The President is ready to announce his plans to restrict gun ownership. Most likely, nothing the President proposes will do anything to stop a future Sandy Hook. We know the President understands he is putting Democrats in a terrible spot. We know because he did nothing after the Aurora, CO shooting in the midst of a political campaign. He had to wait so he wouldn’t spook voters. 
 
 Now he will put the Democrats on the line. Senators Baucus, Begich, Hagan, Johnson, Landrieu, and Pryor — all Democrats from very pro-second amendment states who are up for re-election in 2014 — will be in jeopardy when, not if, the President overreaches. 
 
 In all the talk that has happened and will happen, the press and the general public seem willing to ignore the actual purpose of the second amendment. 
 
 The amendment is not about sports. It is not about recreation. It is not about hunting. It is only partly about defending yourself from a criminal. 
 
 The second amendment is about ensuring a “free state.” 
 
 On April 19, 1775, British regulars marched on Lexington and Concord to seize the guns of American colonists that had been stockpiled in case of revolution. 
 
 It may be an abstract concept for us. It may be distant. But when the 1st Congress of the United States met in 1789, the memory of 1775 was fresh. More so, what they saw as an abridgment of their freedoms in 1775, they viewed as an abridgment of their freedoms going back to the Glorious Revolution of 1688. 
 
 Many historians have come to view the American Revolution as a conservative revolution. The revolutionaries believed they were protecting their English rights from the Glorious Revolution of 1688. They were, in effect, revolting to demand the rights they thought they already had as English citizens. It is why, for much of 1775, they petitioned the King, not Parliament, for help because they had, separated by distance and time, not kept up with the legal evolution of the British constitutional monarchy in relation to Parliament. The colonists believed themselves full English citizens and heirs of the Glorious Revolution. 
 
 One of the rights that came out of the Bill of Rights of 1689 in England following the Glorious Revolution was a right to bear arms for defense against the state. The English Bill of Rights accused King James II of disarming protestants in England. That Bill of Rights included the language “That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.“ 
 
 The Americans, however, saw the British government, via Parliament, begin curtailing the rights of the citizenry in the American colonies. When they formed the federal government with ratification of the Constitution, the colonists, now Americans, were deeply skeptical of a concentrated federal power, let alone standing armies to exercise power on behalf of a government. This is why, originally, the colonists chose to require unanimity for all federal action under the Articles of Confederation that the Constitution would replace. Likewise, it is why many early state constitutions gave both an explicit right to keep and bear arms, but also instructed that standing armies in times of peace should not be maintained. 
 
 Prior to the Civil War, the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government and that first Congress dropped references to “as allowed by Law” that had been in the English Bill of Rights. The Founders intended that Congress was to make no law curtailing the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms. 
 
 The 2nd Amendment, contrary to much of today’s conversation, has just as much to do with the people protecting themselves from tyranny as it does burglars. That is why there is so little common ground about assault rifles — even charitably ignoring the fact that there really is no such thing. If the 2nd Amendment is to protect the citizenry from even their own government, then the citizenry should be able to be armed. 
 
 There are plenty of arguments and bodies to suggest that we might, as a nation, need to rethink this. The Founders gave us that option. We can amend the Constitution. 
 
 In doing so, we should keep in mind that in the past 100 years Germany, Italy, Russia, Japan, China, and other governments have turned on their people at various times and, in doing so, restricted freedoms starting often with gun ownership. You may think a 30 round magazine is too big. Under the real purpose of the second amendment, a 30 round magazine might be too small. 
 
 Regardless, as the President announces how he will curtail the freedoms of the second amendment, we should remember Justice Robert Jackson’s opinion in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943) ||||| Every damn day I talk to people who don’t understand what the 2nd Amendment means so I’m going to break it down for you, explain in terms even a Liberal can understand…whether they choose to admit it remains to be seen. 
 
 The 2nd amendment. 
 
 “A WELL REGULATED MILITIA,… 
 
 (The first thing people need to understand is what “well regulated” meant in the 17 and 1800’s . It didn’t mean the same thing as to what people think it means now. Today, Regulated means, to control or direct according to rule, principle, or law. In the 17 and 1800’s Regulated meant, to put or maintain in order. So, when our founders wrote the 2nd Amendment and used “A Well Regulated” for the first 3 words, they were referring to “a well armed and well trained” militia, not that the government should, needs or has the authority to dictate what types of firearms we can and cannot KEEP, or where we have the right to BEAR them. People nowadays think it means that the government has the right to regulate our firearms but any rational intelligent person would understand that if it meant what they thought it meant back when our founders wrote it today it would contradict with the “shall not be infringed” part, right?… but we’ll get to that in a minute, but first lets discuss what an actual militia is and isn’t. 
 
 The “militia” was not a standing army like the U.S. Army now or even the Colonial Army or Colonial Regulars during the revolution. They were every day ordinary citizens that could be called up at a moments notice in a time of need. They could fight with the regular Army or oppose them if they were ever to became tyrannical. The militias were all volunteer and were under no contractual obligation nor were they paid unless asked to stand or fight a long side the regular Army, but they could leave anytime and were under no oath or contract to stay. The Militias were not controlled by local, state or the federal governments, as I said, it was all volunteer but every citizens duty to be armed and ready. Now, Liberals/Democrats and those who oppose the second amendment would like everyone to believe that National Guard is the Militia…and they would be wrong. Why? Because one, the National Guard is in fact a Branch of the U.S. Army and they are under contract with their state governments, the federal government and receive a paycheck from the government which is the very definition of a “Standing Army”. Our founders intended for our militias to NOT be controlled by the government because if the government EVER became tyrannical they wanted a “citizens militia” to be able to take the power back, by force if necessary, and give it back to the people. 
 
 …BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE, TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.” 
 
 Now the citizens, Well Armed and Well Trained, and uncontrolled militia was necessary for the security of a free state…even if that meant against our own government and in order for the security of a free state the “people” needed to be armed and be able to retain that “RIGHT” to be armed without any interference or infringement from the government…period… our founders knew and understood that if the people lost that right a free state was no longer guaranteed. Now to KEEP means in your home, to BEAR means wear it on your body…your chest, hip, leg, under your arm or even in your waist band, which I wouldn’t do, but hey to each his own….to bear means you can carry a gun in public…period! 
 
 Last but not least is my favorite, those four little words gun grabbers, liberals and traitor politicians hate to hear…SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED! Politicians are always talking about how they can ratify any amendment in the Constitution and I don’t disagree…except for the 2nd Amendment. Why? Because it’s the only amendment in the Constitution that has those four words that makes Liberals cringe, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED! Just like well regulated Liberals obviously don’t know what infringe[d] means either and the meaning of the word infringed hasn’t changed since the 1700’s but for the sake of argument here’s the definition so Liberals will better understand what infringed means. 
 
 INFRINGED 
 
 1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent or a right. 
 
 2. To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing: 
 
 1. (tr) to violate or break (a law, an agreement, etc) 
 
 2. (intr; foll by on or upon) to encroach or trespass 
 
 I honestly think no matter how many times we explain it to Liberals either their minds are so warped or they just don’t care so I really don’t think me explaining this to them really matters. They’re willing to give up all of their rights and ours, yes all of our rights, because they’re weak and scared…but they all love to point out that they have a First Amendment “right” to speak out against the Second Amendment but they’re too stupid to realize that the first amendment won’t last very long without the second amendment to protect it…nor will any other amendments. Sooooo….if this breakdown of the 2nd Amendment does anything or helps anyone to better understand it, maybe it’ll wake up all those intelligent and rational people who’ve been lied to, deceived and betrayed by the Main Stream Media, the sellouts who refer to themselves as journalist and our very own government. And if it doesn’t, well, there’s enough of us who do understand what the Second Amendment clearly states and those of us who will die defending it and have no problem making the other person(s) die who try to take it from us. 
 
 Understand people, no man, group of men, organization, like the U.N….another country nor our own has the right to take, INFRINGE, on our right to KEEP and BEAR ARMS and anyone who tries will be met with deadly force. Your fear of us owning and carrying firearms does not trump our right to KEEP and BEAR them…understand, if the thought of us law abiding citizens owning and carrying firearms scares you, then what will happen if anyone tries to disarm us should terrify you.
– The debate over gun laws brings renewed attention to the debate over the Second Amendment, with two very different takes today from the left and right: Noble intent: Erick Erickson as RedState offers a history lesson. "On April 19, 1775, British regulars marched on Lexington and Concord to seize the guns of American colonists that had been stockpiled in case of revolution," he writes. "It may be an abstract concept for us. It may be distant. But when the 1st Congress of the United States met in 1789, the memory of 1775 was fresh." The amendment is all about protecting citizens from the abuses of their own government. Full post here. Awful intent: Nope, writes Thom Hartmann at Alternet. The Second Amendment was written to protect slavery. The slave states needed militias to keep rebellions in check and were worried the federal government would disband them. That's why the line about a "well regulated militia being the best security of a free country" got changed to "free state" in the final version. Read the full post here.