U. S. Constitution and the Right To Bear Arms

U. S. Constitution and the Right To Bear Arms
by
David Schlecht

During the last presidential election, one candidate took the words of the other candidate out of context and made misleading and downright wrong assertions about the position of his opponent. This habit of purposely taking things out of context is common in today’s politics, but, it’s important we don’t get lackadaisical about accepting it.

Take for example the Second Amendment to the U. S. Constitution:

Amendment 2 – Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.

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.

Make sure you read the whole thing.

There are two parts to this amendment. If the thrust of the amendment was that all Americans should bear arms to overthrow their government, don’t you think it would say that? After all, it says more than just that we shall have the right to bear arms.

In fact, it doesn’t even start with the right to bear arms part, it begins with the caveat that the government will not restrict a well regulated state militia.

Furthermore, this amendment does not provide for individuals to have guns, it says that the people (the state militia) must regulate the arms. In other words, the arms were expected to be kept in the armory, you know, like they did when the amendment was written.

It becomes obvious how the amendment can be misinterpreted when it is taken out of context. Why does the NRA and other gun nuts insist on taking this out of  context?

Where in here can anyone find even a hint that we are all entitled to unregulated arms, stockpiles of weapons our forefathers never imagined, at the time of the amendment?

The Supreme Court appointed George Bush contrary to the constitution. This was a blatant overstep on the part of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court makes more than their share of mistakes. And the Supreme Court has interpreted the constitution incorrectly on numerous occasions, such as saying the constitution gives corporations and oligarchs unlimited rights to sway our elections. Even an elementary school child knows better than this.

This same Supreme Court has found that the first part of the amendment does not mean what is says, that it mean nothing. But you and I know better. Few of us are as biased as the conservatives on the Supreme Court are.

So, what does the amendment mean to you? Is it a free-for-all?