"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."
Ok, so maybe the first step in all the USA's political debates should be: words matter. Our common heritage of written words is still here, we just ignore it. In high school I was made to understand the meaning of a dependent introductory clause. Is it too much to expect that the first words of the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, almost one-half of the entire amendment, be admitted to exist? And that they intentionally express the will of the Founding Fathers? And that the right to keep and bear arms is inherently tied to a well regulated militia and security?
In a well regulated militia there would be a hierarchy of command to enforce the regulations. Who had which gun would be documented. It would not be a free for all allowing any and all weapons to be in the hands of practically anybody. Some militia volunteers would be deemed unfit to serve at all and, thus, denied a weapon. Only the highest level of trained militia members would have military grade assault rifles and high-capacity clips- in other words the National Guard. It would make sense to allow lesser members to have a couple of hunting rifles and a handgun with limited ammo capacity. Smart guns could be required so no unqualified person could steal and fire that smart gun.
The starting point must be recognition of the dependent introductory clause. Congress should craft a law that uses those words in such a way that courts will be forced to rule on the constitutionality of of the words "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state." Congress must act to regulate and secure our rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Ok, so maybe the first step in all the USA's political debates should be: words matter. Our common heritage of written words is still here, we just ignore it. In high school I was made to understand the meaning of a dependent introductory clause. Is it too much to expect that the first words of the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, almost one-half of the entire amendment, be admitted to exist? And that they intentionally express the will of the Founding Fathers? And that the right to keep and bear arms is inherently tied to a well regulated militia and security?
In a well regulated militia there would be a hierarchy of command to enforce the regulations. Who had which gun would be documented. It would not be a free for all allowing any and all weapons to be in the hands of practically anybody. Some militia volunteers would be deemed unfit to serve at all and, thus, denied a weapon. Only the highest level of trained militia members would have military grade assault rifles and high-capacity clips- in other words the National Guard. It would make sense to allow lesser members to have a couple of hunting rifles and a handgun with limited ammo capacity. Smart guns could be required so no unqualified person could steal and fire that smart gun.
The starting point must be recognition of the dependent introductory clause. Congress should craft a law that uses those words in such a way that courts will be forced to rule on the constitutionality of of the words "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state." Congress must act to regulate and secure our rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
