Problematic Second Amendment

I totally agree with Robert Parry concerning the framers' intentions; however, the actual words of the US Constitution's Second Amendment remain more than problematic. "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." Here's why.


Tom Usher

Even though the people and their arms are not being used for the purpose of a well-regulated militia, that does not remove the right of the people. The reason is that the state retains the legal authority to form such a well-regulated militia. If the right of the people to keep and bear arms were removed without properly altering the amendment, then the entire amendment would be nullified, which simply can't legally be done in any such manner.

The fact is, the right of the people to keep and bear privately owned arms is not necessary for a well-regulated militia. The question concerns the security of a free state. Is the right of the people to keep and bear privately owned arms necessary for the security of a free state? The framers weren't worried from that angle, but should we be? Should the Second Amendment be amended or removed to accomplish the needs of the current United States of America, which is facing a huge number of murders via privately held guns. It would not be a panacea, but would it be heading in the right direction more than leaving everyone who passes a background check armed with a private gun or guns?

I think so.

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.