"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.Some interesting points here. It doesn't say INDIVIDUALS can bear arms, it says the PEOPLE can. That's a collective notion, not an individual one. (If meant otherwise, say PERSON.) And why? Because a WELL REGULATED militia is necessary to the SECURITY of a free state. So the REASON to bear arms is to increase SECURITY. And the militia must be REGULATED. We don't hear about "well regulated" in the usual discussion of this amendment.
Clearly our situation today makes us less secure, not more secure. Arming the National Guard is not the same thing as arming every nut in the land. I think we can reach better ground by living up to the constitution, just like the Tea Party wants -- only let's read what the 2nd amendment actually says.
1 comment:
Had this very conversation this morning. It astonishes me how consistently (and willfully) the Second Amendment is misinterpreted and misrepresented. NY Times has a cover story this morning detailing what we already know: The Tuscon shootings will do nothing to increase the minuscule chances of meaningful gun regulation in the United States. The outcry will fade, and it'll be business as usual.
Post a Comment