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

The Second Amendment, A Well Reasoned Interpretation-Part 2 - Page 2

© Vincent E. Martin

If the argument was put forth—as it has in the past and present—that arming the people will help insure that the government does not now, or in the future try its hand at oppression, again I would cry foul. While it is possible through the commencement of guerrilla warfare to hold a standing Army at bay for a length of time, a band(s) of citizens armed with nothing more than rifles, pistols, and shot guns could not hope to last long against the standing professional Army such as the caliber of the United States Army or Marines without considerable outside help. And I would argue, that the Militia of the many States having in their possession comparable arms to the standing Army of the U.S., and are answerable to first the governor of the many States and then the President of the United States. Their presence should prove sufficient constraint against tyranny and sedition by the federal government.

Conclusions: It is my contention based on the forgoing arguments, that the people DO NOT have the unfettered right to keep and bear arms. The emphasis placed upon “well-regulated Militia” is inescapable, and taken together with Article 1 Section 8, Clause’ 15 & 16 of the Federal Constitution and that which is argued in Federalist No. 29, the reasonable person can only draw one conclusion from it: that the Militia referred to in the 2nd Amendment was to be State governed and regulated in accordance with accepted military protocols and standards.

It is also my contention that the second clause in the 2nd Amendment depends on the interpretation and meaning of the first clause. My assertion is this: since the many states are responsible for the proper governing and regulation of the Militia’s and in this modern age equip such said Militia (now the National Guard), the second clause of the 2nd Amendment no longer make sense and should be struck, or amended to reflect our modern times.

My Personal Observations and Thoughts Let me state for the record that I believe that Americans should have the right to keep and bear arms, if for no other reason than to defend themselves, their families, and their property. However, I DO NOT believe that those rights should be unfettered, largely un-regulated, ill-used, and exercised irresponsibly as they are now.

I am not a strict Constitutionalist, I believe that the government should have the power, real, or moderately implied, to do that which is necessary to promote the general welfare of the people. But I am also a strong believer in the rule of law, the absence of which is anarchy a system none of us I trust wishes to live under. And I am a strong proponent of personal responsibility, and I believe that those fundamental rights codified in the Bill of Rights and elsewhere in the Federal Constitution, come with implied responsibilities, the absence of which, once again leads to anarchy. I think it is the absence of personal responsibility that has led to the recent rash of high profile shooting and hundreds more we do not hear about everyday in this nation.

The copyright of the article The Second Amendment, A Well Reasoned Interpretation-Part 2 - Page 2 in Politics & Minorities is owned by . Permission to republish The Second Amendment, A Well Reasoned Interpretation-Part 2 - Page 2 in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.