Letter: A more honest interpretation of the Constitution

Published 8:54 pm Thursday, March 8, 2018

In the time the Constitution was written, militia was all able-bodied individuals between the ages of 16 to 60. “Well-regulated” meant they were trained to use their weapon in defense of their family or their country. Thus you have the first part, “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.” Notice the comma separating the first part from the second part. The second part reads “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Very self explanatory. As citizens of these United States, we have a right to defend ourselves if no one else is there to defend us. The second half of the Second Amendment does not tell the citizens what they can do; it tells the government what it cannot do. That means as long as we are not breaking laws, and as long as we have a weapon that is in common use, the government is not supposed to infringe on our right to own those weapons. The second half of the Second Amendment is also thought of as reaffirmation of a God-given right, meaning that government didn’t give us the right. This point has been argued before SCOTUS and they have found that, yes we do have a right to own firearms for self defense. Notice there is no reference to hunting in the Second Amendment. And restrictive gun laws will do nothing to deter a criminal; they will only restrict a law-abiding citizen from protecting his or her self.

Chris Hansen

Albert Lea

Email newsletter signup