Friday, June 15, 2007

The Second Amendment

A commenter disagrees with the restrictive interpretation of the Second Amendment we hold here at One More Political Blog:

If the first amendment read, "a well informed electorate, being necessary to a free people, the right of the people to free speech shall not be infringed," would you suggest that the right of free speech was a collective right existing only to voters and only as to political speech? I doubt it. Beyond that, the militia was at the time of the founding of the Constition, all freemen capable of bearing arms, and in fact by federal law is all males between the ages of 18 and 45 and all female members of the National Guard, with some minor exceptions, so your National Guard theory is wrong as a matter of fact. Moreover, not one legal scholar ever embraced this restrictive view of the amendment prior to the 1930s. The evidence is overwhelming that the amendment was intended to protect private ownership of arms, otherwise it would have essentially gutted the federal government's powers to arm and control the organized militia set forth in Article 1, Section 8. You need to actually read the militia clauses to understand this.

1 comment:

arationalaversion said...

Brilliantly simple.

Our Constitution is an easy read, for the most part, and made more difficult by people who can't handle the (Constitutional) amendment process. It is they who would call the Constitution a "living document," thus permitting themselves to illegally redefine any portions they wish without the will and specific approval of the people in the several states.

Gun grabbers want the power of death over you and your family.