Richard Aberdeen
Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2026
- Messages
- 321
According to the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution, "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 ."
Note the purpose of "Arms" ownership is to have a well-regulated militia for protection, rather than a closet filled with assault weapons just because we feel like it. And unlike at the end of the Revolutionary War, today we have police, a national guard, army, navy and more, which overwhelmingly qualify as a "well-regulated militia".
When the 2nd Amendment was drafted, there were no large urban populations or citizens gravely endangered by modern mega-multiple-repeating weapons. And, who knows what horrific "Arms" may be contained in a future brief case or even smaller space?
The word "Arms" is deliberately capitalized, a common practice at the time used for emphasis. Since Thomas Jefferson and many other early Americans owned private cannons, the largest weapon available to them, "Arms" to the framers clearly meant more than just small arms one can easily "bear".
In the 18th Century, the right to "keep" and bear arms allowed many estates, farms and ships to proudly display private cannons. This is entirely ignored by the NRA, which focuses on private gun and small weapons ownership, which are obviously only part of modern "Arms".
The word "gun" is found nowhere in the Constitution, a carefully crafted document. According to the preamble, one of the main purposes of government is to "insure domestic Tranquility" (also capitalized). To correctly interpret the intentions of the framers, everything following the preamble, including the ten original amendments, must be weighed in light of the Constitution's stated purpose, which among other things is to secure the peace within the U.S.
The 2nd Amendment clearly says "Arms", not guns. To insist it permits unlimited ownership of mass murdering military-style weapons, is no more Constitutionally rational than to claim it allows for unlimited private ownership of bombs, chemical weapons and space-ray machines; all modern "Arms" unknown to the American founders.
If we wish to have a society at all, then the 21st Century question is not "if" we are going to restrict private "Arms" ownership but rather, in what manner are we going to restrict Arms. And if anyone has a right to regulate the 2nd Amendment, it is the families and survivors of far too many mass shootings. Our politicians and courts have gravely failed to protect us.
As America's founders wisely allowed for, we can always amend what the Constitution says. A perhaps better and much quicker idea would be to amend the NRA out of existence, by convincing a reluctant media to point out its highly deceptive and historically irrational position. It is irrational today to pretend we can live in a free society without regulating "Arms".
Neither the media or the NRA has any Constitutional or other right to limit the 2nd Amendment to a debate over guns, nor to otherwise ignore the intentions of America's founders clearly stated in the preamble: To "insure domestic Tranquility". For a Constitutional interpretation to be correct, it must fall within this clearly stated purpose.
Are politicians, the courts and the American media really being honest and fair in regards to what the 2nd Amendment and the rest of the Constitution actually says? Is it being honest to pretend that James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the American founders really intended for AR-15 military-style weapons to be owned and freely carried around in public? You decide, before your child becomes the next victim of an easily preventable mass shooting.
Note the purpose of "Arms" ownership is to have a well-regulated militia for protection, rather than a closet filled with assault weapons just because we feel like it. And unlike at the end of the Revolutionary War, today we have police, a national guard, army, navy and more, which overwhelmingly qualify as a "well-regulated militia".
When the 2nd Amendment was drafted, there were no large urban populations or citizens gravely endangered by modern mega-multiple-repeating weapons. And, who knows what horrific "Arms" may be contained in a future brief case or even smaller space?
The word "Arms" is deliberately capitalized, a common practice at the time used for emphasis. Since Thomas Jefferson and many other early Americans owned private cannons, the largest weapon available to them, "Arms" to the framers clearly meant more than just small arms one can easily "bear".
In the 18th Century, the right to "keep" and bear arms allowed many estates, farms and ships to proudly display private cannons. This is entirely ignored by the NRA, which focuses on private gun and small weapons ownership, which are obviously only part of modern "Arms".
The word "gun" is found nowhere in the Constitution, a carefully crafted document. According to the preamble, one of the main purposes of government is to "insure domestic Tranquility" (also capitalized). To correctly interpret the intentions of the framers, everything following the preamble, including the ten original amendments, must be weighed in light of the Constitution's stated purpose, which among other things is to secure the peace within the U.S.
The 2nd Amendment clearly says "Arms", not guns. To insist it permits unlimited ownership of mass murdering military-style weapons, is no more Constitutionally rational than to claim it allows for unlimited private ownership of bombs, chemical weapons and space-ray machines; all modern "Arms" unknown to the American founders.
If we wish to have a society at all, then the 21st Century question is not "if" we are going to restrict private "Arms" ownership but rather, in what manner are we going to restrict Arms. And if anyone has a right to regulate the 2nd Amendment, it is the families and survivors of far too many mass shootings. Our politicians and courts have gravely failed to protect us.
As America's founders wisely allowed for, we can always amend what the Constitution says. A perhaps better and much quicker idea would be to amend the NRA out of existence, by convincing a reluctant media to point out its highly deceptive and historically irrational position. It is irrational today to pretend we can live in a free society without regulating "Arms".
Neither the media or the NRA has any Constitutional or other right to limit the 2nd Amendment to a debate over guns, nor to otherwise ignore the intentions of America's founders clearly stated in the preamble: To "insure domestic Tranquility". For a Constitutional interpretation to be correct, it must fall within this clearly stated purpose.
Are politicians, the courts and the American media really being honest and fair in regards to what the 2nd Amendment and the rest of the Constitution actually says? Is it being honest to pretend that James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the American founders really intended for AR-15 military-style weapons to be owned and freely carried around in public? You decide, before your child becomes the next victim of an easily preventable mass shooting.
