Your View: Why Second Amendment no longer serves a national purpose

Your View: Why Second Amendment no longer serves a national purpose

Gun Rights

Members of the Forks Township-based unit of the Pennsylvania National Guard prepare to depart for New York City in 2012 to help in post-Sandy relief and cleanup efforts. The National Guard is the direct descendant of the state militias mentioned in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (MORNING CALL FILE PHOTO) Gun control debates are about superficial concerns like the right of bad guys to have guns, and the possibility of limiting the extreme automatic power of guns. We the people seem to have developed a numbness to actual facts, but maybe it’s time to question the historical facts that underlie that Second Amendment. The first 10 constitutional amendments were ratified in 1791. Historians call them the Bill of Rights. That term may have emanated from the actions of the 1689 English Parliament, before being used in the United States. Nine of those amendments do stand alone as inalienable rights, but the Second Amendment is different. Even the wording seems strange. “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Marlin Reinhart (CONTRIBUTED PHOTO / THE MORNING CALL) It is the First Amendment that proclaims free speech, free press, assembly and petition as the timeless core values of our republic. If the right to bear arms was intended to be timeless, why wasn’t it stated very simply in the First Amendment? It is popularly assumed that the Second Amendment gives people […]

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.