Indeed, ratified in 1791, the complete Second Amendment considered firearms essential for group defense of our communities: "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."
In 1791, the United States had recently battled England for its independence; France owned the vast Mississippi watershed; and another war with England loomed. Yet, even in 1791, this right to bear arms was deemed conditional.
The nine justices should hone their grammar skills. The introductory absolute phrase ("A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,") preceding the main clause sets the condition for why the people collectively had a right to keep and bear arms: to be able quickly to muster their local "well regulated Militia," individually lifting smoothbores down from over their fireplaces so they could assemble and march off to defend "the security of [their] free State" against aggressors.
In 2007, however, the U.S. has a large, active-duty military establishment. Replacing 1791's militias, today's local "well regulated" National Guard units maintain armories stocked with government-supplied weapons, each pistol and M-16 assault rifle carefully inventoried upon its return after weekend and summer training periods. Citizen-furnished smoothbores? Long gone.
Given the Founders' original intent clearly contained in that introductory absolute phrase, the consequently irrelevant Second Amendment should be long gone, too.
Despite — or because of — that obsolete amendment, we now live in the most heavily armed society in history: The NRA lists as many as 65 million gun owners in the U.S. and 230 million guns in civilian possession.
We obviously have access to firearms. People facing potentially dangerous workplace confrontations can apply for concealed-weapon permits; buying a rifle to hunt deer poses no problem.
Gunther wrote:What is not written there is the intent of the framers. At the writing of the Declaration and Constitution there was no Federal Military like we know today. People defended their homes with Daddy's shotgun (musket).
Even beyond that the Framer's of the constitution knew they were human and had human frailties. They knew that an government with absolute power could be corrupt. In that idea, the 2nd Amendment was written to insure that the people had the ability to retain firearms to over throw the government through a violent revolution should the need arise.
Now who is to say that the attitude and intent of the people who wrote these documents over 200 years ago are relevant today? the US Supreme Court. It is their job to interpret case law based on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Although the initial read of the 2nd Amendment appears as though it does not give the people the right to bear arms, it does if you understand the original creator's intent. The intentions of the creators of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution is taught in Constitutional Law Classes, which everyone who holds a Juris Doctorate of Law has studied.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests