By Justin Esthay
Upon hearing any Socialist opine over The Second Amendment, it becomes immediately obvious that the same three intellectual deficiencies which plague their views on virtually all other issues, pervert their understanding of The Second Amendment as well.
Upon hearing any Socialist opine over The Second Amendment, it becomes immediately obvious that the same three intellectual deficiencies which plague their views on virtually all other issues, pervert their understanding of The Second Amendment as well.
1. An alarming lack of reading comprehension.
2. An egregious ignorance of history.
3. An inability to ascribe to terms their correct meaning.
"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."
If this right is conferred only to militias, why does it specify "people" in third clause? Because the "right" to keep and bear arms is being consigned to the people, as opposed to being designated an appurtenance exclusive to militia membership. The term "people" here, is absolutely no different in meaning, than when used in the First, or Fourth Amendment.
"The right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." - First Amendment.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." - Fourth Amendment.
What is a "militia?"
A militia is comprised of regular citizens, as opposed to professional, full-time soldiers. Perhaps of even greater pertinence is that, during the Founding Era, militia members (being ordinary citizens) typically used their personal firearms while serving in said capacity. Therefore it was imperative that "the people," id est, private citizens, be allowed to "keep and bear arms." This requirement for able bodied men to serve in militias, and to provide their own weapons for said service, had been practiced for centuries prior in England, was practiced in the American Colonies, and persisted for the bulk of American history under the Uniform Militia Act (1792), which states:
"Each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years..., shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia... That every citizen so enrolled and noticed, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball;..."
If The Second Amendment banned private gun ownership, then the militias of the day would have been without arms (clearly that was not the case), and would have consequently served no practical purpose.
