When Madison drafted the Second Article of the Bill of Rights, he did not invent the right to keep and bear arms. The right was pre-existing at both common law and in the early state Constitutions. Pennsylvania in its 1776 Constitution stated: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

Noah Webster in his 1828 Dictionary of the English Language defined the word arms as: weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body. Fire arms, are such as may be charged with powder, as cannon, muskets, mortars, etc.

Notice the word weapons in the definition? He defined weapon as: Any instrument of offense; any thing used or designed to be used in destroying or annoying an enemy. The weapons of rude nations are clubs, stones and bows and arrows. Modern weapons of war are swords, muskets, pistols, cannon and the like. An instrument of defense.

The right to bear arms refers to the concept that individuals, and not the states, or, federal government, have a right to weapons. A weapon is a tool which is intended to or is used to injure, kill, or incapacitate a person, damage or destroy property, or to otherwise render resources non-functional or unavailable. Weapons may be used to attack and defend, and consequently also to threaten or protect. Metaphorically, anything used to damage (even psychologically) can be referred to as a weapon. A weapon can be as simple as a club or as complex as an intercontinental ballistic missile.

Most people in this Commonwealth when discussing an individual’s right to bear arms, often refer to the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights within the Federal Constitution, instead of Article 1 Section 21 of our Constitution for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Liberty minded persons should be pleased to learn, then, that the Pennsylvania constitution is a far greater document in its regard for individual rights, liberties and freedoms, than the federal Constitution. I am not downplaying the 2nd Article of the Bill of Rights by any means for it is also clear in what it says.

The Bill of Rights was entered into the federal Constitution after several of the states would not ratify the Constitution because it did not protect the rights of the people. The PREAMBLE to the Bill of Rights, which tells SPECIFICALLY that the Bill of Rights was to make sure the government knew it was limited to the powers stated in the Constitution, the Articles in the Bill of Rights, were rights of the people and the government had no authority to legislate, alter or abolish them.

The Preamble to the Bill of Rights states: “The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.”

The first Ten Amendments are not Amendments But Articles of the Bill of Rights and are "declaratory and restrictive clauses".  This means they supersede all other parts of our Constitution and restrict the powers of our Constitution. In other words it tells our government these rights are not yours to give or alter in any way.

The politicians in this country do not want you to know that the Preamble to the Bill of Rights ever existed. For many years, even today, the Preamble to the Bill of Rights is purposely "omitted" from copies of the federal Constitution. Those corrupt individuals have claimed that the amendments can be changed by the will of the people. This is not true. We our selves can not change them. It is by this deceptive line of reasoning the amendments are open to interpretation. This is a clever and intended deception. The Bill of Rights is separate from the other amendments.

The Bill of Rights is a declaration of restrictions to the powers of our Constitution. The Bill of Rights restricts the Constitution. The Constitution restricts the powers of government. The deception is that the government can interpret all of the amendments and the Constitution itself. Without the presence of the Preamble to the Bill of Rights this may be a valid argument. But let us thank God that our Fore Fathers had the wisdom to add the Bill of Rights to the federal Constitution.

The Pennsylvania constitution flies in the face of the ridiculous and unscrupulous politicians and scholars, who argue that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution does not recognize an individuals right to keep and bear arms, that it is only for hunting, sport or to keep an intruder from your home, which under current laws you can’t protect yourself without being sued or prosecuted. Consider the language of the Constitutions.

Federal Constitution: "The operation of a well-regulated militia being a necessity, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Pennsylvania Constitution, Article 1, Section 21: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

What’s nice about the Pennsylvania right to bear arms provision, in contrast to the Second Amendment, is that it gets the grammar right. Rather than putting the modifying clause first, and giving the power mad career politicians a hook, the Pennsylvania constitution states the right directly: "the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves." This provision is beyond debate and is not the governments to give, control or take away.

Today’s interpretation of militia, as the politicians and so called scholars portray, that some how the National Guard constitutes a "well regulated militia" is ridiculous...any force who ultimately is completely controlled by the regular federal armed forces is in no way securing

the right of the people to keep and bear arms, even if the governor can call on them to help with hurricane relief, or any other type of police matter, it still in no way means that they are the kind of militia that the Founders had in mind. The Founders believed that an armed populace, organized into a well regulated militia, was a good way to defend the country without a large professional army and that it would give the people the ability to defend their liberties if the government ever became tyrannical.

The 2nd Amendment and Article 1, Section 21, was intended as a final check to government, usurping their powers, and taking away essential rights, freedoms and liberties, which is not the governments to give or alter by any means. To prove this, let us look at the Founding Fathers intent for both of these Constitutional provisions. Remember, to know what the founders truly meant in the Constitutions, we must, as Thomas Jefferson said: “On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed”.

George Washington said: "Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."

Thomas Jefferson said: "The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … "

William Rawle, even though not one of the founders, was appointed by George Washington, to be the U.S. District Attorney for Pennsylvania from 1791-1799.This is what he had this to say about the right to bear arms in the Constitutions: The prohibition is general.  No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.

Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story Said: The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for

a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

Tench Coxe was an American political economist and a delegate for Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress in 1788. He wrote in The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788, while the states were considering ratification of the Constitution: Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.

These men believed that an armed populace, organized into a well regulated militia, was a good way to defend the country without a large professional army and that it would give the people the ability to defend their liberties if the government ever became tyrannical.

The answer to true crimes, committed with any type of weapon, is strict and severe punishment. Make laws and adhere to them, to punish the criminal and not the person exercising their right, as set forth in the Constitutions. It is the duty of government to protect these rights not to interfere with them.

The Constitution for the United States and the Constitution for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is being ignored, violated, and gutted by the politicians of the 2 Party system, on a daily basis, regardless of their oath of office, which states: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth and that I will discharge the duties of my office with fidelity”. Every person in government, who makes law and or distorts the Constitution to fit their political agenda, is a violation of their oath of office, and they are committing a crime against the people, and they have no immunity from prosecution for it. Article 2, Section 15 states: The members of the General Assembly shall in all cases, except treason, felony, violation of their oath of office, and breach of surety of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the sessions of their respective Houses and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House they shall not be questioned in any other place.