For decades the federal judiciary has been trying to interpret the Second Amendment out of the Constitution.
Anti-gunners frequently claim the 2nd amendment does not protect the right to keep and bear semi-automatic rifles.
One of the reasons is they are big, black, and scary to these people who have never even touched one. Some also believe the 2nd Amendment was only referring to muskets even though the type of firearm is never described in the actual 2nd Amendment.
The Washington Times has news for them, and they aren’t going to like it:
The Second Amendment has never been recondite, it is only the judges who have been obtuse. An intelligible interpretation of the Second Amendment emerges the instant one reconciles the prefatory and operative clauses. In other words, the “militia” described in the prefatory clause is a militia composed of a people with a right to keep and bear arms. What type of arms? In 1939, the Supreme Court spoke explicitly to this. At the time the Second Amendment was adopted, men summoned to militia duty were expected “to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” The Amendment not only protects weapons that might be useful in a military context, arguably it only protects those weapons useful in military service.
There are cases brought before judges in various courts around the country, and in some cases, left-wing activist judges don’t seem to understand the 2nd Amendment. This is egregious to say the least, since these people are put into these positions of power specifically to be sure laws are indeed constitutional.
The Washington Times goes on to describe one such case:
Thus, we arrive at the 4th Circuit decision that even though AR-15 rifles are commonplace, they may be banned because they are “like” M-16s and “useful in military service.” As the dissenting judges noted, this curious logic would have made it possible to ban the muskets and rifles used by citizen militia during the Revolutionary War. But why stop there? Handguns are standard-issue military weapons. Shotguns and bolt-action rifles have been employed by the U.S. military. At one time or place, virtually every weapon has been used by the military, including knives and tomahawks. The irresistible conclusion is that the Second Amendment protects nothing.
As long as there are hoplophobes in the country, there will always be someone fighting to take away the rights that are supposed to be protected by government. Government didn’t “give” these rights to Americans; they are only tasked to protect these rights.
Anti-gunners’ heads are always going to spin when they are smacked down with the facts. Aside from the known fact that gun control doesn’t stop crime and actually enables criminals, they don’t seem to grasp that more and more people are indeed practicing their 2nd Amendment rights.
Can you think of any other reasons to own a modern rifle? Should their be any limitations on the type of weapons law-abiding citizens should be able to own?
