Massacres Blamed on Second Amendment

Massacres Blamed on Second Amendment

The mass shootings of 2012 including Aurora, Colorado and Oak Creek, Wisconsin continue to surface on the news. A big reason is politics: people want to know about the people and reasons behind these horrible acts. These horrors are among the latest incidents in a long-running debate: the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the right to bear arms.

Many anti-gun viewpoints use events such as the Aurora tragedy is a good reason to tighten gun control, and possibly limit gun rights. Others have said that we need more rights, such as being able to carry in movie theatres. Still others have suggested finding a middle ground of understanding. Everyone has their own ideas as to what the Founding Fathers meant when they said,

“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.”

Some are sure that it meant that each family was permitted to only maintain their old family musket, as discussed here.  However, according to Findlaw.com,

“…the Supreme Court has now definitively held that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Moreover, this right applies not just to the federal government, but to states and municipalities as well… The Court reasoned that this right is fundamental to the nation’s scheme of ordered liberty, given that self-defense was a basic right recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present, and Heller held that individual self-defense was “the central component” of the Second Amendment right. Moreover, a survey of the contemporaneous history also demonstrated clearly that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Framers and ratifiers counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to the Nation’s system of ordered liberty.”

 

The Supreme Court sides with the argument that people have a right to protect themselves, their families, their property, and their country using firearms. What many people have forgotten in their well-intended arguments regarding the “family musket,” is that the firearms used in the Revolutionary War were the state-of-the-art weapons of the day. Many people are not even aware that new innovations had only been recently developed in American frontier homes, such as the Kentucky Long Rifle, to which developments the British had virtually no access to.

Do gun-control activists truly understand what the Second Amendment means, and what the Founding Fathers had intended?

Be Sociable, Share!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This blog is kept spam free by WP-SpamFree.