Last time, we started on the amendments. Today, we’ll consider the Second Amendment
This post is part of a series that will make more sense if it is read in order. If you haven’t read the earlier posts in this series, please click here to start with the first one. One reason I’ve broken this series into fairly small parts is that we have a tendency to rush through reading the Constitution and miss a lot of it. I hope the readers of this series will ponder the points in each session. I also hope you will comment on each post as we go along.
Throughout this series on the Constitution, my comments will be in black normal font, and the text of the document will be in this color and italicized.
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.
What is so difficult for a bunch of overeducated left wingers to understand about this? It’s such a simple statement. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Telling us this does not mean we, as citizens, have a constitutionally guaranteed right to own and carry firearms is like telling us that the sky is not really blue or the earth is really flat. How stupid do you have to be to buy that logic?
It’s difficult to get me to state an opinion, but I decided to make an exception in this case.
Benjamin Franklin, exiting Constitutional Convention:
“We’ve given you a republic, if you can keep it.”
For more information about David N. Walker, click the “About” tab above.
For more information about his books, click on “Books” above.
Contact him at dnwalkertx (at) gmail (dot) com or tweet him at @davidnwalkertx.
I think the issue becomes complicated when people try to determine just what constitutes “arms.” No one could have ever imagined the kinds of automatic weapons that are available today. The constitution creators were thinking about muskets and rifles, which are wholly different from the kinds of is available to people today.
So, speaking as a left-winger, constitutionally, we obviously need to ensure that we can create a strong militia; however, I’m not sure that people need to have semi-automatic and/or automatic weapons so readily at their disposal. This is a complicated issue that should not be handled in a dismissive way.
Once again, Renee, as much as I love you, we have to agree to disagree. The statement “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” is pretty unambiguous. I don’t actually see why civilians need automatic weapons, but I also don’t see how they can be banned as long as this amendment is a part of the Constitution.
A can of Mace is probably all I’d ever consider using. Guns frighten me, and if I tried to use one, I’d probably end of harming the wrong person or thing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I know that’s how you feel, sweetie. That’s why I don’t keep a firearm around, even though I strongly support everyone’s right to do so.