Amendment 2

The Second Amendment is considered by many to be inapplicable in today's world. Some say that it does not refer to firearms available today, because all the citizens (and government) had when the document was written were muskets. There is documented and officially recognized evidence that the Founding Fathers wrote and approved the Second Amendment for two main reasons: self-defense, and defense from the American government itself. It is extremely difficult to defend yourself against attackers or oppressors unless you have modern weaponry at least comparable to that of your attackers and oppressors. In the 1700s that meant muskets, but today it means handguns, shotguns, and rifles (including submachine guns and "assault" rifles). "Arms," therefore, does not refer to the weaponry available at the time the amendment was written, but rather to the weaponry currently available and in use by potential attackers and the government. In response to this, some people might say that this would include tanks, planes, helicopters, missiles, etc. What they fail to realize is the fact that this amendment is an individual right, just like all of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights. That means two things. One, individuals have the right to keep and bear arms; it is not a collective right that can regulated. Two, all of the arms protected by the Second Amendment must be individual arms. One person must be able to carry and operate a weapon for it to be protected under this amendment.
Some say the Second Amendment is not an individual right, but rather a collective one that can be regulated. This is completely false. It refers to "the right of the people," but so do other sections of the Constitution when referring to individual rights. In addition, the Supreme Court decided that "the people" in the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments means "all individuals." Every single one of the amendments in the Bill of Rights refers to individual rights. In fact, only one, the Tenth, even makes a mention of a collective right: that of the states.
Some say that the Second Amendment isn't applicable today, because they claim that the reason for keeping and bearing arms is only for the purpose of having a militia, and now that America has a standing military, there is no need for the militia. As mentioned previously, documented and officially recognized evidence shows that the two main reasons for keeping and bearing arms were not directly related to a militia. Also, there is grammatical evidence in the amendment itself. A federal court correctly noted that there are two clauses in the amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" and "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The court further noted that the first clause is dependent; it needs the second clause to exist. The second clause is independent, it does not need the first clause to exist. The word "militia" does not appear in the independent clause, because it is not necessary. What is necessary is "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." In addition, the main body of the Constitution provided for a standing military and state militias. The founding fathers saw a need for both, and just because some people today don't see a need for the militias does not nullify the right to have them.


The Constitutional Defense: Amendment 2 The Second Amendment: 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.
The Second Amendment is considered by many to be inapplicable in today's world. Some say that it does not refer to firearms available today, because all the citizens (and government) had when the document was written were muskets. There is documented and officially recognized evidence that the Founding Fathers wrote and approved the Second Amendment for two main reasons: self-defense, and defense from the American government itself. It is extremely difficult to defend yourself against attackers or oppressors unless you have modern weaponry at least comparable to that of your attackers and oppressors. In the 1700s that meant muskets, but today it means handguns, shotguns, and rifles (including submachine guns and "assault" rifles). "Arms," therefore, does not refer to the weaponry available at the time the amendment was written, but rather to the weaponry currently available and in use by potential attackers and the government. In response to this, some people might say that this would include tanks, planes, helicopters, missiles, etc. What they fail to realize is the fact that this amendment is an individual right, just like all of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights. That means two things. One, individuals have the right to keep and bear arms; it is not a collective right that can regulated. Two, all of the arms protected by the Second Amendment must be individual arms. One person must be able to carry and operate a weapon for it to be protected under this amendment. Some say the Second Amendment is not an individual right, but rather a collective one that can be regulated. This is completely false. It refers to "the right of the people," but so do other sections of the Constitution when referring to individual rights. In addition, the Supreme Court decided that "the people" in the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments means "all individuals." Every single one of the amendments in the Bill of Rights refers to individual rights. In fact, only one, the Tenth, even makes a mention of a collective right: that of the states. Some say that the Second Amendment isn't applicable today, because they claim that the reason for keeping and bearing arms is only for the purpose of having a militia, and now that America has a standing military, there is no need for the militia. As mentioned previously, documented and officially recognized evidence shows that the two main reasons for keeping and bearing arms were not directly related to a militia. Also, there is grammatical evidence in the amendment itself. A federal court correctly noted that there are two clauses in the amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" and "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The court further noted that the first clause is dependent; it needs the second clause to exist. The second clause is independent, it does not need the first clause to exist. The word "militia" does not appear in the independent clause, because it is not necessary. What is necessary is "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." In addition, the main body of the Constitution provided for a standing military and state militias. The founding fathers saw a need for both, and just because some people today don't see a need for the militias does not nullify the right to have them.	2000 Election This election is more important than any other in our lifetime, because if Gore and other anti-gunners get elected, our gun rights will be non-existent in a few years. If you care at all about your Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, then you must vote for Bush, and for pro-gun representatives for Congress and at your local level. If we do nothing, we will lose everything.

If you have any comments or suggestions, please e-mail Jonathan Clark at morphogeneticjon@mailcity.com Main Page