what allowed the formation of the Privateers to prey upon British shipping. Just how do you think the private military companies (PMCs) like BLACKWATER get to operate helicopter gunships and much heavier weapons like vehicle mounted (electric) mini-guns? It’s all constitutional and I’m certain these so called PMCs all agree to not operate in regions or under employment conditions that are inimical to US interests. A Letter of Marque.

Where do you draw the line? I’m guessing nuclear weapons, nerve agent or biotoxins. But under one guise or another everything else is allowed. Using a letter of Marque, a company like BLACKWATER (or as they’re currently known in the military or merc community: THE KNIGHTS WHO SAY XE! If you remember Monty Python) could operate an aircraft carrier if they could afford one. Including all the aircraft and ordnance of said carrier.

“Ordinary citizens” shall not be debarred the use of any squad level military weapon under the 2nd Amendment. Some folks have mentioned the inherent instability of military explosives. I myself have cooked food using a small square of military C4 plastic explosive. Not unstable. AT ALL. What about so called “napalm?” Easily concocted using TIDE detergent and gasoline. The military uses the M110 fuel thickener, but it amounts to the same thing.

The real purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to keep our own government from gettin’ too big for their britches as seems to be the case, currently. No wonder the liberals are all exercised over the 2nd Amendment. They want to hang onto their power. Armed citizens are definitely a threat to tyranny.

I had to highlight this comment. I was really quite impressed by it.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine

  1. macko permalink
    October 4, 2009 7:37 pm


  2. October 4, 2009 8:07 pm

    Well said.

  3. kennwash permalink
    October 4, 2009 8:20 pm

    Good article. The US does in fact have a definition of militia similar to Florida’s.

  4. Willa Jean permalink
    October 4, 2009 10:58 pm

    Very well said. Thank you

  5. Dave Hook permalink
    October 5, 2009 1:46 am

    Excellent commentary indeed. The term “well regulated” in the terminology of the period meant well trained or thoroughly drilled. It clearly doesn’t mean government controled as the anti-gun jackals would prefer.
    The 232 year old Right to bear arms section of the Pa. Constitution is better worded than the 2nd Amendment. The older Pennsylvania provision to the Pennsylvania Constitution declares ” The Right of the Citizens to Bear Arms in Defense of Themselves and the State Shall Not Be Questioned.”…. Since this document was drafted before the US constitution and served as a basis for the 2nd Amendment, there can be no question about the intention that it refers to individual rights and applies to states and localities. The deliberate disinformation on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment is obviously to subvert it’s meaning and the rights it enumerates. Remember the Bill of Rights recognizes God-given rights so that there is no question that they are individual rights. Sadly the constitution has been deeply eroded by the treasonous activities of our politicians. We need to restore it to it’s previous place of honor before it is replaced by the UN Declaration!

    • Elaine permalink
      October 5, 2009 9:39 am

      Dave, thanks for a great history lesson.

      I wonder if the U.S. Supreme Court justices know this history. In fact, have they ever quoted the clear language of the constitutions of the states in any of their decisions regarding the constitutional right for individuals to bear arms?

  6. AlaskanInfidel permalink
    October 5, 2009 2:00 am

    Yet the left will call down up and right wrong. Your eyes and ears lie to you all the time, but the government never will. At least not anymore…right?
    God will not save the Republic, the people will.

  7. joihn rudy jensen permalink
    October 5, 2009 3:15 am

    Love it, Love it. gemmie more.

  8. Guy permalink
    October 5, 2009 3:29 am

    Not only well said, but well thought. His line of reasoning helped me understand the finer points (and language) of the 2nd Amendment. Beware those who would deny the 2nd Amendment for if any of the Bill of Rights can be denied, so can they all.

  9. October 5, 2009 5:01 am

    Well done Sir. Absolutely correct. Why don’t the Communist Left read the Federalist Papers. Most of the answers and reasons for the constitution are there. I guess the Left refuse to read the truth and accept the facts.

    Thank you from a Vietnam Veteran, NRA Life Member and Registered Voter.

    Al Gagne

    • jbtrevor permalink
      October 5, 2009 6:07 am

      Al Gagne, they don’t read it because it is irrelevant to them; an obstacle actually.

  10. Donnamarie permalink
    October 5, 2009 5:05 am

    This was very good and well said. He could have included (was not necessary) was the fact that the British were going to try to take away the colonists munitions prior to the Revolution. Specifically, the reason the British were marching from Boston to Lexington and Concord was to take the munitions depot and the colonists would have none of that. If you read the Bill of Rights (first 10 amendments to the Constitution) many of the principles embodied stem directly from the hardships that the colonists faced during the run-up to the Revolutionary war-i.e. 2nd Amendment (Right to Bear Arms) and 3rd (Quartering of Troops).

  11. jbtrevor permalink
    October 5, 2009 5:22 am

    “They want to hang onto their power. Armed citizens are definitely a threat to tyranny.”

    Especially if the Left’s subversion tactics to take over our country (via our schools, legislature and other elected positions, etc) are fully revealed and acknowledged by the “armed citizens”.

  12. Isabel Isherwood permalink
    October 5, 2009 7:53 am

    Outstanding. Great to use in an argument with gun banning liberals.

  13. MMM permalink
    October 5, 2009 9:27 am

    My father was our high school government teacher for more than twenty years, and a former German POW, who flew B-24s, and T-7s and T-8s over North Korea.

    Dad could’ve written this; it is good to know there are others like him still out there teaching the TRUTH somewhere.

    This is the stuff our country is made of…

    Well done.

  14. David Cox permalink
    October 5, 2009 9:52 am

    I believe “well regulated” may refer to the accuracy of the
    weapon. A “well regulated” militia refers to the public owning
    arms so they can become proficient in their use, as in “shoot
    accurately”. A well-regulated artillery piece is a piece that
    has been set up to shoot accurately.

    • jbtrevor permalink
      October 5, 2009 10:07 am

      Notice it doesn’t say “government regulated”

  15. John Wangsgaard permalink
    October 5, 2009 11:23 am

    Napalm was made originally from napthalene and palm oil. They have since changed the formula, but I assure those reading this that Tide and gasoline will not mix. As a chemist I tried this one time as an experiment because I had read this elsewhere. You would no doubt need a long chain fatty acid for this to work. Just to keep the record straight.

  16. Judy permalink
    October 5, 2009 1:19 pm

    The Left have an interesting philosophy and approach to gun control. They do believe that you and I should have guns controlled and eventually our of our hands. They also own guns, but, by proxy. They hire others to have and use guns on their behalf when they hire security and bodyguards. This is acceptable to them as they can claim that their hands are clean in the matter. A distorted and corrupt, self-serving “do as I say, not as I do” philosophy. This is woven into the Leftist agenda of the ultimate control of all aspects of American life and liberty.

  17. Judy permalink
    October 5, 2009 1:25 pm

    I am a nurse with only college chemistry. But, it seems that the reason that Tide will not mix with gasoline, is that Tide is a detergent, not a soap (fat). I am correct? I do know the answer but will not post it as it is not of value to anyone on the board. Your assumption regarding the LCFA is correct.

  18. Bob permalink
    October 5, 2009 4:01 pm

    An inconveniently accurate article. What’s the ultimate question? “How much ammo do you have left?” For further clarification, refer to recent ammunition manufacturers sales numbers. Sorry if you have heard this one before- Bob

  19. Rhodi permalink
    October 6, 2009 9:41 am

    A very good article…And on the other side too…my husband works for Weld County Sheriff–many an inmate has confided (yes, they are fools with big mouths), that if they weren’t afraid someone might have a gun in their home, they would happily burglarize, rob or murder many more people than they currently had. They’re “not afraid of getting caught, so much as afraid of getting shot.”

  20. L. Steven Beene II permalink
    October 6, 2009 12:51 pm

    And has been pointed out the rate of crimes against the people in the U.K. by criminals with weapons went up (wait for it) 380% since the gun ban.

    Murders by firearm almost doubled.

    And those that held onto their firearms and used them in defense of their homes were prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

    So, really, given the empiracle (?sp?) evidence, the results and who is being truly prosecuted and made example – what was the intent?

    Give it some thought.

    Steven in Alaska too!

  21. Nancy permalink
    October 8, 2009 8:11 pm

    Altho this discussion is mentioning men, does this not include women?

    • Julie Trevor permalink
      October 9, 2009 3:13 am

      having re-read the comments above, I see no “exclusion” of women in referencing the topic of the original post – Second Amendment.
      What is your point?

Comments are closed.