Position: 2nd Amendment
I have long had a very pro Second Amendment stance. When I read the Second Amendment, I notice the comma after the word “state”. This separates the Amendment into two points. First, it describes and specifically grants the government the authority to create a militia – an Army. This militia is required to be well regulated. The reason it is required is because it is necessary to the security of a free state. The other part, also hinges on the security of a free state. In this case it is discussing that in order to guarantee a free state, the people maintain the right to keep and bear arms, which the government cannot infringe upon.
Anyone whom has served in the military is well aware of how regulated the military is. There’s regulations from how you perform an aptitude test, or physical fitness test, to the manner in which you operate a vehicle, to your hair length, and uniform appearances. The military is definitely well regulated.
The founding fathers recognized that we needed the militia to secure the free state from foreign rule. The Second Amendment authorizes it.
The second half, or second bullet point – if you will – is the guarantee of the right of the people to bear arms. This was written because this was the way the founding fathers realized that it would ensure the people would remain free from tyrannical government overreach, like they just had encountered with England. In any skirmish, guns always beats no guns. This was the way for the founding fathers to guarantee the government itself would be kept in check, and would always answer to the people.
The Second Amendment does not say that the militia shall have the right to keep and bear arms. It says that the people have the right to keep and bear arms.
I recognize this, and will insist to fight for this position in our State House.
Agree with me? Disagree with me? Either way is fine – let me know and I will be glad to listen to what you have to say!