No Gun Nonsense!

Uncle Tea Guns.png

(The following is an excerpt from Tea Pain’s book, “American Tweetheart.”)

Nothin’ breaks Tea Pain’s heart more than news of a school shootin’. Them poor kids, full of hope and promise, their whole lives ahead of them, struck down before they even got started. It’s a cryin’ shame.

Conscientious folks that fight to prevent the next shootin’ must ultimately do battle with the NRA, one of the most well-organized, best-financed political lobbies in America.

Before we jump into one of the most hotly contested political issues on social media, Tea Pain’s gonna take us to church on the second amendment.

2nd Amendment

Tea Pain would wager you that 98% of “Second Amendment enthusiasts” have never read the entire Constitution. To top that, Tea’d bet you even money less than half of those folks ain’t never read the entire Second Amendment for that matter, cause it’s easily one of the most tortured sentences in the history of the English language.

Now Tea Pain ain’t no scholar, but he worked awfully hard to get his GED. Not to brag, but he was the first Pain to ever have one.  Gettin’ it before his 41st birthday was just icin’ on the cake!

One of the things Tea Pain remembered from his book learnin’ was sentence structure. There’s subjects, verbs, objects, nouns… all kinds of interestin’ stuff.  One of the things they teach you is that the subject of a sentence is usually near the beginnin’.  The Second Amendment is a perfect example: “A well-regulated Militia”.

Now if the Second Amendment was supposed to give folks the right to tote their guns to Chipotle, don’t you reckon it would have said that instead?  See, it’s mighty clear we’re talkin’ about local and state militias.  And not just any militia, mind you, but a “well-regulated” one. “Well-regulated” refers to rules and policies, controls over how the militia is to act and behave.  Ain’t it funny that the one part of the Constitution that allegedly gives everyone unregulated gun rights has the phrase “well-regulated” in it?

There’s a parlor trick 2nd Amendment fanatics try to play relyin’ on the fact that the proposed version had 3 commas and the ratified version has 1 comma.  They think they have discovered some mystical secret like the DaVinci code that radically changes the whole meanin’ of the Constitution.  Think of it this way.

A functionin’ brain stem, being necessary to use Twitter, the rights of the user to use Twitter shall not be infringed.  

Congratulations!  Usin’ their “logic”, if you remove two commas, you no longer need a brain stem to use Twitter! (Which would explain some folks’ tweets)  The commas were removed from the proposed version as a matter of style and changes nothin’ to the fact it deals with the authority for state militias, much like today’s National Guard. 

Now ask yourself another question.  If gun rights were the cornerstone of Constitutional freedom, why did they “forget” to put it in the first draft?  They actually had to include it later as an amendment, an afterthought.  There’s a simple reason for that: The Second Amendment has nothin’ to do with private gun ownership!

If these hillbilly “Constitutional experts” had actually studied American history, they’d know that ol’ King George had outlawed state militias, due to the fact they were part of the colonial rebellion against the crown.  The framers of the Constitution became concerned that one day an American “king” might rise wishin’ to do the same thing to protect his own abuse of power, so they made sure that well-regulated militias were codified in writin’ – that way Americans were guaranteed by law that they could protect themselves against tyranny. And that, friends, is why the Second Amendment was born: to allow us to bear arms to protect our “free state,” but within the bounds of a well-regulated militia.  See how simple things can be when you just read the words and know a little history?

Then what about gun rights?  Ain’t we allowed to own guns to hunt and protect ourselves with?  You’re dang right we are, because guns are covered under normal private property laws just like everything else we own. The government has no more right to take away our guns than our television sets or our blenders.

When Tommy Jefferson helped draft the Virginia Constitution, he wrote, “No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms within his own lands or tenements.”  Just like Tea Pain said.  Guns is for huntin’ and protectin’ and are covered under laws of personal property. But outside of our “lands or tenements,” gun use is within the purview of federal, state and local governments.

People will fuss at Tea Pain and say this “weakens” gun rights.  Oh contraire! There is no stronger cornerstone to the United States Constitution than ownership of personal property!  America’s founders understood clearly that private property is the foundation not only of prosperity but of freedom itself.  True gun enthusiasts would be wise to line up behind this immovable pillar of American democracy and stop torturin’ the poor Second Amendment!

When Wyatt, Virgil and Morgan Earp tried to keep the peace durin’ the Wild, Wild West out in Tombstone, Arizona, they made a law that it was illegal to carry guns outside of your home within the confines of Tombstone city limits. No one would ever accuse Wyatt Earp of bein’ a gun hatin’ liberal, at least not to his face.  That law was within their jurisdiction and never violated the personal property laws of gun ownership.

In closin’, Tea Pain’s gonna use one of the Republican’s most beloved arguments against ‘em.  Gun use, outside of our homes and property, is most often a matter of “states’ rights.”

That’s not to say that states have sole jurisdiction over gun regulations, but – referencin’ the 10th Amendment – anything not covered by the federal government is automatically left up to the states to decide.  To sum up, private gun ownership is rock solid.  Takin’ your guns to town, on the other hand, is up to federal, state and local governments.  Yes, patriots, it’s that simple.  Sensible gun control in the public square is achievable and 100% constitutional.  Remember, you heard it here.

Click here to view American Tweetheart on Amazon.

10 thoughts on “No Gun Nonsense!”

    1. I am a new reader who thoroughly enjoys your posts. I’m also a NJ native who is not familiar with guns and has never had the desire to own one nor did I understand why a plethora of Americans need to own one until I met my husband. He’s from a gun toting family in PA, a mere 1.5 hrs from the Jersey border from coal country PA. He’s a brilliant man and a very responsible, former gun owner (NJ laws are tough). We have differing views of gun laws and allowances so I showed him your article to get his thoughts since I think it’s spot on. He mentioned I should look at the Supreme Court ruling for District of Columbia v. Heller where it was decided that guns are not only for the militia and it’s a person’s individual right to possess a fire arm. So their interpretation of the Constitution, at least at that time, is law which I hope one day, will be challenged. That’s my 2 centivos T!


      1. Time for some cynicism. The second amendment was written centuries ago. Only in the time of the NRA do we have a supreme court that rules in favor of more guns. What a coincidence.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. I have just conducted over two years of research behind the 2nd amendment. Why? I was searching for answers to just two questions. 1) Why was this hidden. 2) Who else knew about it. Why? Because there is a way to read it with crystal clear clarity from left to right like any other sentence. The “trick” is in knowing how to go about it. Well I was able to answer those questions and only a small group of the framers actually knew what it was. The man that original crafted this sentence was Benjamin Franklin the wordsmith. From day one it was meant to be a final legacy of the United States Constitution. In order to make it a legacy it first had to appear as something it was not and the other delegates simply read what they wanted too. It was politics similar to today but with one exception. At that time the constitution was brand new, almost a theory. It required time for it to demonstrate to the people that the checks and balances would actually work at preventing the advent of a tyrant. In a “letter”that John Adams wrote to Benjamin Rush he stated that the minimum time was at least 100 years. It had to cycle through presidents. In the beginning suspicion was the enemy. There could not even be the appearance of a gun debate. Had the liberally minded men of the day actually debated putting this into the constitution how would it have looked and suddenly caved to endorse the creature that we believe it to be today? They would have scrutinized it more closely. It was anticipated that over time gun violence would inevitably increase over time and with it increasing scrutiny until there would come a point that someone would suspect it. On December 2 2015 I suspected this sentence and approached it differently. I hypothesized that the well-educated and intelligent James Madison would not only know how to craft a sentence that can be read with clarity like any other from left to right but would have done so in such an important document as the Bill of Rights. I wanted to see if I could find a way to make this sentence actually behave like a sentence. I have 25 years experience in software development and I am a Canadian. I take no part in the gun debate. I do however know an equation when I see one. I saw a way to connect the front of this sentence to the back. It is the WORD “Militia”. A militia encapsulates “people and Arms”. That is exactly what a militia actually is . Think of these as timeless INPUT variables.
      Step 1: A well regulated Militia (Create and administer laws pertaining to people and Arms)
      … to what extent?
      Step 2: being necessary to the security of a free State (of mind , not colony. Liberty in the student section of the Merriam-Webster dictionary is defined as “the state of being free” or “of a free State”. Liberty lives in the so called “prefatory clause” of this SENTENCE. Think peace, think absence of oppression. Think no Sandy Hook, Las Vegas and the lottery of death that visits the American Society every day with 90 unlucky winners.
      Step 3 the right of the people to keep and bear Arms (output variables , a subset that must not violate the conditions of step 2 which must be acquired through step 1
      Step 4 shall not be infringed. This is a sentence. Do everything in order from left to right.
      We now no longer require history to understand this sentence because it has ZERO to do with “militia’s” and how they were used. It is also now a check and balance against power where the power in this case are the capitalized words “Arms”. The other two words, “Militia’ and “State” are where the literal encryption lives.

      So what was I doing full time for three years and where did I acquire these narratives from. This is where it gets a bit astonishing. In seeking the answers to the questions I first posed I began to come across “letters”. Very clever well crafted literal ciphers but ciphers that didn’t appear to be ciphers. Each and every one had a surface context but they all tended to use symbolism. It is up to the reader of course to fill in that symbolism with a context. Regardless of what the surface context was , and nothing was explicit there was an alternate context for the symbolism in each and ever case but it was ALWAYS the same. It was the very context of the Objectively read 2nd amendment. It took me about 5 of these letter to resolve that what I was seeing were indeed ciphers. Well I came across one written by Benjamin Franklin written in his 83 year of life from 1789. It appeared to be about an old bill about typesets and fonts but the details he went into were way over the top. He was providing formulas. It pointed back to the 2nd amendment like a laser beam and used the objectivity of math to prove its veracity as being a cipher. In turn the man he was writing this too had been dead for over 6 years and a man he knew well. No, this letter was not meant for a dead set of eyes but eyes that had yet to be born. I have located over 25 in this particular “series”. In some cases the dead man was writing letters while he was dead. Each and everyone was a cipher. The name was actually part of the cipher itself because names have different meanings.
      The “Who knew” list were the men that were writing these ciphers and doing so in astonishing volume to promote, prove and explain what is the final legacy of the United States Constitution in what is essentially the longest running sociological experiment that Benjamin Franklin had devised by at least 1752. (Ciphered letters existed back then in a time when he was promoting his Albany Plan. The fact that he was seeding these letters then inferred he was going to secret the “second amendment” into that earlier constitution. That plan didn’t work out so he had to wait 35 years into the twilight of his life. He needed younger men to help out in the writing of these letters, wordsmiths to maximize the success of this plan. He recruited “George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and of course the young James Madison. To date I have located over 700 letters. Any Supreme Court precedent ever set citing the 2nd amendment was based on a figment of the imagination and most certainly violated the US Constitution. “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” simply never existed, the 2nd amendment did.

      Now how does a none academic escalate such a thing to the right circles. This does not belong to me but to 320 million people. I am not just some man trying to sell a book though if you would like a good egg recipe I have sampled over 1000 in two years. On December 2 2015 in a variable surreal way Benjamin Franklin sucker punched me but as a variable in an experiment. It is hard to describe just how surreal that is. The letters take study though to extract the thought that went into them however they are VERY EXPLICIT. I have show this research to over 50 people including at least 5 with PHD’s if that is to be your measure of intelligence. Everyone was convinced of the ciphers. In the span of 1 hour they can be demonstrated. I have an arsenal of them that will wash away known history with each application.

      As you can imagine it is not an easy thing to approach a professor and tell them “Hey Prof, I discovered how to read the 2nd amendment” which has of course been well scrutinized by perhaps millions. I get lost in the noise it instantly.
      I am the research and author of “Militia Stand Down- The first objective reading of the 2nd amendment”. Its a volume of over 200,000 words and cites over 75 source documents, all of them deciphered and it is a compilation of about 1/6 of the research.


  1. Tea, You get a PhD, for THAT lesson!!
    Never saw it put like that before!
    I’d think even the hillbillies could understand that–‘cept for the ones with their fingers in their ears…
    (sigh)Guess we’d better learn sign language..
    GREAT JOB, though!

    Liked by 1 person

  2. The word “police” was not used with its current meaning until about 1800 and certainly wasn’t in use in the colonies at the Constitutional Convention. “Militia,” however, was commonly used to refer to any civil force without a more specific title, such as “Sherriff.” The Second Amendment was clearly intended to allow states to arm civil authorities.

    Having said that, the awkward language in the 2nd was almost certainly assembled (can’t say “crafted”) as a salve to the wingnuts and frontiersmen of that day for much the same reasons we face in modern politics.


  3. I will give you one other thought that ties into your narrative. The proposal to include the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights came through Patrick Henry in Virginia. It was part of the “compromise” that enabled and number of Southern States to ratify. The concern? State militias were used throughout the South to contain slave uprisings. The fear was one Continental Army controlled by the Federal Government might not place adequate priority on controlling slave uprisings, so the slave states felt in imperative that they have a right to their own militias.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: