“As a result of [Supreme Court] rulings, the Second Amendment, which was adopted to protect the states from federal interference with their power to ensure that their militias were ‘well regulated,’ has given federal judges the ultimate power to determine the validity of state regulations of both civilian and militia-related uses of arms. That anomalous result can be avoided by adding five words to the text of the Second Amendment to make it unambiguously conform to the original intent of the draftsmen. As so amended, it would read: ‘A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms when serving in the militia shall not be infringed.’ ” SOURCE: Constitution Check: Does the Second Amendment need to be amended? – Yahoo News.
The topic of the second amendment to the Constitution has many different interpretations but to me it seems obvious to have only one true meaning. Anyone using an ounce of common sense and a something more than a casual study of U.S. history knows what the second amendment means.
We are coming up on our primary elections time in my very red State and that means that all the radical are coming out of the woodwork. One is Eric Bassler running for the State Senate in my area. Mr. Bassler is well-funded but of course he will not reveal just who his backers are. He sends colorful 5.5 x 11 inch post cards weekly now. He wants me to be sure that I know that he is anti-government in all respects and he will NEVER vote to take away my guns.
When the constitution was written it was generally believed that the new United States of America would have a “citizen army” instead of a professional one as maintained by many other countries of the time. When the need arose citizens would pick up their personal weapons and come forward to man the army. To assure that scenario the right to have arms was an essential part of that philosophy.
Fast forward to the twenty-first century and of course the concept of a citizen army is totally foreign to us. We abandoned that idea many years ago and therefore the second amendment is essentially irrelevant if not archaic.
I certainly wish Mr. Madison had added the suggested words when he wrote the second amendment but unfortunately he didn’t do that. It just seems very strange to me how any of those nine justices who sit on the Supreme Court can’t understand this basic history behind the words of this amendment.
I know that guns have a long history with us and understand that many have a love affair with them for that and other reasons. I just wish they would find another reason to support their gun addiction and give up the very illogical dependence on the second amendment as the reason to be able to keep them.