The Second Amendment says, "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 say it only protects the state militia and not individuals. This was the position of four Supreme Court Justices in the case of District of Columbia and Heller in 2008. This was huge for gun ownership.
I have research this topic because of the loud media talk of this subject.
I have come to believe that the Second Amendment was to secure an individual right to bear arms.
Go back to the case of District of Columbia and Heller. The five of nine Supreme Court Justices had the correct position in my thought.
Let's first look at the Second Amendment. We read this, "The right of the people." You see the right of the people not the militia or a state government. The phrase of "the right of the people", comes up a few times in the Constitution. The First Amendment, the right of the people peacefully assemble and petition the government. The Fourth Amendment is to protect people from unreasonable searches.
Why, then if the Authors of the Constitution felt so strongly about "the right of the people" to own guns did they include language about "a well-regulated militia?"
These words are called an Justification Clause. A Justification Clause explains why it being secured but the Operative Clause explains what right is being secured. In this case, the right for the people to have guns. And what was the word "militia" understood to mean at the time?
The Militia Act of 1792 define all white males 18-45 years old. If it was written today, every color, people and women would be included. It would be the National Guard in today terms.
What did it mean for the militia "to the security of a free state?"
People who are against guns ownership will say it does not talk about individual gun rights.
We need to look at the historical view point.
In the 1790, the wording of "free state" didn't mean the state of New York but a free country a nation free of despotism.
The founding fathers saw an armed citizenry as a hedge against tyranny.
People that own weapons that protect themselves, they protect themselves from tyranny and protection from foreign power. But it doesn't mean that this right is unlimited.
The right of free speech has been narrowed and regulated regulation.
Like severe restrictions on owning a gun would be bad as severe restrictions on free speech.
Maybe you are thinking this understanding of the Second Amendment is outdated today, many want it to change because values are changing in the modern culture.
If people want a change then it can be amended. Two-thirds of Americans believe the Second Amendment secures the right of citizens to own a gun. The government have back this.
The Second Amendment secure the individual rights for guns? It did when it was written, it has been through American History and does today.
We need to go to the root issue. We live in a culture that don't believe in absolute truth. If there is no "hard truth" then what is stopping a student from shooting other students. If there is not absolute truth then you can't tell that student that shooting a school in not wrong. That is the problem, the human heart. How do you stop the human heart to kill people. In Asia, a skilled person with a knife can kill hundreds of people with a knife. The issue is the person killing with the knife and if there is not truth then you can't stop people.
https://www.prageru.com/videos/gun-ownership-right
No comments:
Post a Comment