I am surprised that when people argue over whether or not the 2nd Amendment gives people the right to bear arms no one mentions the true meaning behind the words used in the 2nd Amendment. If you actually read the amendment it does not give us the right to bear arms. This is not to say it does not give us the right to bear arms either.
"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 it does do is assume that we already have that right. And it forbids the Government from infringing upon it. The founding fathers were more ingenious than I realized. They did not feel it necessary to give us the right to bear arms, they assumed we already had the right as free people. They wrote the 2nd Amendment to ensure no future American government under the Constitution would ever be able to take that right away from us.
This chain of thought is consistent with writing from the founders back in the day. All to often people get wrapped up in whether or not the 2nd amendment grants us a right and whether or not it only applies to a militia, when in fact the constitution grants the government the power to raise an army. Why would they use the word Army and Militia separately if they intended for it to be one in the same?
I think it's clear, U.S. citizens have the right to keep and bear arms and the Constitution protects the right, it does not grant the right.
Cheers,
Mike
Sunrise — 7:12, 7:09.
10 hours ago
No comments:
Post a Comment