Lets take his rational, apply it to other amendments and see how he argues against his own stance.
1) The First Amendment only applies to News-Papers & Periodicals. Actual citizens have no right to free speech.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
If The Right of the people, in the 2nd amendment applies only to Militia, then the first amendment only applies to News-Papers & Periodicals. There is
no free speech for the private citizen, nor anything else listed. Only Reporters, citing the news can assemble ( I assume to produce news) and pray,
but only while reporting the news or producing news reports.
2) Second amendment applies only to militias, covered..
3) Only the person in ownership of an army, can ok the quartering of troops in private homes.
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be
prescribed by law.
So only the person who owns the army in question, can consent to quartering in private homes. The person who actually lives there and owns the
property has no say in the matter. And since we, do not practice private-armies in these days, that means the owner of that previously stated military
body would be the Federal Government. Only the Federal Government may consent & 'ok' the quartering of troops in private homes.
4) I am not sure who the fourth applies to, it reads 'The Right of the People to be secure", but we've already established 'Of the People', does not
actually mean, 'the people, or citizenry.' As such, undefined protections cannot be afforded lightly. In order to make sure we error on the side of
original intent, it must mean the militia as laid out earlier. Only the militia, has a right to be secure in it's papers, effects, and persons.
If you want, to not have your house ransacked, your car search, or your-self stripped search at random, you must join The Militia. In short, you the
citizen have no right to be secure in your persons, houses, papers or effects.
5) Only the Army, the Navy, and the Militia enjoy the right to not be compelled into testimony, nor be subject to the same trial twice, nor can they
be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process. The only entities mentioned, are naval, land and militia forces. This protection does
not apply to private citizens. They aren't even mentioned in the 5th...
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in
cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject
for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be
deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just
It doesn't even use the ambiguous term, of the people....
6) The Sixth Amendment, we get alittle sunshine. This one is very clearly defined who it applies to, 'the accused'. This would include anyone who has
been accused of a crime. So we finally get 1 protected right enjoyed by the general population at large...
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial...
7) Here we have the same problem we found in the 4th. It's not defined who it's applying to, there is no clearly defined subject matter. With that in
mind... No one has the right to trial by jury in Federal cases. However, it is still clear that judges may not overrule findings of fact by juries in
federal civil trials.
8)Man, this one again... Here there is no clear directive of whom it pertains to ! Excessive fines & bails & punishments by whom and against whom ?
Again, those fools attempting to create a theocratic slave-state forgot to make this clear to us. With that in mind, it cannot be enforced.
There is no functioning 8th amendment...
9) Here we get the concept that there are other rights, than what is listed in the first 10. But it is not overly clear who it applies to, yet again !
It says the people, but that does not mean the citizens or the general public at large according to the 2nd amendment. Perhaps it means the state
governments have rights and authority not clearly listed. This interpretation makes sense, as it explains the states and federal government being able
to enact, enforce and make real laws & powers not originally listed in the main body of the constitution.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
10)Here we have another amendment supporting the 9th amendment enjoyed by the state and federal government. Not only according to the 9th, do state
governments and the federal government have rights in addition to the listed, they also enjoy other powers over the citizenry not defined, nor
prohibited by the constitution.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or
to the people.
So of those 10 amendments, only one by sudonim's interpretation applies to the general public. Even those crazy gun slinging Texan cowboys he was
worried about. The rest are reserved for the Militia or the various levels of government.
edit on 27-5-2016 by CrawlingChaos because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-5-2016 by CrawlingChaos because: (no reason