The exact wording is: “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 whole point of this Amendment is the well-regulated militia, not people in general.
It should be quite obvious that “the people” refers to the well-regulated militia’s members. Why would the authors of this amendment refer to people in general, without any limitations in terms of age, mental stability, prior criminal convictions, treason, etc., while ignoring what the future might have in store when it came to “arms”, far beyond the single-shot muskets known at that time? And wouldn’t a “well-regulated militia” make it unnecessary for the rest of the people to be armed?
While the NRA, gun dealers and criminals have a vested interest in this misinterpretation, what about all the lives lost due to lack of sensible gun regulations? And who needs assault weapons, except for killing as many as possible, as quickly as possible? To make such available for civilians, is sheer insanity!
Is there any reason why the writers of the 2nd Amendment could foresee what we have seen lately, too often? And if they could, would they by any stretch of the imagination think it would be OK for just about any lunatic to run freely around with assault weapons, like AR-15s, killing innocent little school children en masse, often blown apart, beyond parent recognition?
Back to New Post
There are about 120 firearms per 100 Americans.
As a man who purports to be logical, please explain how to logically go about disarming the populace
That would be impossible, of course, but at least we should stop issuing more war weaponry into the general population, including to young idiots on their way to commit mass murder!
Correct interpretation of the 2nd would also make it easier to take arms away from those who shouldn’t be trusted with such.
Don’t preach the NRA-gospel, Al!