The Second Amendment

About the Second Amendment & misinterpretation of the Second Amendment:

An argument by Girish J Jain

Second Amendment, amendment to the Constitution of the United States, (adopted in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights).

“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.”

"Salus populi est suprema lex." - "The welfare of the people is the supreme law."

The Argument:

I believe the interpretation of the Second Amendment is incorrect; which is allowing civilians (not associated with militia) to keep & bear arms.

The Right to keep & bear arms for civilians, serves no purpose for the security of the free State & for the government. The common people have no right to ask for it. ‘People’ who are part of the well regulated Militia, yes, they have a Right. And that’s the sole purpose of the Second Amendment.

About the word 'People' in the Second Amendment:

Militia is made up of 'people'. People who are committed to serve & defend their country from threats of various kinds, hence it's a necessity for them to keep & bear arms. Militia is not made up of alien beings, it's the people. Yes, The People; responsible for keeping the nation a free State, with all their might and with the help of arms.

Furthermore, Nowhere & not a single word in the Second Amendment addresses the 'civilians' of the free State. Because, I believe it's common sense to use the word ‘Civilians’ if they are to be addressed in a sentence where the author has used the word 'Militia' in the very first part of the sentence. Hence the 'people' in the second amendment refers to the people serving in the regulated Militia. So, There is absolutely no argument, no logic in discovering an entirely imaginary interpretation, such as that it has anything to do with the civilians of the State.

With the above explanation I believe it is enough to understand the meaning of the word 'people' in the text of the Second Amendment.

"...shall not be infringed."

It clearly commands the lawmakers that - they shall not infringe with this particular right of the 'people' serving in the well regulated Militia. Because it’s a necessity for the security & for the existence of the free State. Now, give it a thought, if this Right had anything to do with the common people, the civilians, to keep & bear arms, then what's the purpose of creating great institutions, such as; the Judiciary, the Government and the Militia, if they have no right to prevent the common people from becoming a possible internal threat. (which, over the years, some of the civilians have proven to be & thousands and thousands of people have been murdered, solely because of the misinterpretation of the Second Amendment).

So, as per the above stated argument & as per my logic, reasons and understanding of the purpose of Law itself, I believe the Second Amendment has been misunderstood, misinterpreted or whatever one may wish to call it, and also it does not matter who allowed it, but this single mistake has created an evil within the USA. It must be corrected at once.

"Sublata causa, tollitur effectus." - The cause removed, the effect is gone.

The common people, civilians, who are not part of the well regulated Militia, have no right to keep & bear arms.

Hence, the Second Amendment in itself is complete. The words of which require no further interpretation, born out of imaginary wild instincts. Cadit quaestio.

IF, a doubt still exists in the hearts & minds of any human being, then God willing, may those doubts never get enough words and voice to ever express it. By the grace of God may every single benefit of doubt be rewarded for the amelioration of humanity & non-violence.

Amen.

Signed

Girish J Jain