Wednesday, December 8, 2010

clearing up the "confusing" 2nd Amendment

Today after seeing a link on David Codrea's "War on Guns" I decided to respond to a clearly anti-gun person's article.   I believe it's important to respond politely and with respect, so I latched on to the cause of the person's confusion, their inability to decipher the 2nd Amendment.   Here's what I wrote:

"Hi Emily,
I was hoping to be able to clear up the writing on the 2nd Amendment, so you can understand it most clearly.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State..."

When the 2nd amendment was written, America had just won a war against a tyrannical state militia.   While the crafters of the constitution knew state militias were necessary, they also knew they were dangerous to liberty and freedom, so the word "people" stands in contrast with the word "militia". 

"...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Had the crafters intended only state militia to have arms, they would have specified militia instead of people.   But becase this amendment was intended to prevent being controlled by tyrannical state militia, the people must preserve the ability to fight any organized, or regular militia that oversteps its bounds, making it a fundamental right for defending freedom and liberty.

The language used was an older, efficient and elegant form of english, not commonly used today, and requires considerable time to understand because we're not used to it.   Each amendment, was short, as opposed to our 2000 page laws of today.   I hope this helps you understand the language, and I also hope you give it a chance and open your mind to many possibilities of the implications of that clarification."

Let me know if you think I responded inaccurately, or rudely.

No comments:

Post a Comment