General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I don't care what anyone thinks about their right to own guns [View all]Deny and Shred
(1,061 posts)How about 'The government shall not infringe upon the right of persons to bear arms so each may protect themselves, their families, and their property.' That appears to be the current interpretation, and fits the trend, no? They didn't say thet though.
So does the 2nd exist so the people can form a milita to protect themselves from the government, not to be called forth by the government? I know both Franklin and Jefferson expressed that idea due to fears of an overly powerful central government. I've read many interpretations of the 2nd that make that argument. If that is the case, then the people should have no restrictions on the arms they can posess in order to repel the government. Today, that would mean tanks, nukes, strike fighters, etc. This interpretation does give credence to securing a free state.
Or can the people keep and bear arms so they are proficient with weapons when called upon by the government as a militia because the founders determined that a proficient militia's importance outwieghs the goverment's fear of rebellion? In that case, the use of arms ought to be in service of an eventual militia, not for protection of themselves, family and property. Essentially target practice.
If their idea was for individuals to keep and bear arms that can't be taken by the government in order to protect themselves, family and property, like we have now, they worded it very poorly, and threw in the militia part for no reason at all.
What do you think is the exact restriction meant by the founders in the 2nd? Enlighten me.