Home » » Politics & Minorities » The Second Amendment, A Well Reasoned Interpretation-Part 2

The Second Amendment, A Well Reasoned Interpretation-Part 2

© Vincent E. Martin

Prologue

The second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America was recently interrupted by the Attorney General of these United States to mean that every American has the unfettered right to keep and bear arms. Never-mind that this interpretation flies in the face of over 150 years of precedent set by the United States Supreme Court that says just the opposite; namely that the second Amendment applies only to those who are a part of regulated and organized state-run militia. Needless to say, I agree with the Supreme Court and offer below part two of this two-part, well-reasoned interpretation of the 2nd Amendment based on historical record. Here now is part two including a re-writing of the 2nd Amendment: a proposed 28th Amendment to the Federal Constitution:

[T]he right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This clause would seem to be self-explanatory but, because the two clauses of the 2nd Amendment are connected, it cannot stand-alone. If the explanation of well-regulated Militia set down in this paper is brought forth as true and the regulation and proper functioning of said Militia’ is a state function, and the Militia set down in the 2nd Amendment now functions as the National Guard, then the unfettered rights of the people to keep and bear arms is not absolute. Further, because the many states now govern the National Guard, in league with the federal government, and in so doing fully equip it members, the need for the people to keep and bear arms is no longer a necessity for the sake of arming the Militia.

If the argument is put forth that Militia can and should be civilian in nature and therefore the citizenry must be armed, I again assert that the 2nd Amendment qualified the Militia by stating that it must be a “well-regulated” one. And it would be a fools errand to try and fight a modern war with a Militia made up of un-trained, un-disciplined, ill-equipped bands of men whose loyalty would have to be seriously questioned. And what knowledge of military and or international law would these men possess? Would the Pentagon in times of dire emergency have time to train this civilian Militia in the skills necessary to properly prosecute a war and be assured of a victory for the United States? I think not, for today’s standing professional military is highly sophisticated and it takes months, and or years of training to learn how to properly fly a fighter jet, pilot a ship, and longer still to learn how to land an aircraft on an aircraft carrier. Even the Army and Marines must train for months in order to learn their respective craft’s. Could a civilian Militia be counted on to sit side-by-side with these professional soldiers, sailors, airman, and Marines without having been trained by them on a continual basis, as does the National Guard & Reserve?