Profile picture
refoundingFather @AMERICA_PARTII
, 30 tweets, 16 min read Read on Twitter
(1) There it is Black and white #2a


But let's look at it further through constitutionally just lenses.

(2) So reading #2a
How's it possible that the rights of #wethepeople r currently limited?
Is it through?
a)poor word choice,
b) Purposeful misinterpretation,
c) Desires of judges, legislators or gov officials
D) Complete disregard 4 constitution
3) Lets look @ some arguments
Argument 1-All the constitution states is the FEDERAL GOV cannot infringe on #2a

So why are we wasting any time & resources arguing it before Congress, or attempting 2pass any legislation that may be construed as infringement?
(4)The 1st argument is the easiest to disagree w/
Debating how to infringe on citizen #2a rights on a federal level is the willful disregard of e constitution.

So The argument becomes only the states could constitutionally infringe on #2a

Yet it still comes before congress?
(5)(Of course the FED government could intentionally manipulate the states, by measures like restricting state funding 4 noncompliance w/ general principles, as it's done with other things like the drinking age. Integrity would say this is wrong,but legally much more debatable.)
(6) Argument 2 – It is up to the states to determine gun rights.

This argument is a conclusion by subtraction, if not the Fed government, then it must be the states.

But again it muddies the purpose of the bill of rights serving to protect the individual citizens rights.
(7)Those would argue that since #10a states


Makes it a matter for the states rather than the FED.
(8) But of #10a I ask well what is to the people?

Certainly the #billofrights concerns personal rights, justice, & property stemming from previously used manipulative practices

(9) So #wethepeople have all these rights and protections outlined in the #BillofRIGHTS but then the state would determine if we can practice our own rights granted to us by the constitution?


So it’s purposeful misinterpretation
10) If unsure if #2a rights are not up to the states even if they are clearly delegated to the ppl by the constitution look at #articleVS2


11)So it couldn’t be decided by individual states what #wethepeople actually R entitled to in the several states?

#2a is clearly DELEGATED 2each citizen by the constitution,& each shall b entitled to those same privileges in all states,so it couldnt be up to individual states
12)So that brings us to argument #3
What did the founders mean by arms? They didn't mean today’s weapons!
Also calling this the LIBSHIT argument(& in order to even make the argument u have to ignore the usefulness of citizen protection from tyranny which the founders believed)
13) Let’s start w/ today’s definition of ARMS
Well using MW somehow the definition of it as a weapon happens to be missing as a noun. Almost intentionally to support the LIBSHIT ARMS ARGUMENT
Maybe the thesaurus would help, well its there! but not after listing smaller guns!
14) But don’t worry after further scrolling (way down) you find arms definition as weapons, very limiting and suggestive of a firearm. But like the left often does it buries half truths, among as much possible alternative info as possible.

15)So its about the definition of arms,that’s why they feel they can limit #2a cause liberal publishers can edit definitions,
& those R supposed to transcend time?

Yet the courts debate the semantics of a 2018 definition's 1787 relevance

U DON’T GET MUCH MORE 1984 than that!
16)USING today's definition to determine #2a s 1787 intent?

That don’t make no common sense!
& fortunately, the impatient left has not destroyed all historical records yet!

So the real question is what were ARMS @ the time of #2a (even if u want to ignore its purpose)
(16)Open discussion highlighted in the Federalist Papers the used of arms appears 30x
It is broadly used to mean things,weapons, armies, tactics, &spans the course of history from Rome to Greece to present. (EVEN PREFIREARM TIMES)
(17) That broad use by our founders helps to illustrate the timeless meaning of the word arms, and would indicate it would mean the weapon of success.
Regarding Tyranny and #2a Below you will find an excerpt from HAMILTON #wethepeople
18) Regarding the 1787 definition of ARMs the most widely used dictionary was 1755 Classic by Samuel Johnson

and its definition of arms almost exclusively dealt with weaponry.

19) I am even willing to address the idea:

Arms is probably the most ridiculous word to even mean weapons because after all an arm by definition is just that a body part that lacks a weapon.

So why ARMS in #2a?
20. Because arms the weapon is an extension of a person.
Arms is the wepon's ability to offer both offense and defensive damage through whatever extension available.
So regarding #2a ARMS is whatever is the most effective extension of the person not limited to size, or potency.
21. IN fact, I would argue, that since the founders used the word ARMS in so many contexts, and periods of time. THAT IT IS VERY MUCH UNLIMITED in #2a .

Arms to them implied the most effective tools of the time, and not limited to time! #wethepeople
22.And now for the purpose of the amendment PROTECTION from others, and from the TYRANNY OF GOVERNMENT.

FOUNDERS would argue equal arms for all.

GOVERNMENTS UPPED THE ANTE in their development of weapons and we shouldn't care?

23) IN ENDING this large gov was not what was envisioned.
So How could we feel safe?

& the arms that have been created BY GOVERNMENT have the ability to destroy the world with a push of a button.

So start ridding the world of those before u take our rights! #wethepeople
24)our rights are concrete, and it may not be liked, buts stop pretending its about protection while those weapons still exist.

The ARMS of #wethepeople should @ the very least be equal in strength to the overreaching arms of our GOV the reason those rights were created
25) I want to thank @rsuppenbach for this reply
(26) However in going back to my original sources

I come to find that the word Armaments does not even appear in the original johnson dictionary from 1755

(27) and the word armament does not appear in the Federalist papers even once so i dont think that was common usage at the time

it does appear in th 1828 Websters dictionary

and certainly, they were aware of previous variations of arms most likely the source of the word armada


An universal etymological English dictionary 1776 edition

(in heraldry)as retained in ther primative purity, integrity and value, without and alterations diminuations or abatements!…
Missing some Tweet in this thread?
You can try to force a refresh.


Subscribe to refoundingFather
Profile picture


This content may be removed anytime!


Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video




Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


Become a Premium Member and get exclusive features!



Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!