We can, as we have, argue about the Second Amendment and whether to interpret it to mean everyone has a right to a gun or whether it means the state's can organize militias.
One thing is certain: it's an awkwardly worded document, assembled as if to purposely cloud what its actual intent is: "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."
It's almost as if that one clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms," was thrown in at the last moment. For what reason, though?
The National Rifle Association wasn't around at the time to serve as the guardian of the gun. Some academics cite evidence that shows the southern framers inserted the clause to allow slave owners to assemble men with guns to put down slave rebellions.
The amendment does sound more concise when you remove that clause: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, shall not be infringed."
We may never know the true intent of the framers regarding the Second Amendment. What we know is this: The Supreme Court has determined it is a right, but the court has never determined that it is a mandate; you don't have to own a gun, if you so choose.
Moreover, a decidedly different court, one that is perhaps weighted heavily liberal, could re-interpret the Second Amendment with strict limitations on gun ownership.
In this current debate on gun control, there is much fear mongering and half-truths. There is also, with each passing day, a lot of innocent people getting killed by guns.
Thought of the day: When does a "good guy with a gun" become a "bad guy with a gun?"
No comments:
Post a Comment