The one Congress passed:
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 one passed by the States:
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 words of this Amendment have been repeatedly debated. One word that is continuously debated and changing is "arms." The collectivists believe that arms means what the founders had access to: muskets. Many pro-gun people believe that arms means the individual arms of the soldier, and that crew served weapons, artillery, and nuclear weapons do not count. Justice Sotomayor believes that nunchuks are not "arms."
I believe that arms are - well, arms. That is weapons. All weapons. That includes everything from pocket knives to tanks, artillery, jet fighters, and yes, even nukes. You see, I believe that the Constitution means exactly what it says. It says arms, and it is just as dishonest to redefine the words that were used in drafting it to change it as it is for others to do the same.
If you can redefine "arms" to exclude nukes, then why can't someone else redefine "militia" to mean the National Guard? Or define free speech to mean only speech within your own home is free? The answer to that is: you can't.
Now I am not saying that I think people should own nukes. I am saying that the Constitution as written prohibits the Republic from infringing on your preexisting right to bear arms. If you want to add an amendment that says: "Arms, for the purposes of the Second Amendment to this Constitution, does not include Nuclear Weapons or Biological Weapons" then the problem would be solved, and solved in the way that the founders intended.
I don't think that individual citizens should own nuclear weapons either. Besides, even a low yield man portable weapon like the Davey Crocket would be expensive to own and operate. Not to mention collateral damage to the garden if you used it kill varmints.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I think that the state should have few restrictions on firearms owned and carried by law abiding citizens. MA is an extreme example of what happens when statists set about determining what firearms it's citizens can possess and under what conditions.
At a certain point, citizens start to become subjects who exercise their rights at the whim of the government. At which point, they are no longer rights, but privileges.
During the time that the Second Amendment was drafted and debated, "well regulated" meant "well trained and disciplined" not regulated to death by politicians.