“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 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America
So I have been following the gun control debate that is going on in our country over the last several months and I have some questions. Not questions meant for jest or sarcasm but true questions that are based on my desire in seeking precision in language and cohesion of logical thought. So here they are:
Can someone explain to me in legal language how limiting types of guns or mandating more background checks is against the 2nd Amendment?
This is a serious question, b/c the 2nd Amendment simply states that “we” citizens of the United States have the right to bear arms. It doesn’t say what kind of “arm” we are allowed to bear.
Am I correct in this?
Isn’t an “arm” a .22 or a smith & wesson six shooter? I guess an “arm” could also be a bazooka or flame thrower.
So when is it or isn’t it an infringement on our 2nd Amendment rights? At what level does it become an infringement?
Also, I am curious according to the 2nd Amendment does one have to be in a militia that is protecting the United States in order to bear arms? I mean that is how it reads, but I don’t have a single friend or family member in a militia protecting the United States but a lot of them still own guns. I guess it could mean protecting oneself since “We the people” are the United States…
But still the right of the 2nd Amendment at least as it reads was put in place in direct conjunction to “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…” and no other reason.
So those are my questions. Questions I have based on my struggle to find the logic in arguing the 2nd Amendment in a lot of the debate that is going on.
I think to argue “life & liberty” would be more appropriate if someone wanted to use a historical/legal document, but I’m struggling with the 2nd Amendment.
Maybe y’all can help me out?