Actually it's 7 little words: "the right to keep and bear arms."
That extra word "keep" adds a much deeper meaning to the phrase. But people do need to realize that the intention of the Founding Fathers was incorporated in the qualifying start to the phrase: "a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."
They wanted people to be able to keep and bear arms in order to protect THE STATE. In their minds that meant from an oppressive regime. Extending it to mean protect one's self and property was probably also in their minds, but not explicitly stated. Since they didn't specify, then I believe the Constitution grants us the right to carry weapons on our person as we see fit, but I don't see a problem with reasonable regulation. It's when that regulation is used as a stepping stone to eliminate the right of the people to keep and bear arms, that I have a problem. Regulation should be about safe exercise of the right, not about an agenda to remove that right.
Obviously I'm coming in way late to this discussion. As such, most of the points I was going to make have been made. Suffice it to say that I believe that all of our rights as spelled out by the Constitution generally are limited by laws. Freedom of speech doesn't cover explicit speech talking about the killing of a president for example.
Limits do have their place. Would I want an ex-con being able to buy several AK-47's for his next job? Not really, no. However, would I want someone who has a CCW permit to be able to walk around armed on a college campus? Yes, I would.
Comments 18
That extra word "keep" adds a much deeper meaning to the phrase. But people do need to realize that the intention of the Founding Fathers was incorporated in the qualifying start to the phrase: "a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."
They wanted people to be able to keep and bear arms in order to protect THE STATE. In their minds that meant from an oppressive regime. Extending it to mean protect one's self and property was probably also in their minds, but not explicitly stated. Since they didn't specify, then I believe the Constitution grants us the right to carry weapons on our person as we see fit, but I don't see a problem with reasonable regulation. It's when that regulation is used as a stepping stone to eliminate the right of the people to keep and bear arms, that I have a problem. Regulation should be about safe exercise of the right, not about an agenda to remove that right.
Reply
Limits do have their place. Would I want an ex-con being able to buy several AK-47's for his next job? Not really, no. However, would I want someone who has a CCW permit to be able to walk around armed on a college campus? Yes, I would.
Reply
Leave a comment