Letters to the AmmoLand Editor
The Constitution ratified in 1788 contains The Army Clause, the Militia Clause and the Organizing the Militia Clause.
The lack of a standing army and small state-controlled militias left the nation vulnerable. And, many Founding Fathers believed an armed citizenry was the best defense against tyranny. I deduce that the intent of the Second Amendment was to solve those two issues. An armed citizenry to aid the militia in defense of the nation in the event of insurrection or invasion and to join with fellow citizens to defend the nation against tyranny.
Explicit is the right to keep and bear arms. Implicit is the kind of arms. To aid the militia, and to defend against tyranny, the arms that citizens keep and bear arms. must be compatible with arms carried by soldiers, not robbers. That right encompasses current arms and arms for individual soldiers that may be created by new technology. In 1791, soldiers were armed with muskets. Today, individual soldiers are armed with Assault Rifles.
Technology does not mitigate any constitutionally guaranteed right. The right to keep and bear is not limited to arms technology in common use in 1791 when the Bill of Rights was approved any more than a free press is limited to printing technology at that time.
Regarding the Second Amendment, I do not recall any consideration of licensing to purchase or carry, hunting for food or for sport, stand your ground, registration, private militias, castle doctrine, survival prepping, home defense, background checks or competitive shooting.Regarding the Bill of Rights, absent is an explicit right to self-defense. That Right is implicit in the Declaration of Independence.
The Second Amendment intent is to guarantee an armed citizenry to aid the militia in defense of the nation, and to defend the nation against tyranny. To perform those tasks, the citizenry must keep and bear current technology arms.
Today, that would be the “Assault Rifles”.
No comments:
Post a Comment