THE SECOND AMENDMENT January 14, 2011Posted by wmmbb in US Politics.
So as a matter of interest, what does the Second Amendment actually say? (And, if the Australian Constitution is any guide, how has, and how might, the Supreme Court interpret it?)
Allowing potentially deranged people along with otherwise sane people to buy automatic weapons to kill others, even if the pretext is self defence, is insanity. Here is the Second Amendment:
“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.”
What then is a militia? Has the meaning changed in substance since The Militia Act 1792? When in recent times have citizens of the United States, consistent with the Second Amendment, been called upon to present themselves with their weapons for public good? The answer to this question is never and it is not remotely likely to happen.
Harvey Wasserman is on the case:
The Second Amendment supports those of us who would CONTROL guns—and thus prevent the insane slaughter that compromises our security.
James Madison and the Founders of this nation would be enraged to see the Second Amendment being used to put guns in the hands of the Tucson shooter and so many others like him.
. . .
The Bill of Rights is the law of the land, clearly stated. Guarantees of religion, speech, assembly, the press, freedom from torture and so much more are natural rights, inherent to the human condition.
But the right to bear arms is granted only in the context of a well-regulated militia and thus the security of a free state.
A National Guard, yes. Heavily-armed lunatics roaming the streets unregulated? Never.
Now all he has to do is to convince the Supreme Court – and the National Rifle Association.