Letter: Interpreting the Second Amendment (483) | Opinions and Editorials – Aiken Standard
Recently while taking my daily walk a vehicle stopped and a person who was not identifiable to me stopped and the voice inside said:
When are you gonna write another editorial?
The paper is boring.
I like your editorials.
While I did recognize the person, the poetic phrasing and the Irish lilt in the voice suggested identification.
I began my response to this lyrical request by commenting on the recent Aiken Standard coverage of people that represent us on County and City Council and the school board. Each individuals goals for their respective organization were published. My theme was going to be the need for a common focus for each organization to effectively deal with the plethora of objectives voiced by our elected officials. Since then the paper published an assortment of opinions on a major menace to our society gun control.
In past letters I have explained that I believed that our fundamental impediment to effectively dealing with the gun issue is our interpretation of the Second Amendment of our Constitution. In this case I will explain why I believe it.
I will begin with the wording of the Second Amendment. It states in part:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...
This first phrase states the purpose of the amendment. Clearly this is about militias. The second phrase of this amendment states:
...the right of people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Clearly these arms are to support the militias.
I have formed my opinion, based on historical study, that this amendment was all about the safety of the newly formed country and had nothing to do with individual safety. A brief description of my reasoning follows:
The Founders did, indeed, jeopardize their lives, fortunes and sacred honors when they broke with England.
The only means available to them for self-preservation was the various Colonial militias.
The source of arms for those militias tended to be the individual militia members.
Survival of the founders and our new country was dependent on those militias and the arms that supported them.
Nothing in my reading of history suggests that this amendment was created for protection of the individual.
The 10th Amendment states, The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
A population not intimidated by Second Amendment threats can deal with this issue.
It is my thesis that we have had our understanding of the Second Amendment dictated to us by others. If individuals study the history of this situation and each arrive at an informed opinion, perhaps my thesis will be supported by a critical mass of the population. If so, perhaps we can begin to create state and local legislation to effectively deal with this issue.
To my lyrical fan club of one: This is my response to your request.
Ronald L. Feller
Aiken
Continue reading here:
Letter: Interpreting the Second Amendment (483) | Opinions and Editorials - Aiken Standard