USA – Â -(Ammoland.com)- In my opinion, the Second Amendment is about National Security and only guarantees the right to keep and bear Assault Rifles.
The Constitution ratified in 1788 contains The Army Clause, the Militia Clause and the Organizing the Militia Clause.
The lack of a standing army and small state-controlled militias left the nation vulnerable. And, many Founding Fathers believed an armed citizenry was the best defense against tyranny. I deduce that the intent of the Second Amendment was to solve those two issues. An armed citizenry to aid the militia in defense of the nation in the event of insurrection or invasion and to join with fellow citizens to defend the nation against tyranny.
Explicit is the right to keep and bear arms. Implicit is the kind of arms. To aid the militia, and to defend against tyranny, the arms that citizens keep and bear arms. must be compatible with arms carried by soldiers, not robbers. That right encompasses current arms and arms for individual soldiers that may be created by new technology. In 1791, soldiers were armed with muskets. Today, individual soldiers are armed with Assault Rifles.
Technology does not mitigate any constitutionally guaranteed right. The right to keep and bear is not limited to arms technology in common use in 1791 when the Bill of Rights was approved any more than a free press is limited to printing technology at that time.
Regarding the Bill of Rights, absent is an explicit right to self-defense. That Right is implicit in the Declaration of Independence.
Regarding the Second Amendment, I do not recall any consideration of licensing to purchase or carry, hunting for food or for sport, stand your ground, registration, private militias, castle doctrine, survival prepping, home defense, background checks or competitive shooting.
The Second Amendment intent is to guarantee an armed citizenry to aid the militia in defense of the nation, and to defend the nation against tyranny. To perform those tasks, the citizenry must keep and bear current technology arms.
Today, that would be the “Assault Rifles”.
Marshall Sprague
[email protected]
After winning their freedom from King George III, citizens demanded an armed citizenry to defend against tyranny. Constitution of the United States, Article. I. Section. 8., (Clause 12 – Army): [The Congress shall have Power] To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; (Clause 15 – The Militia) : [The Congress shall have Power] To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; (Clause 16 – Organizing The Militia): [The Congress shall have Power] To provide… Read more »
The Supreme Court even confirms this – although in a back-handed and poor fashion. In Miller (1939), they held that the GCA of ’34 could regulate sawed off shotguns because they served no military purpose. While that’s debatable (since short barreled shotguns were used in WWI trenches and in Vietnam, at least), the decision in Miller actually SUPPORTS this view. If short barreled shotguns could be regulated because they are of no military use, the M4s can NOT be regulated by the same reasoning. The court could (based on this precedent) therefore rule that true assault rifles (the select fire… Read more »
In my somewhat lengthy post on Assault Weapons/Assault Rifles, my terrible typing again betrayed me. In my reference to pigs, and the adornment thereof, reference to “putting more lipstick on the pig” got lost, and my futile proof reading efforts failed me too..
In response to Craig Black:
All that a lot of Low Information Level People know is what they get on The Boob Tube, and that unfortunately includes more than a few gun owners.
Alan
Bullseye!!! Dead center!!! End of debate!!!
As assault rifle is a selective fire weapon not a semi automatic weapon. AR15’s are not assault weapons the ignorance of some people!! A AR-15 is a Modern Sporting Rifle not an Assault Weapon.
www,msrhunt.com
Can you afford to feed the beast?
I may be old fashioned, I certainly am “old”. That being said, all this ongoing CRAP about Assault Weapons/Assault Rifles is, in my opinion, nothing other than the WET DREAMS of anti gun,anti gun rights apparatchiks and their political/media allies. Assault Weapons, the drivel coming from one end or politicians or the other,. are nothing other than such devices as one person attacks another with. Assault Rifle is a specific Technical/Military term referencing a Selective Fire Weapon, Usually of Rifle Configuration, Chambered For Intermediate Cartridge. Absent Selective Fire Capability, no matter what the firearm might resemble, it is not an… Read more »
Red coats. Thank you, auto correct.
One advantage Americans had over the British was the Kentucky Long Rifle. The dedicated had muskets.