There are some profound words from Adam Baldwin of late, with a hat tip to The Truth About Guns.

Actor Baldwin sent this around social media circles via Twitter, boomeranging Moms Demand Action’s latest stunt.

Here it is:

A well-educated Electorate, being necessary to self-governance in a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.

Read it again.

He tags his post with an image:


6 thoughts on “Profound words: The right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed”
  1. Is this the Common Whore teaching points ? instead of “A well educated electorate ” it should read ” able to apply common personal sense and logic” . To include Don’t think you way into a wet paper bag , into a box.

  2. How dare you , make mockery of
    OUR. Constitution of OUR. United States of America you Should be ashamed of yourselves. How about an apology !!!

    1. Wha? Not sure you read and comprehended what was written above.

      Also, why do you put periods after every usage of the word “our”? I’m no grammar king; not perfect myself, but there are limits.

  3. Good reference to show quite conclusively that the 2nd is everyone’s right. Historically, and grammatically, the 2nd is clearly the right of each individual.

    As far as their reference to the arguable “scope”, let’s look at the word “infringe”.

    There are 2 main definitions of infringe:

    1) The first is “Infringe: actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.)”. This would be an appropriate definition to use where terms of an agreement are specified. But obviously it cannot be used as a general term for not “infringing” on something. When the specified term is simply that it cannot be “infringed”, defining “infringe” as “breaking the terms” then basically means you’re saying “the terms are that you can’t break the terms”, a definition that is an infinite recursive loop upon itself, almost like using the word in its own definition. So obviously the first definition is not the proper one in the context of the 2nd amendment.

    2) The second definition is the one that would be applied for a general concept of what it IS to infringe on something: “Infringe: act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.” In other words…a limitation is an infringement. To say “limit the right to own or carry weapons” is literally a synonymous statement to “infringe on the right to keep or bear arms”.

    So basically, the entire purpose of the 2nd amendment is to recognize the people’s right to arms, and state that the government may not put limitations upon it.

    This agrees with historical clues as to the original intentions as well. The battles that beget the Revolutionary War were finally sparked over the British limiting which types of rifles the colonists could own (specifically they wanted to confiscate long range capable rifled bore weapons that out-ranged their own smooth-bore Brown Bess rifles) and consequently attempting to enforce those limitations (they were on their way to confiscate many of them). After the writing of the Constitution we also know many cannon and even ships capable of laying siege to entire cities were privately owned and even referenced as constitutionally protected in Supreme Court rulings.

    Now, people have the right to think freely, and to their own opinion. One can believe that there should be limitations on the right to arms all one wants. But that does not mean that the law (and yes, the Constitution is law) is currently written that way. The law states no government limitations on the owning (keeping) or carrying (bearing) of weapons (guns, knives, swords, artillery, etc). It is perfectly ok for one to disagree with that law and desire to change it…but what is not ok is trying to “interpret” it away so that one can get your way without having to garner the actual support it would take to amend the constitution. We are a country run by the rule of law. The law (the supreme law, for that matter) says no limitations. Try to change it on a constitutional level if desired. But it’s likely that won’t be successful, and if so it should be accepted that the law is what the law is…even if it disagrees with one’s viewpoint. One can argue what they’d like to see it say all they want. But what it actually says is a different matter, and is plain text. Until amended: no limitations.

Comments are closed.