From Reuters:
He was armed with a Smith & Wesson M&P .223 semi-automatic rifle, similar to an AR-15 assault rifle, a 12-gauge shotgun and a Glock .40-caliber handgun. Police found an additional Glock .40-caliber handgun in his car. All the weapons had been bought legally.
The right to keep and bear arms has been a subject of heated debate for decades. Unfortunately the Second Amendment is infuriatingly unclear on the matter. To wit:
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.
In modern language, with the 18th-century superfluity of commas and capital letters corrected, would read "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." This is the version actually ratified by the states.
Now, to me that sentence clearly indicates that the keeping and bearing of arms was sanctioned specifically for the purpose of maintaining a militia. Remember, in its early days the United States did not have a large standing army. Every able-bodied man was expected to come out and fight if the need arose. And that was no small thing -- we had, after all, just pissed off the world's most powerful empire. We were under imminent threat of invasion and didn't have an army. There were no police. Many people lived in isolated areas where wild animals and hostile natives were a real hazard. Given those conditions, it made sense for the populace to be armed.
But the Second Amendment says nothing about what
types of arms may be kept and borne. There are many restrictions on what a private citizen is allowed to possess. You can't have a rocket launcher, for example. Or an Apache helicopter. No reasonable person would make the argument that such items should be available to the public. Why should handguns be any different?
In 1789, when the Bill of Rights was ratified, the only handguns were single-shot flintlock pistols. They were clumsy, inaccurate, and unreliable. They were used primarily for dueling or as a fashionable accessory for the well-heeled gentleman. While they undoubtedly fell under the heading of "arms," they would not be particularly useful in fighting off a British invasion. What the Founding Fathers had in mind, the thing they wanted people to "keep and bear," were muskets, the standard infantry weapon of the day. No one expected you to turn up for muster with a dueling pistol.
The idea that a law written over
two centuries ago is still applicable today is ludicrous. The Founding Fathers could not possibly have imagined the vast array of sophisticated, deadly weapons available to a 21st century American. It would be like Congress passing a law today banning shrinking rays, just to be ready in case someone eventually invents one. The beauty of the Constitution (if indeed you believe it has any beauty) is that it's supposed to be a living document that adapts to the changing needs of the times. To all those purists who disagree I would point out that, in its original form, the Constitution legitimized slavery, regarded blacks as only 3/5 of a person (even the really tall dudes), and denied the vote to all but white, landowning males. Of the people who frequent this forum I can only think of two, Thrash and Haf, who fit that bill -- and Haf isn't even American!
Basically we've taken a law that says "Everyone should be allowed to have muskets" and use it to justify the free availability of everything from single-shot Derringers to high capacity, semi-automatic assault rifles. Somehow I don't think that's what the Founders had in mind.
BatmanAuroraMourn1.png 23.19K
7 downloads