The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: though one would think that

(See in situ)

though one would think that

the 2nd Amendment's "security of A FREE state" should've been enough to clarify that, if not, John Bad Elk vs. United States SCOTUS decision, should've in no uncertain terms made that clear.

Wow, would you believe that Wikipedia correctly points out the two different versions of the 2nd Amendment: one proposed, vs. the one handed around the States to be ratified? Impressive. Most impressive.

Good for them!

As you can see, TJ, that sly ol' dog, SAVED us and kept our sovereignty intact, by CLEARLY understanding the difference between the use of a comma to denote a conditional clause, vs. not!

One version was passed by the Congress,[6] while another is found in the copies distributed to the States[7] and then ratified by them.

As passed by the Congress:

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.

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

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.[8]

The WRONG version puts TWO commas, tyrannically:

1. After "A well regulated Militia," -- meaning what constitutes the existence of the Militia is the conditional clause following it: "being necessary to the security of a free state."

2. After "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," -- meaning what constitutes the existence your "shall not be infringed." - right not to have that not infringed IS contingent upon the previous clause. [Those sneaky Congressional bastards; even then they were attempting semantic chicanery by stealth.]

Knowing this tyrannical ploy, the one that was actually ratified DON'T include those commas, making the Right UNCONDITIONAL and UN-a-lienable!!!

Thank God for the Founders' wisdom!

But for all of you who did research the origins of the 2nd Amendment ALREADY know that it merely codifies into law a pre-existent NATURAL RIGHT of Self-Defense: it does not GRANT, but merely guarantees what is already innate WITHIN you as a free human.

And of course, the much maligned "well regulated" in 2nd Amendment does NOT mean TO REGULATE by legislation, in the contemporary sense, but consistent with the phrase's universally understood usage in 18th century: as in "well regulated weights and measures" as in 'it's up to snuff,' as in 'well calibrated,' as in 'built to spec,' as in 'kept in working order,' as in 'skilled or capable.'

Literally to mean "make regular," without any difference to its correct and originally intended purpose.

Thus a well skilled armed citizenry (YOU, the Militia) is necessary for there to be "A free state," NOT "THE Free State."

The "free" in the 2nd Amend. is CLEARLY referring to "a" FREE HUMAN CONDITION, as in 'free from all forms of tyranny,' NOT 'free,' only for the sake of having a free geographical location, aka a 'nation' aka the State/the Leviathan or even respective State governments, but CLEARLY is referring to YOUR state of being, as in your own individual disposition.

And, since govt has ALWAYS been the historical purveyor of violence and tyranny in which it always gave itself arrogant aberrant powers to subjugate other humans, the 2nd Amendment was ALWAYS meant to be geared to keep the Govt in check. PERIOD. END of STORY!

The Founders, especially Thomas Jefferson CLEARLY KNEW what they were doing with the preciseness of the wording, that those in modernity claim erroneously, to be otherwise.

There's no dispute in the 2nd Amendment wording's intent. NONE whatsoever, if one truly understands history, and Constitutional context.

While it's good that the IN State law has clarified this issue, I truly wished that people simply understood their own rights and our Constitutional heritage far more. Of course, that's a hugely wishful thinking. Because IF that were so, the Republic wouldn't be on its last leg to begin with.

While Mitch Daniels is another run of the mill RINO statist, good for him and us that he signed it.

NO doubt that gun rights groups in other states are sure to follow with legal initiatives of their own.

Nevertheless a welcomed sign, even in a post-NDAA world.

Predictions in due Time...

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul