The Second Amendment

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 Fifth Amendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The Second Amendment is NOT an Individual Right. The Fifth is.

I realize that most people reading this won't believe it. Not at first. For as long as I've lived it seems there has been a mantra of an "individual right" in the second. But was this originally true? And if the founding fathers did not originally intend it to be an individual right can there be any chance it is true now?

Read what they wrote - they chose their words very carefully - and notice they chose "person" in one case and "people" in the other. One is plural the other is not. And this difference comes after they've already mentioned the "Militia" which should be "well regulated".

The "Militia" is also mentioned in the fifth amendment. The usage makes it very clear that the bearing of arms is for the event of war or "public danger".

It is not for self-defense.

Please do not be angry. If you are feeling angry, please try to understand why and then how not to be. Getting angry and being proud of a weapon is dangerous to everyone around you. Thanks for trying.

I understand some people will somehow disagree with me. I say, they are disagreeing with the simple facts. We've been brainwashed before - WMD anyone? Very few escaped that drumbeat. I did not. But on this issue - bearing arms as an individual right - I'm calling BS.

JC Schuster
Washington, DC
March 24, 2018

The Contrarian Arguments (are ceaseless).

I am not going to address all arguments or all aspects of any argument unless hell freezes over and the "stars align" etc.

But I was pointed to an argument by David Franklin Hammack.

The quotations section includes a remarkably extreme quote by Patrick Henry supporting EVERYONE be armed. Put another way, EVERYBODY is in the Militia.

And then it takes a dive into the crazy pool discussing a citation [Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Charles Hale, (1856), p. 86]. The author blatantly changes "the people" to "citizens" and then declares the lie true. He declares bearing arms an individual right. He started that lie right here but will repeat it elsewhere later.

The author then goes on to question the meaning of "well regulated". He cites usages from 1709 to 1894 which makes clear writers found broad use for the phrase and always as a positive sentiment, it seems. With several quotes, the author makes "well regulated" into rhetorical gobbledygook.

Strangely, the author cites Alexander Hamilton and the Federalist Papers. Hamilton makes clear "well regulated" means REALLY WELL REGULATED. He explains it takes "month(s)" just to be "tolerable". Then he goes on to state the obvious that most people will NOT be in the Militia. He explains that were it otherwise it would be "a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss". I hope this makes clear how the Militia is as the National Guard of today.

Federalist Papers #29


Here sanity shines! It was kinda daring of Hammack to mention the Federalist Papers. Brett Arends says "And there’s a reason absolutely no gun extremist will ever direct you to that 1788 essay because it blows their baloney into a million pieces." here www.marketwatch.com/story/what-americas-gun-fanatics-wont-tell-you-2016-06-14

I am sure you have your own favorite copy of the Federalist Papers but I looked here..
https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Federalist+Papers#TheFederalistPapers-29

The opening paragraph refers to "The power of regulating the militia" and goes on to mention its roles "in times of insurrection and invasion" and "superintending the common defense" and "watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy". These are not things an "army of one" can do and thus the Second Amendment is not an individual right.

I'll close for now after addressing a most paranoia based argument. Briefly, the paranoid argument suggests the second amendment is after all an individual right. The reason being that individual needs to be able to fight the government (militia) when they come to confiscate or randomly imprison them. Paranoid, right? Raillery indeed!

Hamilton agrees - paranoid


"There is something so far-fetched and so extravagant in the idea of danger to liberty from the militia, that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or with raillery; whether to consider it as a mere trial of skill, like the paradoxes of rhetoricians; as a disingenuous artifice to instil prejudices at any price; or as the serious offspring of political fanaticism. Where in the name of common-sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests? What reasonable cause of apprehension can be inferred from a power in the Union to prescribe regulations for the militia, and to command its services when necessary, while the particular States are to have the SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS? If it were possible seriously to indulge a jealousy of the militia upon any conceivable establishment under the federal government, the circumstance of the officers being in the appointment of the States ought at once to extinguish it. There can be no doubt that this circumstance will always secure to them a preponderating influence over the militia." - Alexander Hamilton


I've reworded the amendment to clarify just a bit..

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the States to their National Guard - THAT'S COOL!

It still does not mean Rambo can have his own armory because "ya never know when the government will come for our guns". That's paranoid and truly dangerous.

JC Schuster
Washington, DC
August 16, 2019

The NRA and its Role

The NRA and the Russians and THEIR Role

Dec 15 - this story is moving fast and looking bad for everyone.


This has to start with the money the NRA got from the Russians during the 2016 election.
NRA and RUSSIANS!? YES! It's TRUE!
Maria Butina
Maria Butina

Recognize her? Recognize him?

According to a CBS News timeline (cbsnews.com/news/timeline-of-russian-plot-to-infiltrate-nra-and-gop/) this goes back to 2001.



Remington Rifles Sells Mayhem

Justin Stringer was 11 years old.


Justin was just 11. I don't have to say much more after explaining his senseless death destroyed many lives in different ways in an instant. Google his name and "Remington" because if you just type a name you get mostly social media.
Remington sold 6.5 MILLION rifles with a Walker Fire Control Trigger Assembly which appears to be the root cause of untold carnage.

Hundreds of people complained that sometimes simply turning the safety OFF caused the gun to fire without pulling the trigger.
And it is way worse.
https://www.thetrace.org/features/remington-rifle-mississippi-brothers-shooting/
Remington maintains that its Model 700s are safe, even as internal documents and outside tests have revealed problems.


Posted 2018/12/15
JC Schuster