Episode #190 – Second Amendment – Randumb Thoughts Podcast

What did the founders of the United States really think about this Second Amendment? What do those words really mean? Stick around and find out

Hello and welcome to episode number 190 of the Random Thoughts podcast. That is R-A-N-D-U-M-B Thoughts dot com online. I am Darren O'Neill, and today's show is going to be mainly a history lesson because the adage is true those that forget history are doomed to repeat it. The horrible shooting in Texas having consequences all down the line. Today, the House of Representatives

is having a hearing. And one of the girls that was a part of the Uvalde shooting is testifying in front of the lawmakers. And I think this is the epitome of child abuse. I think we all know what an 11 year old that was a part of a shooting is going to say. This is a fourth grader. I don't know what purpose this serves beyond just further mentally abusing this child by making her stand up and relive what happened. To what end? What's the point?

Everybody that is rational knows that when a loon goes out and shoots a bunch of people it's a traumatic thing and it is a bad thing. Putting this 11 year old girl out there to testify goes back to the episode I did about bias. And I think it was a really good episode

because it explained how much lower the bar is to get somebody on your side by getting them emotionally involved rather than using facts using logic. Emotion is way, way stronger. And that is what these scumbags and that's what they are. In the House of Representatives are doing today by abusing this 11 year old girl and having her come out and say guns are bad. That's supposed to make everybody in the United States go home. Well, obviously, guns are bad. Let's get rid of them.

And The Washington Post, one of the biggest rags that exists on the face of the earth, put out an article which, you know, this was going to explain to you to their readers anyway, not to you. I doubt a lot of people here listening to me would be reading The Washington Post unless you're a podcaster like I am. And then it is ripe for the picking to be able to find things to talk about that would absolutely get you riled up and incensed again using emotion.

This article in the Washington Post was written by Amber Phillips updated on May 31st of 2022 headlined How the Second Amendment Was Reinterpreted to Protect Individual Rights. The text of the Second Amendment reads, quote, 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.

End quote. The Washington Post then says The historical consensus is that for most of American history, the amendment was understood to concern the use of guns in connection with militia service. The Founding Fathers were likely focused on keeping state militias from being disarmed, said Joseph Belcher, who specializes in the Second Amendment at Duke University's law school. Now, this will show you that was the end of the quote from the article there exactly what they're doing here.

You're going to hear from a couple of different specialists, some lawyer you're going to hear from. Some really learned people, according to The Washington Post.

But what they're saying here is absolutely not true, that for most of American history, the amendment was understood to concern the use of guns in connection only with militia service. You hear this from the left again and again. Now that the founding fathers could have never envisioned a world where you could own they are 15. It's like, are you kidding? They had cannons and you could buy a cannon as a normal citizen back then, no matter what.

Joe Biden keeps telling you, when the Second Amendment went into effect, you could buy a cannon Back to the Washington Post article quotes An individual's right to use guns in self-defense is not expressly written in the Constitution, end quote. Says Reva Siegel, a law professor at Yale who has written prominent law review articles on the subject. So it's like, Hey, we've got smart guy from Duke, hey, we've got Smart Guy from Yale. They must be right.

The Post article continues, quote, The interpretation that the Second Amendment extends to individual's rights to own guns

only became mainstream in 2008 when the Supreme Court ruled in a landmark gun case. District of Columbia versus Heller that Americans have a constitutional right to own guns in their homes, knocking down the district's handgun ban End quote. Now, so they're telling you here The Washington Post well this only became mainstream in 2008 that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms. I mean does anybody believe this.

I mean I know I'm only in my fifties but I don't remember ever there being a time in my life and I was born in 1970 that the concept to me wasn't that the right was every citizen of the United States had a right to keep and bear arms but this is how the people in the Washington Post this is how the people on the left are trying to push their agenda through not only from abusing an 11 year old girl and making it up and stand in front of the house in testify

but they want to keep telling you that the world wasn't the way it was and this is why this is all B.S. and that they're right and everybody else is wrong. I mean, it's a little bit inconvenient that writings go back further than 2008 but we'll get to that and a lot of this is about language.

Something I've railed about here more than once and how the words are changing meanings seemingly in real time.

In this gets to be a really big problem when you're going back and reading text then from the 1700s and trying to be like, well no, no obviously this means this because this is the way the words are being used today and don't believe for a minute that that is not a part of all of this going back to the Washington Post article quoting them, quoting Siegel once again, that was the first Supreme Court decision to strike down a gun control law in constitutional history. The Post article adds.

And at the time, the court's reading was considered broad even to a number of conservatives. In the ruling, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that the militia phrase was merely a preface rather than part of its internal meaning. With the exception of felons, some people deemed to have serious mental illness sensitive places such as schools or courthouses or dangerous weapons. The Second Amendment allows regular people to own firearms in their homes. He argued. The article continues.

More liberal and moderate justices like Justice John Paul Stevens dissented, advocating for the long standing view that the amendment concerned the use of guns in connection only with militia service. The article says it is striking that professed originalist of the Constitution, like Scalia, would set aside such a major phrase in the Constitution about militias in favor of a more modern day interpretation.

Siegel wrote in her paper, Well, this goes on and on in the article about how this is a more modern interpretation. The Founding Fathers could have never envisioned this. This was all about having a militia And if it's not for the militia part, if you're not in a militia, well, then obviously you have no right to own a gun. And this is the narrative that the left is pushing right now.

This is not going to change anytime soon that they're really looking at the wording and it's a very short amendment, again, 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.

And since The Washington Post pulled out their super duper experts on the subject and told us why it was all a bunch of B.S. that the original people involved in drafting the wording of the Second Amendment could have never imagined what was going on, I thought we might look a little further.

Again, writings exist from the same time period, according to the College of William and Mary, law professor and future U.S. District Court Judge St George Tucker in 1803. In his work, Blackstone's commentaries with notes of reference to the Constitution and laws of the federal government of the United States and of the Commonwealth of Virginia. I know one title he called the second amendment The True Palladium of Liberty.

In addition to checking federal power, the Second Amendment also provided state governments with what Luther Martin described as the last coup de grace that would enable the states to thwart and oppose the general government. Britannica says, quote, The framers of the U.S. Constitution undoubtedly had in mind the English allowance to, quote, have arms, end quote.

When drafting the Second Amendment, the constitutional significance of a, quote, well-regulated militia quote, is well-documented in English and American history from the late 17th century through the American Revolution. It was included in the Articles of Confederation. 1781. The country's first constitution and was even noted at the Constitutional Convention that drafted the new U.S. Constitution in Philadelphia in 1787.

The right to quote keep and bear arms, end quote, was thus included as a means to accomplish the objective of a quote well-regulated militia and quote, to provide for the defense of the nation, to provide a well-trained and disciplined force to check federal tyranny and to bring constitutional balance by distributing the power of the sword equally among the people and the states and the federal government.

And for me, that makes a lot of sense, because this is a nation here in the United States that was created with a lot of checks and balances. And we have to understand that it is different here than in most places. And that freedom isn't free. And some of the tools that are required for freedom are dangerous. There's a lot of things that we use on a daily basis that are very dangerous.

Automobiles, for one, I believe it was just in Germany, another case of a car going into a crowd of people not sure if that was intentional or not, but a bunch of people injured. There are a lot of things we use on a daily basis that can be used for evil. Guns are a very easy target.

The left calling the interpretation of the constitutional amendment as radical all saying that it was only from Reagan and then in 2008 that all this is really just really recent, that we're taking this position that the citizens of the United States have the right to keep weapons. Then you'll notice one thing the way the left is doing this, it's constantly a nudging effort where it's like, well, no, you don't need air fifteens or you don't need this. Let's just keep, let's move that down.

You don't need anything over a 22 gauge. No. Well you don't need any magazines over this side. No. They're finally coming for the whole enchilada because they're seeing that they're not winning this one.

Otherwise they realize now that what they will have to do to get their utopia, because in their minds, once again, the criminals are going to line up to give their guns back, which to me, if you have that kind of logic and understanding of human nature, you probably shouldn't be a leader but the left is calling all of this radical. They're saying that the original founders could have never imagined what's going on now. They could never imagine the weapons.

They never meant for individuals to have guns. They never meant for the individuals to be armed. This was all just for the militias. This is all just a misinterpreted nation that we're getting now. That's the problem. This is a misinterpretation, which is why radical judges are a huge problem.

Because they will look at the words that you and I can understand and go, well, no, no. It doesn't mean that. I mean, this is why we have the constant barrage and the meanings of words being changed. It's also why they don't want to teach history, because I'm going to play the part

of a history teacher for this next part of the program and read to you quotes from the people that were around at the time, from the Founding Fathers about the Second Amendment and about their thoughts on an armed population. This list comes from a great website, the Federalist Papers dot org. I highly recommend you check that out if you're interested in this subject.

The first quote comes from George Washington, his first annual address to both houses of Congress, January 8th to 1790, where he said, quote, A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined. Absolutely makes sense, which again, we have the same people on the left who want to be light on crime. They want to get rid of all guns. If you would actually prosecute the criminals, the crimes would go away. You can go read the stats. They are absolutely insane when it comes to gun crimes.

A lot of them are committed by people who have committed gun crimes in the past who either weren't held on bail and just released or did short sentences and came back out mostly doing with gang violence, drug sales, gang crime, that kind of thing. But I mean, we want to be really light on the criminals, but we have to get rid of the guns that never made sense to me.

It really does appear that this is all about disarming you so the government can have you completely under their boot to do whatever they say you should. Thomas Jefferson

in the Virginia Constitution Draft one in 1776 said, quote, No free man shall ever be debarred. The use of arms, no free man shall ever be debarred. The use of arms. Well, I mean, that seems pretty clear. No free man shall be kept from having guns. I mean, that seems pretty clear. I mean, maybe the Supreme Court is just misinterpreting those words. I don't know. It seems pretty clear to me.

Thomas Jefferson again in a letter to James Madison, January 30th of 1787, quote, I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery. To be fair, Thomas Jefferson said it in Latin and that's a translation and that means so if we're going to be complaining about the definitions of words, I mean people will start complaining about the Latin and then how it's being implied and how it's being taken as the English form. But that seems pretty clear too. I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.

And this is why it's child abuse to bring an 11 year old out to emotionally plea to get rid of guns because it 11 year old's brain is mush and they do not understand the world and anybody that allows this again scumbag another quote from Thomas Jefferson from a letter to James Madison December 20th 1787 says quote What country can preserve its liberties if the rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance let them take arms yeah.

I mean I don't know how you can twist that to mean anything beyond saying you know if your government starts getting out of control the leaders should know that the people that they are presiding over are the real bosses, that they have the right to take up arms and say, Hey, we don't want you here anymore. We don't like your policies. I mean, again, remember, this is coming the beginning of this country where England was defeated by its royal subjects.

That's what the colonists all started out as. And they took control and they took over. This is the mindset of the founding fathers. This is why it's just such insanity for people on the left today to be like, well, no, those founding fathers could have never imagined. Yeah, they just took part in a violent revolution to overthrow the government that was governing them. I don't understand how you miss that part. I mean, if you're really stupid, but nobody can be that stupid.

Well, wait, maybe. Maybe they can. Thomas Jefferson again, quote, The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature they disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants they serve rather to encourage rather than to prevent homicides for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.

This is Thomas Jefferson commonplace book quoting the 18th century criminologist Caesar material. So this is Thomas Jefferson quoting somebody, but saying those words in a book. And that I think is maybe the clearest quote that is out there in defense of the fact that the founders felt that individuals should be able to carry a gun for self-defense.

I think this one even bears repeating, quote, The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature they disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted, better for the assailants. They serve rather to encourage them to prevent homicides where an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. I don't know how you misinterpret that. Maybe as somebody on the left.

And I know when you're sitting there watching the 11 year old girl cry about how horrible it was that her school got shot up and it was that we should all give up our rights, that we should all give up our ability to defend ourselves because something bad happened. And again, there's a reason the people on the left want to be not hard on the criminals, but only hard upon the tools that they use. It's absolutely insane. Although just Modine in California got recalled.

So maybe if this is happening, even in the liberal San Francisco area, then maybe, maybe things will start to change. Thomas Jefferson again in a letter to Peter Carr August 1970 85 says quote A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature are too violent for the body.

And stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks and quote I mean, that sounds a lot like Thomas Jefferson saying everybody should be carrying a gun when they're outside. I mean, when you're on your walks, you're not in your house. That's pretty obvious. You're out on a walk bring your gun. That seems very hard to try to misconstrue, but the people on the left may try.

I do like the line that having a gun, you know, and being proficient with it would help giving boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Again, this shows that they looked upon having the weapon as a very positive thing. Upon a person. It helps them with their self-defense. It helps them feel like they have control over what's going on. It keeps the tyranny of the government in check, all sorts of good things. But no, no, this is only from 28 or this.

No, we've never none of these founders really wanted people. It's not written anywhere in the Constitution what they meant. Yeah, well, it may not be written in the Constitution, but there are plenty of writings out there that you can go to. Another quote from Thomas Jefferson Letter to John Cartwright, June 5th, 1824.

Quote, The Constitution of most of our states assert that all power is inherent in the people that they may exercise size it by themselves, that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed, end quote. So Thomas Jefferson again, 1824. It is the right and duty of all citizens to be at all times armed at all times armed. Doesn't say when you're in a militia, says their right and duty to be at all times armed I don't know what part of that is hard to understand.

I don't know what part of that you can really try to misconstrue and change the meanings of the words but this is why it's important to know history. It's important to know where these guys came from. It's important to know what their state of mind was and that's exactly what we're trying to bring you here today. Another quote from Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William Johnson June 12th 1823 quote On every occasion, let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted.

Recollect the spirit manifested in the debates. And instead of trying to force what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, let us conform to the probable one in which it was passed, end quote here. Very wise, Thomas Jefferson he knew that words were going to have their meanings changed. He knew people might start thinking in different ways. But this comes back to the interpretation of the Constitution.

Thomas Jefferson knew enough back in 1823 that says you need to look at it based upon when it was passed the situation. Then you need to remember what was going on and look at what the most probable reason was for the time that it was passed. And that's something the left is really trying to throw out the window now. And we all understand why because it's the only way they can win their side of the argument.

But these guys that wrote the Constitution, founded the country, were not dummies Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Giovanni Baroni, June eight, 1778 said quote, I enclose you a list of the killed and wounded and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April. 1775 until November. 1777 since which there has been no event of any consequence. I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them in some instances more, but in others less.

This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire every soldier in our army, having been intimate with his gun from his infancy, end quote. Now, this is an interesting quote because it's basically Thomas Jefferson saying, you know, if you're an American since the time you're an infant, you're firing a gun. And that is why you're proficient in it. So Thomas Jefferson, I'm thinking, is pretty clear about the right to bear arms.

And I'm thinking that he might not like this age limit even if 18 which they want to push to 21 now. So when you say from your infancy that seems pretty clear to me again what they were comfortable with at the time but enough from Thomas Jefferson let's go to Benjamin

Franklin from the historical review of Pennsylvania. 1759 said quote they they can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety end quote. I've always enjoyed that quote that it says a lot in a little bit of time. If you're willing to give up your liberty to get a little bit of safety, you deserve neither. And there's no question that guns are dangerous and there's no question that there's a price to be paid when somebody goes off on a rampage.

But of course, the more law abiding citizens with guns, the less chance there is for that to get out of hand and if you only had a legal system, I never will understand people including today that are saying, well, we need more laws, we need more laws, we need more laws, we need more commonsense gun laws, we need more laws, more laws, more laws. But we have a whole lot of laws already. And the criminals aren't obeying them.

Not only are the criminals not obeying them, but the left is district attorneys in major cities like Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, Atlanta, Baltimore, St Louis, where a majority of the murders are happening with guns. We've used to prosecute the people. Why? Because they have a lot of melatonin in their skin and they don't want to look like they're racists, I guess. But this is the problem. More laws mean nothing when there's nobody to enforce them.

More laws mean nothing when there is no real chance that you're going to get caught. I mean, in Seattle right now, they can't even chase the suspect. So if they start running away, well, you know, that's that's dangerous. We can't we can't chase them. So all the laws in the world mean nothing. If you're not willing to prosecute the people who commit the crimes laws mean nothing if they don't have some teeth to them.

As far as the punishment process goes, if you're not willing to prosecute jail death penalty for the worst of the worst, if you're not willing to do this, then giving up your guns is not going to help.

Another quote here from George Mason referencing advice given to the British parliament by Pennsylvania Governor Sir William Keith. The debates in the several state conventions on the adoption of the federal constitution June 14th, 1788 said, quote, to disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them. And to quote again to disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them, unquote. That pretty much says everything you need to know.

I think I don't know how the left will try to reinterpret that, but it seems pretty straightforward here to disarm the people. You enslave them if you disarm, you enslave. That seems like the people that came up with these things in the first place wanted people to have guns George Mason also on the address to the Virginia ratifying convention June 4th. 1778 says, quote, I asked who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people except a few public officers, end quote.

Now, this is interesting George Mason 1788 because again the left right now is going well that part of the amendment that says for a well-regulated militia. George Mason is answering the question back in 1788. Well who are the militia and he says they consist of the whole people they exist everybody is a part of the militia everybody except a few public officers. Well that's interesting.

That's interesting like maybe the people that were elected you don't count so right here George Mason even for the people that are like well you can't leave out this well for the well-regulated militia part I don't know why I just start doing John Wayne there. I mean, it was a bad John Wayne, but maybe it's because of all this freedom talk. But George Mason, you're the answer to everybody who's saying, well, what about this militia stuff and saying everybody lives in the country, every citizen.

Hey, you're a militia member, so get your guns.

Noah Webster, in an examination of the leading principles of the federal Constitution on October 10th. 1787 wrote, quote, Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword because the whole body of the people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.

End quote. So again, Noah Webster 1787 saying the reason everybody is armed is so you can take care of the government if they start doing stuff you don't like. Seems pretty straightforward to me. I'm sure they'll try to reinterpret that one as well.

James Madison Federalist number 46 January 29th 1788 says quote Besides the advantage of being armed which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed form a barrier against the enterprises of ambition more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of, end quote. And I'll give you there.

The language is a little strange there, but the concept once again, being that the people hold the power. James Madison, June 8th 1789 quote The rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well-regulated militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the best and most natural defense of a free country, end quote.

So again, for the people that are pointing to the well-regulated militia part of the Second Amendment, James Madison in 1789 says a well-regulated militia composed of the body of the people is the most best and natural defense of a free country seems pretty obvious. James Madison January 29th 1788. Quote the ultimate authority whether the derivative may be found resides in the people alone and quote William Pitt speech in the House of Commons November 18th 1783.

Quote Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves. And quote Richard Henry Lee January 25th 1788.

Quote A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves and include according to the past in general usage of the states all men capable of bearing arms 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, end quote. So this seems like teaching kids how to use guns. This is vitally important to the freedom of the country, not commit child abuse.

Bring an 11 year old girl in front of the house to cry about how guns are bad. Things really changed in a few hundred years. And I don't think people are really understanding how detrimental to a free nation this current attitude is.

Patrick Henry in a speech to the Virginia ratifying convention on June five. 1778, quote Guard with jealous attention the public liberty suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined the great object is that every man be armed, every one who is able might have a gun, end quote.

So, I mean, it seems like the guys that wrote these words understood that the only way to keep the government from getting out of control was for more citizens, that not everyone able that can use a gun have one and know how to use the gun

now we move to Thomas Paine, a quote from Thoughts on Defensive War, published in Pennsylvania magazine July 1775. Quote, The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian. Well, on the other hand, arms like law discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in R and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. 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, and while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue where one half the world deprived of the use of them, for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a parade of the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths. The facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves.

And quote Thomas Paine, fantastic quote. What we have today, though, maybe what Thomas Paine could have never envisioned was a press, social media where people were trying to tell you that the facts are no longer real, that truths are now fiction. This, again, seems like a very clear quote, which is to say, as long as some people have access to guns, then everyone needs access to guns in order to protect themselves. Which is the biggest fallacy in all of this. We need tougher gun laws.

Explain to me, as I said in a recent episode of Random Thoughts, explain to me how you're going to go into Chicago, L.A., Baltimore, St Louis, Miami, and get all the guns off the streets. Explain to me how that's going to happen before we can even start having a debate, because nobody can explain to you how that will happen. They don't want to actually put those people in jail that have guns because that would be racist. But we have to get rid of all guns. Well, how are you going to do that?

Do you really think the criminals are going to line up to give you their weapons? No. So Who Gets Hurt is one of the earlier quotes said the honest man who just wants to be a law abiding citizen and protect themselves and their property. They will be the ones that get screwed.

Samuel Adams at the Massachusetts ratifying convention. 1788 said, quote, The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable all citizens from keeping their own arms, end quote. Again, that seems pretty damn obvious to me. The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. Samuel Adams. Tell me for those you on the left, how do you misconstrue that?

How are you going to twist those words around? Because, you know, they never meant for everybody to have weapons, not those founders. No, they didn't mean that. Oh, if you go read their words, you find out that that is absolutely what they meant. That is absolutely what they wanted.

Joseph Story in the commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. 1833 says quote, 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 those are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them, end quote. Again, another case to be made for.

No, this was to keep the government in check Alexander Hamilton in the federalist number 25 December 21st 1787 quote for it is a truth

which the experience of ages has attested that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion and quote that is very true Mr. Hamilton. Luckily today I think people have a whole lot of suspicion against the people in charge, the people in Congress, the people in the White House and rightfully so.

Alexander Hamilton, again Federalist Paper Number 28, quote, If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left. But in the exertion of that original right of self-defense, which is paramount to all positive forms of government in which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state in a single state.

If the persons entrusted with supreme power become who Serpas the different parcels, subdivisions or districts of which it consists having no distinct government, and each can take no regular measures for defense, the citizens must rush tumultuous lead alarms without concert, without system, without resource, except in their courage and despair. End quote. And finally, a quote from 10th Cox,

Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18th, 1789 quote As civil rulers not having their duty to the people before them may attempt to tyrannize and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms, end quote. So there we go. There was a little different here today, but that was a history lesson.

And I believe the words of the founding fathers, the people involved in writing the Constitution and other documents of the day, I think you can only go so far. You don't need to have the Supreme Court. You don't need to have those really extra specially smart law professors look at these simple words of the Second Amendment again, 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. We do not need to keep looking at just those words to try to understand what was meant. We have plenty of words. I just read a small sampling of them to you. We have plenty of words from the time we have plenty of words from the people that were involved explaining their thoughts on the matter as it was said in one of the quotes.

We need to look to the times in which the Constitution was written to understand the meaning behind it. And I believe we have plenty of evidence that shows what was in the minds of those that wrote the Second Amendment was for everybody. That was a law abiding citizen of the United States, had the right to keep and bear arms. This was not just in regards to a militia. This was no doubt meant for protection.

We live in a dangerous world, and I don't understand how anybody in their right mind would want to take away the ability for people to defend themselves. There's always going to be a bad guy with a gun. What you want in that situation is a good guy with a gun or girl.

I mean, I don't mean to miss gender, but we need to have law abiding people with guns to not only keep the non law abiding citizens who already have guns and aren't going to give them up, but also to keep the government out itself in check. And we have to be ever vigilant

at things like redefining words. We have to be ever vigilant on things like, Oh, well, they never met this. Oh well, this only started in 2008. Read your history, understand your history. Don't be doomed to repeat it. Be able to stand up and give arguments. There's so many people right now that are crying in the media that we need common sense gun reform. And you ask them what that means and they have no answer.

Everybody is living in a utopian mindset of Well, if we could just get rid of all guns, everything would be great. We just have to write it down on paper that all guns are illegal. They tried that and it's being smacked down by the Supreme Court. But when it was tried, all guns are legal. You can't have a gun in Chicago. If you had a gun in Chicago, you were a criminal. You know what that did to gun violence? Nothing. There was not a lot of gun violence yet.

Hey, Jack, Ask.com, a great place to track gun violence in Chicago where there are some of these strictest gun laws. It is amazing where there are the strictest gun laws or seems to be the most gun crime. And the reason for that is lack of prosecution, lack of proper penalties. Watch for being nudged. I'm tired of hearing the assault rifle thing. It's like every rifles, an assault rifle for people that don't know anything about guns.

And even if you don't like guns, even if you don't think they have any place, you should really, again, do your research and understand what the terms mean and realize when you hear words like semiautomatic, I mean, they sound so scary, but pretty much every pistol sold in America is a semiautomatic. That means that you don't have to cock the gun every time a new bullet just gets in for the next one. It's not a machine gun. That's a little different.

But you should know the terminology and know what people like Joe Biden are saying when they want to get rid of all semiautomatic weapons. Well, that's everything he called. 45 is a semiautomatic weapon technically. So you want to look at that and understand what's going on. History is important. And I hope that you enjoyed this little history lesson.

I think this kind of stuff is absolutely fascinating when we live in the world where all of this stuff is available at your fingertips, all of this information, all of these writings from the past, yet so many people will continue lying and distorting things. Do your own homework. It really is a good idea or, you know, just let me do it for you

and take part in the value for value portion of this podcast. I put these shows out there. They're not behind the paywall. You get to enjoy them. If you've gotten any value out of this episode or anything that you've heard, put a number on it that means something to you. How much value did you take from this information? How much value did you take from the entertainment you got listening to this podcast? Was it worth a dollar to you? Was it worth five?

Was it worth ten? Was it worth 50? Was it worth a thousand? I don't know. It's up to you, but you get to go to random thoughts dot com R&D web thoughts dot com, slash donate click that donate button to do a one time or monthly donation. Use the QR code your wallet addresses. If you want to use the cryptocurrencies to do that, you can use the P.O.

Box address if you want to go snail mail and if you're listening at a podcasting 2.0 enabled app right now, you can boost us right in the program, send some value back our way no matter which way you go. It is all very much appreciate ETD and I do have two people to thank for today's show. First and foremost, coming in at $10 with their first donation because I would have remembered this name. It's Weenie Wawa with $10. Note says Great show your friend. We need wah wah. I love that.

Thank you Weenie Wah-Wah I don't know if I want to know the origin of that name. I kind of do. And also coming in at $6.66. Yes, you probably know already it is Stu Coats all the way over from the UK with the non satanic donation of $6.66. And that is very much appreciated Stu. Very much appreciated. We need Wah-Wah and I do appreciate everybody for listening to the show. I know there's a lot of things you can be doing with your time. There are a lot of podcasts out there.

You could be watching the mainstream news though. So I mean, don't do that. Whatever you do, don't do that. But it's an honor and a privilege that you listen to the show. I hope you enjoy it.

You can always reach out to me if you like something. Didn't like something. Darren at random thoughts dot com R.E.M. at ARIA and DMB thoughts dot com. You can also find me on Twitter. Maybe Ellen's taking it over. Maybe he's not.

I don't know Darren O'Neill Green on Island You can also find me Darren O'Neill at no agenda social dot com if you are on one of the mastodon plural on one of the festival servers you can find me follow me send me a message we love to hear from you with all of that said, I will be back next week on Wednesday with another edition of the Random Thoughts podcast. But until then, I am Darren O'Neill. Thanks for listening.

And.