l786 Western Massachusetts, rebels yelling about liberties and freedoms and disrupting the local governments, alarmed local citizens and the population of the United States. [T.H. Breen, The Will of the People, the last chapter of three pages describes the distinctions between liberties and freedoms.] The persons who fought and guided the United States through the Revolutionary War saw danger from Shays Rebellion, and meet in Philadelphia eight months later to write a Constitution. One man had spent years reading and researching problems of governing a country as diverse as the United States with odd components, varied interests and factious political forces – elements seemingly to preclude Union. He was James Madison. 

In the 1787 Philadelphia Convention the Founding Fathers relied on experience in government and in the country, and rejected experiment. They finished their work in September 1787, uncertain it would work. Upon exiting the Hall, a citizen asked what sort of government the men had come up with. Benjamin Franklin responded: “A republic, if you can keep it.”  Although called the Father of the Constitution, Madison responded the Constitution was a product of “many hands and many minds.” The States ratified the Constitution in 1788.   

As a Congressman from Virginia in June 1789, Madison wrote and introduced 17 Amendments to the Constitution. They remained on House table. In August 1789 Madison got the 17 Amendments under debate and voted on. Many Amendments were approved by the necessary two-thirds (2/3) vote. Americans did not need legal training to understand the Second Amendment. The legislative history is a sufficient guide.

The Second Amendment in Madison’s original group read:

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed;

a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a 

free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms 

shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

The House changed words but left principles from Madison’s original: The Senate revised: being the best security of a free country to being necessary to the security of a free State. The change of language “being the best security” to “being necessary to the security” shifts the emphasis from the Well-regulated militia being the best security to The well Regulated militia being one element to the security of a free State. 

The change from country, an area of landmasses and people suggests a liberty or a freedom. It implies an individual right. However, the Second Amendment reads Security of a free State, saying that the State is the government and is an element of many to be balanced with others  Hence the right to bear arms is not the best security of the State; instead the right is one element of the security to be balanced with other elements. e.g. how violent are the people bearing arms. (See The Will of the People, supra; see Shays Rebellion.)

The Senate also used a grammatical device, an asyndeton, a favorite tool of eighteenth century writers. The asyndeton in the Second Amendment uses fewer words, supplies a legal condition, thus modifying the one clause, its phrases and words; and the condition compels that all words be read together, each given a meaning consistent with other words, and with experience. In the 1789 Senate the Second Amendment became as is read today, 

A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free 

state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The legislative history of the Second Amendment includes Madison’s original version where the right to bear arms stands alone, and implies an individual’s right to keep and bear arms is construed without limitations.  

But the Senate version and the Second Amendment itself imposes restrictions and limitations by setting forth a condition: A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state. Reacting to the violent experiences during Shay’s rebellion, the founding fathers in the Senate restricted the right and expressly  “ being necessary,” “keep and bear arms for…” “a well-regulated militia.” Although the final version makes keeping and bearing arms a right, it makes significant changes by replacing necessary to the security of the country to necessary to the security of a free State. The State which the Second Amendment refers to was the national government, the only state which the Constitution restrained. It is the same meaning given to State by Louis XIV, “I am the State.” The Fourteenth Amendment (1868) made the United States Constitution applicable to the states of the Union.

Since militias are no long used by the United States government (the last was Theodore Roosevelt’s Rough Riders?), the absence of Militias today does not  eliminate “well regulated” in the Second Amendment. “Well regulated” implies the men are disciplined, their weapons are in order and each is under command. In the amendment individuals are not mentioned, meaning that to keep and bear arms is a right, which must benefit the security of the government. Men running around with arms but not under command, are not well regulated; they are a mob of armed Americans whatever the mindset, collective or individual.

The Second Amendment itself produces the safeguard. The people keep and bear the nation’s arsenal which is A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free 

state,logically is the major premise of the Amendment.The right to keep and bear arms is the minor premise, which is subordinate to the security of a free State, meaning the security of the government: The right to keep and bear arms, being subordinate to security, are subject to a State’s (government’s) statutes, rules and regulations.

Exactly what have the American people imposed on themselves for “the security of a free State?” A grand old man of Virginia politics, George Mason, supplies the answer:

We came as equals into this world, and equals shall we go out

of it. All men are by nature equally free and independent. To

protect the weaker from the injuries and insults of the stronger

were societies first formed; when men entered into compacts

to give up some of their natural rights, that by union and 

mutual assistance they might secure the rest. But they gave

up no more than the nature of the thing required…

The American people have limited freedoms and rights. The Second Amendment includes a “right.” Rights differ from liberties and freedoms. Narrower than liberties, they are not freedoms. Rights existed during the eighteenth century, and were well-known to the Founding Fathers. The sovereign, the King of Great Britain, George III, created a right when he allowed the East India Company to market tea. Americans objected with the 1773 Tea Parties in Boston and other harbors. Rights exist today: Social Media companies have rights granted by Congress which prohibits lawsuits. 

The King of England could dissolve the monopoly of the East India Company. And today Congress can remove immunities afforded Social Media companies. Throughout history and our experience as Americans, rights are political decisions; they can be created or changed by the legislature, or perhaps by the Executive. The Supreme Court can scrutinize a right under the rules of judicial review, but it cannot formulate a right, a freedom or a liberty, which raises and involves political questions.

Madison agreed with this understanding of Rights. In 1799 Madison wrote The Report of 1800, a ten-year evaluation of the United States under the Constitution. An issue Madison addressed was the common law of England. Must American courts be bound by that common law, post-Constitution, as it existed before the Constitution? Madison’s response was NO. The American people did not ratify the Common Law of England in 1788; it is not part of the Constitution. However, Madison recognized that English common law words and definitions, (which he called technical phrases) were incorporated in the Constitution itself, into state constitutions and into statutes. However each usage had to meet the requirements of the United States Constitution.

In Marbury v. Madison (1803) 5 U.S. 137, John Marshall, Founding Father and Chief Justice of the United States, set forth rules of the effect of the Constitution for Judges and Justices:

It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is 

intended to be without effect; and, therefore, such a 

construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.

(5 U.S. at 174)

In some cases…the Constitution must be looked into by 

judges. And if they can open it at all, what part of it are

they forbidden to read or to obey?

(5 U.S. at 179)

As a starting point Justice Marshall looked solely to the words in the Constitution, which sets the rule, sweeping away all prior authorities, acts or practices from previous courts, legislatures, Constitutions, common law practices and experiences. That cleansing is the effect  of the United States Constitution, its meaning and enforcement. Interpretation of the Constitution’s words is a stand alone supreme law and set of rules. Prior inconsistent amendments, statutes, court opinions, rules and experiences are irrelevant, immaterial and incompetent: Those once-time infamous rules and statutes were the reason for the United States Constitution of a new governing document, which the American people ratified.

In 1791 James Madison in an argument before the House of Representatives set forth rules of interpretation for the Constitution:

An interpretation that destroys the very characteristic of the 

Government can not be just.

Where the meaning is clear, the consequences, whatever 

they may be, are to be admitted – where doubtful, it is 

fairly triable by its consequences.

In controverted cases, the meaning of the  parties to the

instrument, if to be collected by reasonable evidence, is 

a proper guide.

Contemporary and concurrent expositions are a reasonable 

evidence of the meaning of the parties.

In admitting or rejecting a constructive authority, not only

the degree of its incidentally to an express authority is to be

regarded, but the degree of its importance also, since on this 

will depend the probability or improbability of it being left

to the construction. (Annals of Congress, February 2, 1791, p. 1946)

Hence, the right to bear arms is modified by the security of free governments, which can impose statutes, rules and regulations arms. 

In its opinions the current Supreme Court cited no authority from the Constitution, James Madison, John Marshall, or well known rules of interpretation. Indeed, this Supreme Court dismissed controlling interpretations and construction in Heller, 554 U.S. 590, 603:  It is dubious to rely on history [proposals in state conventions, debates in Congress] to interpret a text that was widely understood…] This non-judicial, reckless statement invites courts nationwide to reject legislative history of any statute, amendment or regulation, whatever the subject.

Proclaiming such idiocy, the Supreme Court cases have left the Second Amendment a shambles. Supreme Court opinions tell individual Americans to buy guns and have them at all times in their lives, yet there is no inkling that any Supreme Court Justice has read the Second Amendment or considered its legislative history. The Justices refused to construe and interpret it. No Justice understands the effect of a Constitution; ignoring distinctions among liberties, freedoms and rights. All Supreme Court justices treat the Constitution as though it were a statute, changeable at will by Congress, any legislature or a Court. The Justices have ignored the historical experience of the Second Amendment which gave rise to the language of the Amendment. Heller, 554 U.S. at 603, dismissing the historical setting giving rise to the 1787 Philadelphia Conventon, Ratification of the Constitution in 1788 and the legislative background of the Bill of Rights in 1789. The Supreme Court writing is soggy, flabby and non-legal. And Supreme Court justices have amended to Constitution by saying there are “fundamental rights” with no support from any provision or language in the Constitution. The Supreme Court claims the Second Amendment has a “guarantee” and has an “unqualified command,” telling Americans, to own [and use] guns is O.K.

In at least two Supreme Court cases, District of Columbia v. Heller (2014) 554 U.S. 570 and New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022) 597 U.S. 1, the justices demonstrate they are illiterate; they do not know what an asyndeton is or its function within the language. Instead, they claim, 

The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its 

prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not 

limit grammatically, but rather announces a purpose.

A comedian could not write a better joke about the English language, but the Supreme Court’s statement is false, non-legal and demonstrates illiteracy, ignorance and sloth. These Justices ignored guidelines from Chief Justice John Marshall by divorcing one clause in the Second Amendment from the other, and Marshall’s instruction to read all the words together. Indeed, in these Supreme Court cases, the justices have cobbled together definitions, polemics, law review articles and errant commentaries leading to omissions, absurdities and unintended outcomes which actually threaten peacefulness in the United States through their opinions of the Second Amendment.

The Supreme Court repeats more mistakes. 

“In Heller, 554 U.S. 570 and McDonald, 561 U.S. 742  we held ,

that the Second Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment protect 

an ‘individual right to keep and bear arms’ for self-defense.” 

Where does the Constitution explicitly say that? The Supreme Court Justices delete from the Second Amendment, keeping and bearing arms as “being necessary to the security of a free State,” preferring current Supreme Court words, “self-defense.” Who allowed Supreme Court Justices to expunge language from the Constitution and replace it with their own whims and fantasies plus deluded speculations, and historical misstatements giving the Second Amendment an entirely different meaning – individuals have unfettered rights to bear arms? The American people did not; Supreme Court justices are not legislators. They are unelected members of the Judiciary restricted to follow Article III and have hereby demonstrated they are illiterate and uneducated.

In Bruen 597 U.S. 1 the majority of the court claimed Heller, 554 U.S.570, supplies “a textual analysis. “ The fake analysis is devoid of relevant and pertinent American history (e..g Shay’s Rebellion); it lacks the experience, the fears and anticipations of the Founding Fathers ( e.g. Benjamin Franklin). It omits the legislative history of the Second Amendment (Madison’s original submission, changes in the House and the Senate final version); it fails to construct and interpret the amendment by calling such analyses “dubious.” And the Justices make a right, a freedom tending toward unfettered liberties. Finally each Supreme Court justice has demonstrated that each flunked Contract and Constitution Law courses at Harvard and Yale: Cited in the opinions are cases, commentaries and statutes from the Dark Ages and the Renaissance, words and stuff which the United States Constitution eliminated and replaced upon ratification in 1788. Hey! But most of these Supreme Court justices graduated from the lesser law schools at Harvard University and Yale. Plainly, the Supreme Court did not arrive at a “normal or ordinary meaning” of the Second Amendment understandable by any competent, literate American. (Heller, 554 U.S. at 576-577) Indeed it would take a team of experienced research attorney three months plus a slew of law librarians to collect the antiquated, arcane, obscure references which the Supreme Court cited in Heller and Breun, each citation is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial.

The Bruen court ignores the role and function of a Constitution. By definition a Constitution, including the United States Constitution, set out rules on specific matters. When a court, or state finds circumstances on point, that person, party, state or court must follow the language of the Constitution. Marbury (1803) 5 U.S. at 174. A court, a party or a state cannot bring added words and terms and claim this is what the First Congress, and all the ratifying states, meant. John Marshall observed, “Such a construction is inadmissible..”

To construct and to interpret a right using legal opinions from cases, commentaries and law review articles are the wrong sources. The outlook of the judiciary — attorneys, judges and justices is much too narrow, much too constrained, much too susceptible to prejudices, biases, irrationalities and incorrect thinking, and finally, those people lack imagination. Yet, these are the citationswhich the Supreme Court used to support its Second Amendment speculations, flights and wanderings. A right and a freedom represents what society thinks and is willing to accept as the basic law. Sometimes whether a right exists comes from newspapers. But the Second Amendment itself provides metes and bounds: “…being necessary to the security of a free State.” Eliminate that, and America is endangered, in 1786 Western Massachusetts and today, when the current invitation from the Supreme Court is: Violence be damned! Buy guns! Carry them around. Use them and kill other Americans. Claim self-defense! Indeed, it is completely absurd that state and local laws forbid citizens from carrying knives and other weapons, but the Second Amendment, according to  the Bruen Supreme Court, allows any American, no matter the citizen’s state of mind, to buy, carry and use guns.

Right off, the Founding Fathers knew the United States had a precarious foundation. Even in the First Amendment Americans have the freedom to assemble, but Americans must do it peaceably, a restraint that many Presidents of American Universities have overlooked. Americans do not know one another, but they understand the Constitution. Consent and compromise are most likely without carrying arms: As George Mason observed Americans are give up rights for the betterment of the greater society under the Constitution.

This Supreme Court current Second Amendment opinions also are logically inconsistent within themselves. If Militia means “all able bodied men” as the Heller court wrote, then the Second Amendment can be read,”well regulated able bodied men, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Well regulated able bodied men cannot be interpreted to mean the Second Amendment supports mob action, or bestows individual rights. The amendment means each man is physically and mentally fit, and their arms and weapons are well regulated, subject to rules, regulations and statutes of the military controlled by civil governments. 

Yet, this Supreme Court envisions the United States to be a country of the 1820s:

[I]n 1827 Representative Vinton of Ohio apparently ran little risk of disfavor among his constituents when he said that, no matter to what distant district the Indians might be removed, “The pioneers would be there in advance of them; men of the most 

abandoned and desperate character, who hang upon the Indians to 

defraud them. You cannot run away from these men nor shut them 

out from access to Indians, scattered over the wilderness; for,

with the pioneers, the law is a jest, and the woods, their element.”

Clark, Dan Elbert, The West In American History,  Thomas Y. Crowell,

N.Y. 1937, p. 223.

The Supreme Court has completely discarded George Mason’s statement of government: Rights and freedoms are limited to protect society, not to afford individuals liberty to abuse and kill other Americans under the guise of self defense. The Supreme Court Second Amendment opinions dismiss the United States Constitution and any role of government to control citizens in a civil society, especially when any individual is holding and using a gun.The example given by Representative Vinton is a statement of Americans running amok, which has recurred throughout American history and sometimes in big cities. Armed with weapons Americans are now prone to believe each is King of the Mountain and pull the trigger. The Supreme Court, justices each having security, have legislated that the remainder of society ought to live in a chaos of violence, and be subjected to violence by whim and fancy.   

How to make up rights and freedoms, enumerated and unenumerated, in the Constitution? It is a political process under Article One of the Constitution, not a judicial process under Article Three. Rights and freedoms come from the education, experience and knowledge beyond any single individual, especially justices ensconced in chambers or on gifted-vacations. Formation of rights comes by “many hands and many minds” splashing across disciplines, thinking, judgments and communications. Rights are primarily a legislative function. The Judiciary is not the forum to conceive and to entertain such processes and procedures to arrive at creating and expressing such rights.

The Second Amendment Supreme Court cases must be overruled immediately. Peace and security can come to the America.

United States Constitution: Experience not experiment, Supreme Court Legislators, Justices Changing Words of United States Constitution; Distrust of Supreme Court Justices