Editorials & Other Articles
In reply to the discussion: Gun Laws And What The Second Amendment Intended - Seattle Times [View all]FBaggins
(26,737 posts)It's clear that "the people" cannot mean "the government" since the contemporary documents (Federalist papers, convention notes, etc) show that these militias could end up being used to oppose that government (as they just had against the crown)...
... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
...the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
... The Powers not delegated to the united States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the People
Are these also collective rights that can also be legislated away when they become inconvenient to a powerful segment of the population?
Lastly - the "it's the militia stupid... and we don't need militias any more... so the amendment is moot" argument falls of its own weight. The constitution says clearly that such a well-regulated militia (and armed populace) is necessary to the security of a free state. It's clear that the author would disagree with the claim that an armed populace is necessary for freedom... and no doubt many would agree.
The solution is simple enough. Amend the Constitution. Stop pretending that it says something that it clearly doesn't say. No amount of word smithing can turn those 27 words into "the right of individuals to keep and bear arms (up to an including everyone not in the military/guard/law enforcement) can be infringed since the role of the militia is now played by a standing army"