I would bet at this point that a lot of you are getting sick of the primary elections by now. But really, there isn’t much else going on, is there? Well, apart of Hillary coming to my town the other day and all the mess with Obama’s preacher, there is something else to talk about.
The Supreme Court is going to decide on the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms. The actual text of the document states, “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.” Many people hold the view that if the amendment states, “right to bear arms” than that is all you need to know. Others believe that there can be limitations to those rights.
It is my belief that there HAS to be limitations placed on this right. Here’s why: The framers made the point to include the precursor, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” This means that they found it necessary to give this reason. If you take away this reason, than perhaps the right doesn’t exist – or at least can be restricted. Since our “well regulated militias” are now armed BY the government, it is unnecessary to guarantee this right. For those of you who believe that there is an unlimited mandate for US citizens to be able to own guns, please tell me why that precursor exists in the text. Why not, instead, did the framers just state, matter of factly, without any additional conditions that the citizens have an uninhibited right to bear arms? No one has been able to answer that yet, so I doubt anyone here will be able to.
Of course, the Supreme Court may end up disagreeing with me. After all, they have been wrong before.