The 2nd Amendment, is there limits?

The 2^nd Amendment - Ratified 12/15/1791.

“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.”

One of the biggest misunderstandings of the 2^nd Amendment made by Liberals and other Anti-Gun people is, “The right to keep and bear arms is limited.”  To which I say, BULL SHIT!!!!!

I am not a Constitutional Scholar, I am not a College graduate and I have but just a humble High School education. For a living, I have worked in the field of Quality Assurance and Quality Control the majority of my life. So, big deal right? Well, one of my areas of expertise is reading, interpreting and writing procedures, standards and codes.

For me, the 2^nd Amendment is nothing more than a CODE, a Code being a “Standard that has been adopted by one or more government bodies and is enforceable by law”.

Codes follow a set of guide lines to be considered valid and those are:

1) Suitable for repetitive use.

2) Enforceable

3) Definite.

4) Realistic.

5) Authoritative.

6) Complete

7) Clear

8) Consistent, and

9) Focused

All of which I believe, those 27 words of the 2^nd Amendment meet.  

One issue with people reading a Code and having to meet the requirements of that Code is that, if they are unable to meet the requirements stated or they just want to change the Rule of Law to meet what they want , they claim their actions meet the “INTENT” or “SPIRIT” of what the Code says. I face this all the time. The problem though, is that the Code says what it says, there is NO INTENT or SPIRIT implied. IT SAYS WHAT IT SAYS, and all intent is spelled out as written.

“Well, I think what it means is this or that, they intended for it to say blah, blah, blah”. NO, it says what the intentions are right there in the words that were written, PERIOD!!! “..The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” But what does that mean? What is the intent of what it says, what’s the spirit to which it means? It means and the intent is: “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Simple isn't it.

It just kills people to understand this concept, there is no secret message, no hidden agenda, you don’t need to be a highly educated person with a PhD to understand; it says what it says plan and simple. It’s the rules; it’s the LAW, period.

Consider this, The Constitution (remember, I am neither a Constitution scholar nor Historian, it is all just simple Common Sense if you think about it) was written after a fierce and blood war with the King of England. A well regulated, World class military force was there to crush a rebellion of it's Colonists. The Colonists where in a sense, outnumbered and out classed by the English military except for one little point of interest, the Colonists were armed; the people had ARMS! They had stock piles of weapons and ammo hidden and the English needed to find and control those stock piles. We know how it all turned out, no need to carry on.

The Founding Fathers understood that they won because the PEOPLE had arms, bottom line. What if a country like England tried to do this again, how will we with stand? We need “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State,…” okay, and how do we assure that, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,…” but what if someone decides that isn't necessary, “shall not be infringed.”  So, in my simple mind it seems that the Founding Fathers asked the question, what if this all happens again (it kind of did in 1812) what can we do about it, Write a law that says “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.” The simplicity is overwhelming.

Finally the question, is there limits on the 2nd Amendment? Well, is there any stated? Remember, it says what it says, there is NO interpretation, No Intent and No spirit of, and it is what it is, period.

One advantage the weapons of the Colonists had over the British Military was in the rifles. A lot of the Colonists had long guns with rifling in the barrel which puts a spin on the projectile making it more accurate and with a longer range. I am sure the writers of the Constitution knew all this.

Why then would they want to put limits on the kinds of weapons the people (that make up the militia) have that would take away any advantage if there was another war like they just had? The people should be and remain just as armed (meaning weapons and ammo) if not more so, than any invading army. THE PEOPLES WEAPONS AND ARMAMENT IN ORDER TO DEFEND OUR COUNTRY SHOULD BE EQUAL TOO OR BETTER THAN ANY OPPOSING FORCE, FOREIGN OR DOMESTIC (my words).

I have heard this more than a couple of times: “So, are you saying that normal American citizens should be allowed to have the same weapons our military have, like RPGs?” YES! Hell, buy a Tank if you can!! If a Citizen can afford and purchase such weapons, the 2^nd Amendment says we can, period. Any limits that have been placed on the people (weapon and ammo bans) in the past, present or future are AGAINST THE LAW!!!

You and I should be able to match any weapons brought against US by any invading force foreign or domestic, to secure our country, lives and freedoms.

Defend the 2^nd Amendment; keep America and her Citizens FREE! God Bless America!!!!