Posted by
Tim Blessing on Saturday, March 29, 2008 5:02:53 PM
The Second Amendment
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.
The Army National Guard is a well-regulated Militia.
A Free State would be the United States and all of its subcomponents.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
What does that mean to a justice of the Supreme Court? If I am a Liberal Democrat Judge I say that it is a collective right rather than an individual right.
If I am a Conservative Judge, I see it from the individual's perspective meaning I can own a gun.
Guns have been part of our culture since our ancestors first came to this continent.
Rifles were used for hunting, self-defense, and target practice then as they are now.
Revolvers or such guns have been a part of our culture since the beginning of our history.
I would self-defense and hunting are the meaning of this amendment's purpose.
Its the technology of gunmaking that has gotten seriously out of whack since the founding of the nation.
Machine Guns, Rocket Launchers, hand grenades, guns with siliencers, and other variations on this technology.
Yet, a literal interpretation of this amendment preclude's any laws against the production, sale, use, or resale are unconstitutional.
I know from reading Nixon's works that he saw the Founding Fathers as Conservative Revolutionaries fighting a limited war for Democratic Government.
Does the individual have the right to own guns? Yes, for self-defense or hunting.
Is this restricted to a group forum meaning the people? I would say that the Founding Fathers believed in Guns, knew their value from the Revolutionary War Format, but I think in Realpolitik Terms people at that time were as adamant about their guns as they are now.
What is the middle ground? It depend's on the technology argument in relation to the section: the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.