The Constitution does not give the right for anyone to vote

Bernie Sanders, et al., saying “What our constitution says is that everybody can vote. So people in jail can vote.” do not have a clue as to what the Constitution says about voting.

The Constitution does not give the right for anyone to vote when it was written voters were required to be property owners. If a person did not own property, they could not vote.

This timeline of who can and cannot vote in America shows that voting is clearly a privilege granted by the government, not a Constitutional right civil or otherwise.

U.S. Voting Rights Timeline

1776 Only people who own land can vote

Declaration of Independence signed. Right to vote during the Colonial and Revolutionary periods is restricted to property owners—most of whom are white male Protestants over the age of 21.

1787 No federal voting standard—states decide who can vote

U.S. Constitution adopted. Because there is no agreement on a national standard for voting rights, states are given the power to regulate their own voting laws. In most cases, voting remains in the hands of white male landowners.

1789 George Washington elected president. Only 6% of the population can vote.

1790 Citizen=White

1790 Naturalization Law passed. It explicitly states that only “free white” immigrants can become naturalized citizens.

1848 Activists for ending slavery and women’s rights join together Women’s rights convention held in Seneca Falls, NY. Frederick Douglass, a newspaper editor, and former slave, attend the event and gives a speech supporting universal voting rights. His speech helps convince the convention to adopt a resolution calling for voting rights for women.

1848 Citizenship granted, but voting denied

The Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo ends the Mexican-American War and guarantees U.S. citizenship to Mexicans living in the territories conquered by the U.S. However, English language requirements and violent intimidation limit access to voting rights.

1856 Vote expanded to all white men

North Carolina is the last state to remove property ownership as a requirement to
vote.

1866 Movements unite and divide

Two women’s rights activists, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, form an organization for white and black women and men dedicated to the goal of universal voting rights. The organization later divides and regroups over disagreements in strategies to gain the vote for women and African Americans.

1868 Former slaves granted citizenship

14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution passed. Citizenship is defined and granted to former slaves. Voters, however, are explicitly defined as male. Although the U.S. Voting Rights Timeline Mobilize the Immigrant Vote 2004 amendment forbids states from denying any rights of citizenship, voting regulation is still left in the hands of the states.

1870 Vote cannot be denied because of race, explicitly – so other discriminatory tactics used

15th Amendment passed. It states that the right to vote cannot be denied by the federal or state governments based on race. However, soon after, some states begin to enact measures such as voting taxes and literacy tests that restrict the actual ability of African Americans to register to vote. Violence and other intimidation tactics are also used.

1872 Women try to vote

Susan B. Anthony is arrested and brought to trial in Rochester, New York, for attempting to vote in the presidential election. At the same time, Sojourner Truth, a former slave and advocate for justice and equality, appears at a polling booth in Grand Rapids, Michigan, demanding a ballot but she is turned away.

1876 Indigenous people cannot vote

The Supreme Court ruled that Native Americans are not citizens as defined by the 14th Amendment and, thus, cannot vote.

1882 The Chinese Exclusion Act bars people of Chinese ancestry from naturalizing to become U.S. citizens.

1887 Assimilation=Right to Vote

Dawes Act passed. It grants citizenship to Native Americans who give up their tribal affiliations

1890 Wyoming admitted to statehood and becomes first state to legislate voting for women in its constitution.

1890 Indigenous people must apply for citizenship

The Indian Naturalization Act grants citizenship to Native Americans whose applications are approved—similar to the process of immigrant naturalization.1912-13 Women lead voting rights marches through New York and Washington, D.C.

1919 Military Service=Citizenship for Native Americans

Native Americans who served in the military during World War I are granted U.S.citizenship.

Mobilize the Immigrant Vote 2004 – Capacity Building Series

1920 Right to vote extended to women

19th Amendment passed, giving women the right to vote in both state and federal elections.

1922 Asian≠White≠Citizen

Supreme Court rules that people of Japanese heritage are ineligible to become naturalized citizens. In the next year, the Court finds that Asian Indians are also not eligible to naturalize.

1924 Again, citizenship granted but voting denied

The Indian Citizenship Act grants citizenship to Native Americans, but many states nonetheless make laws and policies which prohibit Native Americans from voting.

1925 Military Service=Citizenship for Filipinos
Congress bars Filipinos from U.S. citizenship unless they have served three years in the Navy.

1926 State violence used to prevent people from exercising their right to vote, while attempting to register to vote in Birmingham, Alabama, a group of African American women are beaten by election officials.

1947 Legal barriers to Native American voting removed

Miguel Trujillo, a Native American, and former Marine sues New Mexico for not allowing him to vote. He wins and New Mexico and Arizona are required to give the vote to all Native Americans.

1952 McCarran-Walter Act grants all people of Asian ancestry the right to become citizens.

1961 23rd amendment passed. It gives citizens of Washington, D.C. the right to vote for U.S. president. But to this day, the district’s residents—most of whom are African American—still do not have voting representation in Congress.

1963-64 Voting rights as civil rights

Large-scale efforts in the South to register African Americans to vote are intensified. However, state officials refuse to allow African Americans to register by using voting taxes, literacy tests, and violent intimidation. Among the efforts launched is Freedom Summer, where close to a thousand civil rights workers of all races and backgrounds converge on the South to support voting rights.

1964 No special tax to vote

24th Amendment passed. It guarantees that the right to vote in federal elections will not be denied for failure to pay any tax.

1965 Grassroots movement forces change in the law:

Voting Rights Act passed. It forbids states from imposing discriminatory restrictions on who can vote, and provides mechanisms for the federal government to enforce its provisions. The legislation is passed largely under pressure from protests and marches earlier that year challenging Alabama officials who injured and killed people during African American voter registration efforts.

1966 After the legal change, the struggle continues for social change Civil rights activist James Meredith is wounded by a sniper during a solo “Walk Against Fear” voter registration march between Tennessee and Mississippi. The next day, nearly 4,000 African Americans register to vote. And other civil rights leaders such as Martin Luther King, Jr. and Stokely Carmichael continue the march while Meredith heals. Meredith rejoins March at its conclusion in Mississippi.

1971 Voting age lowered to 18

26th Amendment passed, granting voting rights to 18-year-olds. The amendment is largely a result of Vietnam War-protests demanding a lowering of the voting age on the premise that people who are old enough to fight are old enough to vote.

1975 Voting materials in various languages Amendments to the Voting Rights Act require that certain voting materials be printed in languages besides English so that people who do not read English can participate in the voting process.

1993 Making voter registration easier

National Voter Registration Act passed. Intends to increase the number of eligible citizens who register to vote by making registration available at the Department of Motor Vehicles, and public assistance and disabilities agencies.

2000 Residents of U.S. colonies are citizens, but cannot vote
A month prior to the presidential election, a federal court decides that Puerto Ricans living in Puerto Rico, though U.S. citizens, cannot vote for U.S. president. Residents of U.S. territories including Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa and the U.S. Virgin 

Mobilize the Immigrant Vote 2004 – Capacity Building Series Islands—nearly 4.1 million people total—cannot vote in presidential elections and do not have voting representation in the U.S Congress.

2001 Debate—Should voting rights be taken away from felons? For how long?

The National Commission on Federal Election Reform recommends that all states allow felons to regain their right to vote after completing their criminal sentences. Nearly 4 million US citizens cannot vote because of past felony convictions. In California, felons are prohibited from voting while they are in prison or on parole. But, in other states, especially in the South, a person with a felony conviction is forever prohibited from voting in that state. These laws are a legacy of post-Civil War attempts to prevent African Americans from voting. Ex-felons are largely poor and of color.

2002 Trying to solve election inconsistency with more federal voting standards

Help America Vote Act (HAVA) passed in response to the disputed 2000 presidential election. Massive voting reform effort requires states to comply with the federal mandate for provisional ballots, disability access, centralized, computerized voting lists, electronic voting and requirement that first-time voters present identification before voting.

Mayor Pete Buttigieg is gay, so what…

Mayor Pete Buttigieg is gay, so what, if you want him to be President vote for him, but do not let him distort what being a Christain means.

In a CNN town hall earlier this week, Buttigieg remarked, “God does not have a political party.” His CNN questioner, who let slip during her questioning that she was bisexual but also Christian, asked Buttigieg: “How will you challenge the right’s moral monopoly on Christianity to unite conservative, moderate and liberal Christians alike?”

And here’s what Buttigieg: “If can be challenging to be a person of faith, who is also a member of the LGBT community. And yet to me, the core of faith is regard for one another and part of how God’s love is experienced according to my faith and tradition, is in the way that we support one another and in particular, support the lest among us.”

What he is saying that you do not need Jesus to be saved, that his good works, “…in the way that we support one another and in particular, support the lest among us” is all it takes to be saved. that makes him his own savior with no need to accept that Jesus is the Way and the Light and the only path to salvation.

Yes, God loves us all, He loves all sinners, the murderer, thieves, adulterers, hypocrites, and those who have sex with people of their own sex. He loves even this poor wretched soul that I am, that has sinned time and time again. But God does not condone sin, He damns it to Hell. He does not keep a balance scale to judge you good act against your bad acts, and if the good outweighs the bad give you salvation. That is a beliefe explained in the “Egyptian Book of the Dead”:

“To reach the eternal paradise of the Field of Reeds, however, one had to pass through the trial by Osiris, Lord of the Underworld and just Judge of the Dead, in the Hall of Truth (also known as The Hall of Two Truths), and this trial involved the weighing of one’s heart against the feather of truth.”

It is not a Christain belief, Christain believes that God Abhors sin, and on by being washed in the Blood of the Lamb by accepting Jesus and His teaching can we be saved. John 14:4-6 “And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know. Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way? Jesus saith unto him, I am the way the truth and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”

Ephesians 2:8-9, For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Romans 6:13-15, Do not present the parts of your body to sin as instruments of wickedness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life; and present the parts of your body to Him as instruments of righteousness. For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace. What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law, but under grace? Certainly not!…

During the Chosin Reservoir battle, why didn’t the Chinese obliterate the U.S. Marines and instead let them do a semi-orderly retreat?

Asked on Quora.

The Chinese did not allow the Marines’ an orderly retreat, they did everything in their power to annihilate them! Chinese sources say they had 450,000 casualties with 100,000 KIA while they fought UN forces in that war. But going back to the fight at the Chosin Reservoir.

“The engagement started when the American forces of the 1st Marine Division and the X Corps (who were pushing north in pursuit of the Chinese) saw themselves unexpectedly surrounded by an entire Chinese Army Group. Over the following two weeks, the Americans managed to break out of the Chinese encirclement and reach the coast where they were evacuated.” MacAuther was totally convinced that the Chinees would not enter the war and was also convinced that the War would be over by Christmas. He was wrong.

“On November 27th, the Chinese launched attacks against American forces moving through the road that lead to Koto-Ri. Caught by surprise, the American forces were surrounded and cut-off into several small pockets. The Marines desperately defended their positions against continual Chinese assaults but risking to be overrun, the Americans started retreating on December 6th, using air strikes to support their breakout from the Chinese blockade and escaping to the South. The objective of the retreat was the city of Hungnam where they arrived on December the 11th. Chosin Reservoir was a costly victory for the Chinese, costing them almost 50,000 casualties, while the Americans suffered 17,843 casualties.”

The battle was fought over some of the roughest terrain during some of the harshest winter weather conditions of the Korean War.[1]:24 The road was created by cutting through the hilly terrain of Korea, with steep climbs and drops. Dominant peaks, such as the Funchilin Pass and the Toktong Pass (40°23′38″N 127°09′40″E / 40.3938°N 127.161°E), overlook the entire length of the road. The road’s quality was poor, and in some places it was reduced to a one lane gravel trail.[1]:28–31 On 14 November 1950, a cold front from Siberia descended over the Chosin Reservoir, and the temperature plunged, according to estimates, to as low as −36 °F (−38 °C).[1]:xi The cold weather was accompanied by frozen ground, creating considerable danger of frostbite casualties, icy roads, and weapon malfunctions. Medical supplies froze; morphine syrettes had to be defrosted in a medic’s mouth before they could be injected; frozen blood plasma was useless on the battlefield. Even cutting off clothing to deal with a wound risked gangrene and frostbite. Batteries used for the Jeeps and radios did not function properly in the temperature and quickly ran down.[15] The lubrication in the guns gelled and rendered them useless in battle. Likewise, the springs on the firing pins would not strike hard enough to fire the round, or would jam.

Song Shilun (middle), commander of the People’s Volunteer Army 9th Army at Chosin Reservoir 

“Despite the loss of territory, the U.S. forces remained more intact and less ravaged than their Chinese counterparts. 17 Americans from 3 military branches received Medals of Honor for their valor in the engagements. The UN forces who served that day live on forever in military history as the ‘Chosin Few’. Many of the casualties were later exchanged to receive burials and honors between the UN and Communists, in what would become known as ‘Operation Glory’. Many of the unidentified bodies were buried at Honolulu’s Punchbowl Crater in the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific.”

Outcome:

The bulk of the PVA Ninth Army crossed the North Korean border on 10 November and arrived, undetected, around Chosin on 17 November. Chinese reconnaissance revealed a number of weaknesses in the UN dispositions. The two American garrisons on either side of the reservoir were unable to support each other, and it was clear that the road junction south of the reservoir at Hagaru-ri, – although strategically important – was only lightly defended. The Chinese were aware that the road running south of the reservoir to Koto-ri and on to the port of Hungnam appeared to be the Americans’ only line of retreat. The Chinese plan was to neutralize the three positions around the reservoir and then, as the UN forces came in from the south to relieve them, they in turn would be encircled and destroyed. The only difficulty the Chinese had was determining the actual strength of the UN forces since time was short. They nevertheless felt confident that their 60,000 men could overwhelm the relatively small detachments confronting them. Moreover, by infiltrating and maximizing the element of surprise they would be able to defeat the Westerners while suffering relatively low casualties. What the Chinese commanders did not realize was that the US 1st Marine Division (reinforced by the British 41 Royal Marines Commando, and two American infantry battalions) had arrived at Yudam-ni, which meant that the total strength of UN forces was close to 27,000.

The Chinese began their attacks at night on 27 November. Ambushes were conducted against mobile units, while massive infantry assaults swept on to the defended garrisons around the reservoir. At Yudam-ni, the Marines were soon surrounded, and tried to make sense of the confused situation while fighting along a hastily formed perimeter. On the eastern side of the reservoir, Regiment Combat Team 31 found itself similarly isolated and under attack from two divisions, the 80th and 81st. Further south, US Marines at Koto-ri were being attacked by another division. Taken by surprise, each formation was initially fighting for its survival.

“Marine Sgt. Johnny Johnson marched into deadly combat the first day he landed in Korea and it didn’t stop until he was sent home. He fought from the tip of South Korea all the way to the China border. His battles marked the map of war like the tiny flecks of dirt and sand still stuck under his skin from a Chinese grenade.

He landed in 1950—the year of the worst winter in Korea in 100 years, when temperatures in the north plunged to 40 below zero, and tanks, rifles, jeeps and canned rations were frozen by the “Manchurian Wind Tunnel.” Johnson still buys his shoes extra-large and wears two pairs of socks, even in summer, because his bones cannot forget the bitter, grinding cold.

He was among 8,000 1st Division Marines who fought one of the most valiant, historic battles in U.S. military history at the Chosin Reservoir. They were outnumbered by 100,000 Chinese who came out of the mountains and “poured over the hills like water,” he says.

The Marines scraped and clawed out shallow foxholes, reinforced by stacks of enemy dead. Morphine Syrettes froze solid and had to be thawed in the mouths of medics as men suffered and bled to death. The Marines fought their way out, taking their wounded and dead draped on Jeeps like bucks in deer season.

“Retreat, hell,” said Marine Gen. Oliver P. Smith, “we’re just attacking in a different direction.”

The Chosin Reservoir Campaign of the Korean War is the stuff of legend in the Marine Corps. During the pivotal 1950 battle, 15,000 U.S. soldiers and Marines, alongside another 15,000 UN soldiers, fought through a force of 120,000 Chinese soldiers to reach the sea some 78 miles away.

Commencing on November 26, Smith’s men endured extreme cold and severe weather. The next day, the 5th and 7th Marines attacked from their positions near Yudam-ni, on the west bank of the reservoir, with some success against the PLA forces in the area. Over the next three days the 1st Marine Division successfully defended their positions at Yudam-ni and Hagaru-ri against Chinese human wave assaults. On November 29, Smith contacted Colonel “Chesty” Puller, commanding the 1st Marine Regiment, at Koto-ri and asked him to assemble a task force to re-open the road from there to Hagaru-ri.

By the end of the battle, U.S. Marines suffered 836 dead and around 10,000 wounded. The Army had 2,000 dead and 1,000 wounded. The Chinese had the most catastrophic losses. Intelligence reported the Chinese as saying American forces could beat any Chinese effort, no matter the size.

Six Chinese divisions were completely wiped out. Of the ten that attacked, only one would ever see action again. Though the exact numbers are not clear, historians estimate Chinese losses anywhere from 30,000 to 80,000 killed. The numbers of Chinese wounded may never be known.

Does that sound like the Chinees were allowing the Marine’s semi-orderly retreat?

What do the terms ‘arms’, ‘well regulated’, and ‘militia’ mean in the Second Amendment?

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/04/the-second-amendment-and-the-inalienable-right-to-self-defense

David Franklin Hammack, Student of the Constitution, and Essayist Discussing Constitutional Principles

Updated Oct 20 2018

“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.” [Amendment II, Constitution of the United States, as ratified by the several States]

The Constitution as a whole, including the amendments, must be viewed through the lens of the time to be understood. This is not as easy as it might sound, because even if you know the right words, you have to understand the context of the time. The Second Amendment is a real beast, because it has been interpreted by the courts, even the Supreme Court, for the most egregious of political reasons, to distort the meaning. I am not a Supreme Court Justice, nor even an attorney, and it is not my intent to refute Cruikshank, but to offer a fresh historical perspective on the meaning of the Second Amendment

The Militia – What “They” Said…

• James Madison: “The ultimate authority … resides in the people alone. … The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation … forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition.” Federalist 46
• James Madison: “A well regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.” 1st Annals of Congress, at 434, June 8th 1789
• Rep. Tenche Coxe of Pennsylvania: “The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American … the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” – Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
• Patrick Henry: “Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?” 3 Elliot Debates 168-169.
• Patrick Henry: “The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.
• Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts: “Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.” (spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789)
• Thomas Jefferson: “And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms… The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”, letter to William S. Smith, 1787, in S. Padover (Ed.), Jefferson, On Democracy
• Thomas Jefferson: “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”, Proposal for a Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)
• George Mason: “I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people.” (Elliott, Debates, 425-426)
• Richard Henry Lee: “To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them…” Richard Henry (LIGHT HORSE HARRY) Lee, writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic (1787-1788)
• Thomas Paine: “The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside… Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them…” I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 (1894)
• Justice Joseph Story: “The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace both from the enormous expenses with which they are attended and the facile means which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers to subvert the government or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers and will generally even if these are successful the first instance enable the people to resist and triumph over them…” Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. 3 vols. Boston, 1833.

Well Regulated?

The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people’s arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.[1]

So, if something is “well regulated”, it is “regular” (a well regulated clock; regular as clockwork).

In the 18th century, a “regular” army meant an army that had standard military equipment. So a “well regulated” army was simply one that was “well equipped” and organized. It does not refer to a professional army. The 17th century folks used the term “standing army” or “regulars” to describe a professional army. Therefore, “a well regulated militia” only means a well equipped militia that was organized and maintained internal discipline. It does not imply the modern meaning of “regulated,” which means controlled or administered by some superior entity. [2] [emphasis added]

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: “If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.” 

1714: “The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world.” 

1812: “The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.” 

1848: “A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor.” 

1862: “It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.” 

1894: “The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulatedAmerican embryo city.”

Finally, in the words of Alexander Hamilton, from The Federalist Papers, #29,

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.

From this quote we can deduce two things:

1. If the Founders meant for government to control the militia, they would have used the verb “to discipline”, as in “a well disciplined militia” (an objective Hamilton described as “futile” and “injurious”).
2. As Hamilton observes, well regulated meant the people were responsible for training themselves to arms, as well as supplying and equipping themselves. Though Hamilton thought this onerous, by demanding the Second Amendment, the States devolved this responsibility to the People.

Arms – weapons considered collectively

There is a lot of misunderstanding of this term, even among the gun community. If you just read the 2nd Amendment by itself, it is easily (and often) misinterpreted. If you study the the supporting documents and the ratification debates, it becomes much clearer. Nonetheless, the keys are in the text of the amendment itself. A couple of definitions first to promote understanding…

implements of war, munition, weaponry, weapons system

ammo, ammunition – projectiles to be fired from a gun

armament – weaponry used by military or naval force

bomb – an explosive device fused to explode under specific conditions

Usage – A couple of famous quotes…

1. Niccolò Machiavelli: The main foundations of every state, new states as well as ancient or composite ones, are good laws and good arms. You cannot have good laws without good arms, and where there are good arms, good laws inevitably follow.
2. Adolf Hitler: The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.

Actually, the modern definition still applies, as the Founders were well aware that military science was rapidly evolving, particularly in the field of arms. They specified arms to leave interpretation as broad as possible, but there are caveats. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… [emp. added][Tenche Coxe]

Mr. Coxe was a Congressman from Pennsylvania. Clearly their intent was that citizens be armed with military grade weapons.

It seems pretty clear cut, but in analysis, there are inherent limitations, on both government, and the People. The prefatory clause, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state”, is a justification clause, and defines a limit on what type of arms. It does not say, “Because the People need to hunt for food, and slaughter live stock” or “As the People must be secure in their person and home”. Though these are good and sensible reasons, and while they were certainly considerations… It specifies the militia as defined above, so clearly all arms, up to and including military grade weapons.

The operative clause: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Again, note the wording – keep AND bear arms. These two terms are inextricably linked. It inherently limits the arms you may keep, to the arms you can bear. In other words, such arms as an infantryman or “soldier” carries; at the time, a musket or rifle (with bayonet), with sword, and or pistol. Today, common, infantry type weapons include (but are not limited to) pistols, semi-automatic rifles, burst fire rifles, and fully automatic rifles of a caliber used by the individual infantryman.

This specifically excludes crew-served weapons such as heavy machine guns, mortars, artillery, tanks, anti-aircraft guns, missiles (other than man-portable), fighter jets, etc. because a single militiaman cannot bear them by himself. Just as the Federal government can commission privately owned ships, by a Letter of Marque and Reprisal, as ships of war (privateers), the governors of the States can commission officers to establish, and equip a militia unit, with the crew served arms needed to wage war.

What to Conclude?

Having properly defined “militia” as used in the vernacular of the Founders, and establishing the meaning of the phrase “well regulated” as it was used at the time the Second Amendment was written, it seems the “well regulated militia” was meant to be “the whole people”, all citizens, who, at need, could work together, and as effectively as a professional army, with the armament they provide themselves. In order to do that the arms and equipment in their possession, part of their “regulation”, would be arms and equipment equal to that of any army they may face. None of this seems to support the interpretation that the Second Amendment applies only to the National Guard, or a state sponsored, organized militia.

As to what constitutes arms… This analysis must conclude that the government shall not infringe (in any way limit) the right of the citizen to own any weapon they can use effectively by themselves, as individuals, or carry them, as is fit. While the prefatory clause is a justification clause, it is not the only justification found in the supporting documents, but one of several. It was seen as the most important, and justified the broadest possible latitude in the types of arms the People could own. A hunting or slaughter weapon might or might not be effective for personal or home defense. A weapon suitable for home defense can also be used to hunt, and slaughter livestock, but not optimal in armed conflict. A weapon suitable for military use can be used for all of the above. This does not limit one to “military grade” weapons only. Any weapon can be used effectively in combat. It may not be a “first choice” weapon, but it can certainly be used effectively if it is all you have; certainly more effectively than nothing at all.

Even if the Constitution were amended to preclude government access to the militia, this would not affect the Second Amendment. The “militia clause” of the Second Amendment was not the “reason” for the amendment. It simply represented what the Founders saw as the most important of many reasons. Actually, the Second Amendment could be seen as guaranteeing The People the right to form militias, irrespective of government control.

The Second Amendment was founded on this principle, “Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law”; from the Declaration of Right, commonly known as the English Bill of Rights. Notice there is no mention of the militia, but this guarantees the right of the English people to have “arms for their defence”. Explicit with the “right to have”, is the right to use in your defence, therefore to carry with you if you felt you may be threatened.

Since the right to own and carry firearms was already commonly understood, but the British Governors had elected to deprive them, in some very important cases, of the means to equip their militia, the Founders saw this as the most likely abuse of power regarding firearms, since the right to own and carry arms had been undisputed for 100 years. It did not deny the ownership and use of arms for defense, and in fact states that the right to own and carry arms, even for use as a militia, shall not be infringed. Note another difference to the clause from the Declaration of Right… “and as allowed by law” was specifically addressed by, “shall not be infringed”. While the King could make laws regarding ownership and use of arms, Congress could not.

What Does It Mean… Today?

Modern language only vaguely resembles the language of a couple of centuries ago. This is “linguistic drift”. As society changes, so does language. Words take on new meanings, or even express different ideas. The Heller decision was the first SCOTUS decision that actually took a look at the basis of the 2nd Amendment, that actually parsed the arguments of the authors, and the delegates to the ratifying conventions. The Court’s conclusion was inescapable. The only reason the opinion didn’t go any further than it did, was because the question before the court was very narrow.

You see, actually, the words in the Constitution define the concepts at that time. That specific concept was agreed to by all parties to the document. This was a contract agreed to on behalf of the representative’s constituents. While the meaning of the words may change over time, that concept remains the same. The concept, described by what the words meant at that time, is the law.

As language changes, so does society, but, the law does not. That is why it is the duty of Congress to write laws pursuant to the Constitution, and as society grows, and the people, in great enough numbers, feel the Constitution no longer addresses the needs of society, to amend the Constitution. Until that happens, regardless of what the words may mean today as opposed to the time when they were written, those concepts, agreed to by all signatories, shape the law.

The Constitution is a legal document; a land survey plat is a legal document. Both are defining legal constructs. A piece of real estate is defined by boundaries. You will never see a parcel of land defined with a stream or river as a boundary. A stream may run congruent with the boundary, but markers are set to establish the boundary. Over time, a stream may change course. If your boundary is on a stream, when it moves, do you suddenly have less land than you paid for? Of course not, your land still extends to the markers set at the time of the survey. This is why the concepts of the Constitution, not modern definitions of the words, define the law.

Understanding the history of the Second Amendment, if it were written in today’s style, it might be written as…

• The right the people to own and carry arms, even for use as a military comparable militia, shall not be infringed.

Footnotes

[1] Meaning of the phrase

[2] What the Founding Fathers Meant by “Militia”

Footnotes

[1] Meaning of the phrase

History of Halloween

This history can be found here

Halloween is a holiday celebrated on the night of October 31.  The word Halloween is a shortening of All Hallows' Evening also known as Hallowe'en or All Hallows' Eve.

Traditional activities include trick-or-treating, bonfires, costume parties, visiting "haunted houses" and carving jack-o-lanterns. Irish and Scottish immigrants carried versions of the tradition to North America in the nineteenth century. Other western countries embraced the holiday in the late twentieth century including Ireland, the United States, Canada, Puerto Rico and the United Kingdom as well as of Australia and New Zealand. 
Halloween has its origins in the ancient Celtic festival known as Samhain (pronounced "sah-win").

The festival of Samhain is a celebration of the end of the harvest season in Gaelic culture. Samhain was a time used by the ancient pagans to take stock of supplies and prepare for winter. The ancient Gaels believed that on October 31, the boundaries between the worlds of the living and the dead overlapped and the deceased would come back to life and cause havoc such as sickness or damaged crops.

The festival would frequently involve bonfires. It is believed that the fires attracted insects to the area which attracted bats to the area. These are additional attributes of the history of Halloween.

Masks and costumes were worn in an attempt to mimic the evil spirits or appease them.
Trick-or-treating, is an activity for children on or around Halloween in which they proceed from house to house in costumes, asking for treats such as confectionery with the question, "Trick or treat?" The "trick" part of "trick or treat" is a threat to play a trick on the homeowner or his property if no treat is given. Trick-or-treating is one of the main traditions of Halloween. It has become socially expected that if one lives in a neighborhood with children one should purchase treats in preparation for trick-or-treaters.

The history of Halloween has evolved.  The activity is popular in the United States, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada, and due to increased American cultural influence in recent years, imported through exposure to US television and other media, trick-or-treating has started to occur among children in many parts of Europe, and in the Saudi Aramco camps of Dhahran, Akaria compounds and Ras Tanura in Saudi Arabia. The most significant growth and resistance is in the United Kingdom, where the police have threatened to prosecute parents who allow their children to carry out the "trick" element. In continental Europe, where the commerce-driven importation of Halloween is seen with more skepticism, numerous destructive or illegal "tricks" and police warnings have further raised suspicion about this game and Halloween in general.

In Ohio, Iowa, and Massachusetts, the night designated for Trick-or-treating is often referred to as Beggars Night.

Part of the history of Halloween  is Halloween costumes. The practice of dressing up in costumes and begging door to door for treats on holidays goes back to the Middle Ages, and includes Christmas wassailing. Trick-or-treating resembles the late medieval practice of "souling," when poor folk would go door to door on Hallowmas (November 1), receiving food in return for prayers for the dead on All Souls Day (November 2). It originated in Ireland and Britain, although similar practices for the souls of the dead were found as far south as Italy. Shakespeare mentions the practice in his comedy The Two Gentlemen of Verona (1593), when Speed accuses his master of "puling [whimpering, whining], like a beggar at Hallowmas."

Yet there is no evidence that souling was ever practiced in America, and trick-or-treating may have developed in America independent of any Irish or British antecedent. There is little primary Halloween history documentation of masking or costuming on Halloween in Ireland, the UK, or America before 1900. The earliest known reference to ritual begging on Halloween in English speaking North America occurs in 1911, when a newspaper in Kingston, Ontario, near the border of upstate New York, reported that it was normal for the smaller children to go street guising (see below) on Halloween between 6 and 7 p.m., visiting shops and neighbors to be rewarded with nuts and candies for their rhymes and songs. Another isolated reference appears, place unknown, in 1915, with a third reference in Chicago in 1920. The thousands of Halloween postcards produced between the turn of the 20th century and the 1920s commonly show children but do not depict trick-or-treating. Ruth Edna Kelley, in her 1919 history of the holiday, The Book of Hallowe'en, makes no mention of such a custom in the chapter "Hallowe'en in America." It does not seem to have become a widespread practice until the 1930s, with the earliest known uses in print of the term "trick or treat" appearing in 1934, and the first use in a national publication occurring in 1939. Thus, although a quarter million Scots-Irish immigrated to America between 1717 and 1770, the Irish Potato Famine brought almost a million immigrants in 1845-1849, and British and Irish immigration to America peaked in the 1880s, ritualized begging on Halloween was virtually unknown in America until generations later.

Trick-or-treating spread from the western United States eastward, stalled by sugar rationing that began in April 1942 during World War II and did not end until June 1947. Early national attention to trick-or-treating was given in October 1947 issues of the children's magazines Jack and Jill and Children's Activities and by Halloween episodes of the network radio programs The Baby Snooks Show in 1946 and The Jack Benny Show and The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet in 1948. The custom had become firmly established in popular culture by 1952, when Walt Disney portrayed it in the cartoon Trick or Treat, Ozzie and Harriet were besieged by trick-or-treaters on an episode of their television show, and UNICEF first conducted a national campaign for children to raise funds for the charity while trick-or-treating. Trick-or-treating on the prairie. Although some popular histories of Halloween have characterized trick-or-treating as an adult invention to re-channel Halloween activities away from vandalism, nothing in the historical record supports this theory. To the contrary, adults, as reported in newspapers from the mid-1930s to the mid-1950s, typically saw it as a form of extortion, with reactions ranging from bemused indulgence to anger. Likewise, as portrayed on radio shows, children would have to explain what trick-or-treating was to puzzled adults, and not the other way around. Sometimes even the children protested: for Halloween 1948, members of the Madison Square Boys Club in New York City carried a parade banner that read "American Boys Don't Beg."

Trick-or-treating on the prairie. Although some popular histories of Halloween have characterized trick-or-treating as an adult invention to re-channel Halloween activities away from vandalism, nothing in the historical record supports this theory. To the contrary, adults, as reported in newspapers from the mid-1930s to the mid-1950s, typically saw it as a form of extortion, with reactions ranging from bemused indulgence to anger. Likewise, as portrayed on radio shows, children would have to explain what trick-or-treating was to puzzled adults, and not the other way around. Sometimes even the children protested: for Halloween 1948, members of the Madison Square Boys Club in New York City carried a parade banner that read "American Boys Don't Beg."

A jack-o'-lantern (sometimes also spelled Jack O'Lantern) is typically a carved pumpkin. It is associated chiefly with the holiday Halloween. Typically the top is cut off, and the inside flesh then scooped out; an image, usually a monstrous face, is carved onto the outside surface, and the lid replaced. During the night, a candle is placed inside to illuminate the effect. The term is not particularly common outside North America, although the practice of carving lanterns for Halloween is.

In folklore, an old Irish folk tale tells of Jack, a lazy yet shrewd farmer who uses a cross to trap the Devil. One story says that Jack tricked the Devil into climbing an apple tree, and once he was up there Jack quickly placed crosses around the trunk or carved a cross into the bark, so that the Devil couldn't get down. Another myth says that Jack put a key in the Devil's pocket while he was suspended upside-down;

Another version of the myth says that Jack was getting chased by some villagers from whom he had stolen when he met the Devil, who claimed it was time for him to die. However, the thief stalled his death by tempting the Devil with a chance to bedevil the church-going villagers chasing him. Jack told the Devil to turn into a coin with which he would pay for the stolen goods (the Devil could take on any shape he wanted); later, when the coin/Devil disappeared, the Christian villagers would fight over who had stolen it. The Devil agreed to this plan. He turned himself into a silver coin and jumped into Jack's wallet, only to find himself next to a cross Jack had also picked up in the village. Jack had closed the wallet tight, and the cross stripped the Devil of his powers, and so he was trapped. In both myths, Jack only lets the Devil go when he agrees never to take his soul. After a while, the thief died, as all living things do. Of course, his life had been too sinful for Jack to go to heaven; however, the Devil had promised not to take his soul, and so he was barred from Hell as well. Jack now had nowhere to go. He asked how he would see where to go, as he had no light, and the Devil mockingly tossed him an ember that would never burn out from the flames of hell. Jack carved out one of his turnips (which was his favorite food), put the ember inside it, and began endlessly wandering the Earth for a resting place. He became known as "Jack of the Lantern", or Jack-o'-Lantern.

There are variations on the legend:

Some versions include a "wise and good man", or even God helping Jack to prevail over the Devil.

There are different versions of Jack's bargain with the Devil. Some variations say the deal was only temporary but the Devil, embarrassed and vengeful, refuses Jack entry to hell after Jack dies.

Jack is considered a greedy man and is not allowed into either heaven or hell, without any mention of the Devil.

Despite the colorful legends, the term jack-o'-lantern originally meant a night watchman, or man with a lantern, with the earliest known use in the mid-17th century; and later, meaning an ignis fatuus or will-o'-the-wisp. In Labrador and Newfoundland, both names "Jacky Lantern" and "Jack the Lantern" refer to the will-o'-the-wisp concept rather than the pumpkin carving aspect.

Halloween costumes are outfits worn on or around October 31, the day of Halloween. Halloween is a modern-day holiday originating in the Pagan Celtic holiday of Samhain (in Christian times, the eve of All Saints Day). Although popular histories of Halloween claim that the practice goes back to ancient celebrations of Samhain, in fact there is little primary documentation of masking or costuming on Halloween before the twentieth century. Costuming became popular for Halloween parties in America in the early 1900s, as often for adults as for children. The first mass-produced Halloween costumes appeared in stores in the 1930s when trick-or-treating was becoming popular in the United States.

What sets Halloween costumes apart from costumes for other celebrations or days of dressing up is that they are often designed to imitate supernatural and scary beings. Costumes are traditionally those of monsters such as vampires, ghosts, skeletons, witches, and devils. There are also costumes of pop culture figures like presidents, or film, television, and cartoon characters. Another popular trend is for women (and in some cases, men) to use Halloween as an excuse to wear particularly revealing costumes, showing off more skin than would be socially acceptable otherwise.