|
|
Here is the the unabridged text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution:
" 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."
This seems relatively straight forward to me.
1st Phrase, " A well regulated militia ". This is a civilian group, and not the standing army. The army is mentioned specifically in the Constitution itself and Webtser's dictionary defines " militia " as, " emergency citizen army ". Notice how the word soldier is left out of the definition? That is because soldiers and issues regarding them are addressed individually in the Constitution. This is not the United States Army, Airforce, Navy or Marines; or even your home state National Guard unit. Once again, with feeling; the standing army and soldiers are specifically mentioned individually elsewhere. To regulate, is by definition, to " rule by law ". Thus the militia must not be an angry mob, but organized. Obviously, the regulation is on the militia and not the arms.
2nd Phrase, " being necessary to the security of a free state ". This is unarguably simple, and refers to the citizen army being essential to protecting the freedom of the people ( from the state? ). " Necessary " is defined by Webster's as, " not to be dispensed with " ( how does that sit with you left-wing gun-haters? ).
3rd Phrase, " the right of the people to keep and bear arms ". This could be made no more simple. " Right ", is much stronger than a privilege, as in your driver's license, which you have to qualify and pay for. A ' right ' is something granted to you by your own very existence, not like a privilege that is granted by conforming to some particular criteria. Look up, " keep " and " bear ", if you like, but I believe they clearly refer to the posession and carrying of " arms ". By the way, the arms of the mid to late 1700s, included both muzzle loading long guns and short guns ( take that Handgun Control Inc.! ).
4th Phrase, " shall not be infringed ". Possibly, this is the one open to the most interpretation, as the Webster's dictionary has two definitions for " infringe ": 1) violate and 2) encroach. If you believe number one, then you may think guns cannot be taken away from the citizens. But, if you believe number two, then you may believe the government could not even pass any laws attempting to modify the type, kind. or number of arms allowed to be kept or born?
The Second Amendment is quite clear and unambiguous. My freehand transaltion into Twentieth Century english reads: ' A citizen army, being essential to protect the freedom of the people, the unalienable power of the populace to store and/or carry firearms, will not be hindered '. Or, in a little plainer language, ' The people must be allowed to be armed, in order to protect themselves from the possible tyranny of their own government '?
- Bongo ( Load your gun? )
