Guns, Heller and the Second Amendment – Simplified for your Understanding
Still confused about the recent SCOTUS decision which accurately interpreted the 2nd Amendment to be an individual right to own a handgun for self-defense – overturning an illegal Washington D.C. gun ban? Well, you are not alone. Unless you’re a legal person – you might get a headache reading the official opinion of the High Court.
The Second Amendment reads as follows:
“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.”
At first glance, it’s easy to see how one might become confused about the true intent of The Founding Fathers regarding the Second Amendment. However, allow me to offer a few examples to help facilitate understanding.
Suppose the Second Amendment had said:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep, purchase and use Gas, shall not be infringed.”
Can’t do much without gas – can we?
Certainly, you would still have the right to use gas in your lawn mower? Of course you would. What about your boat? Certainly! Could you throw it on cars as they drove down your street? No. The first part of the Second Amendment IS NOT a restriction placed on the second part of the amendment – but rather announces “a purpose” – not all purposes.
Let’s try another example:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and wear clothes, shall not be infringed.”
Can’t do much without clothes either – can we?
Would you still be able to wear clothes that make you look sexy? Sure! Would you be able to put on clothing for the purpose of comfort? Absolutely. Would you have a right to wear clothing that makes you look so sharp that your chances of getting a new job would be increased! Certainly! Maybe a little cammo while hunting? Obviously!
Self-defense with a firearms was such a basic, everyday matter for the Founding Fathers – they would have thought it silly to even write it in the Bill of Rights - since it was understood. Do you have a right to breath? Yes. Same goes for the use of firearms to hunt, self-defense, etc.
What is dreadfully confusing is how the four dissenting Justices could get this entirely wrong. Perhaps those four Justices should take a refresher course in Constitutional Law 101 during the Court’s recess?
Looking at the Second Amendment again:
“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.”
It’s obvious the Founding Fathers did not intend for “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” to be restricted by “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,” any more than in the examples above about gas and clothing. The right to self-defense with a handgun is as much included in the Second Amendment as the right to hunting with a handgun. What is obvious is that the gun control groups & four Justices attempted to twist the meaning of the Second Amendment – further restricting the rights of the people.
E Lawrence Welch
Gun Holsters Blog
The Second Amendment reads as follows:
“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.”
At first glance, it’s easy to see how one might become confused about the true intent of The Founding Fathers regarding the Second Amendment. However, allow me to offer a few examples to help facilitate understanding.
Suppose the Second Amendment had said:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep, purchase and use Gas, shall not be infringed.”
Can’t do much without gas – can we?
Certainly, you would still have the right to use gas in your lawn mower? Of course you would. What about your boat? Certainly! Could you throw it on cars as they drove down your street? No. The first part of the Second Amendment IS NOT a restriction placed on the second part of the amendment – but rather announces “a purpose” – not all purposes.
Let’s try another example:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and wear clothes, shall not be infringed.”
Can’t do much without clothes either – can we?
Would you still be able to wear clothes that make you look sexy? Sure! Would you be able to put on clothing for the purpose of comfort? Absolutely. Would you have a right to wear clothing that makes you look so sharp that your chances of getting a new job would be increased! Certainly! Maybe a little cammo while hunting? Obviously!
Self-defense with a firearms was such a basic, everyday matter for the Founding Fathers – they would have thought it silly to even write it in the Bill of Rights - since it was understood. Do you have a right to breath? Yes. Same goes for the use of firearms to hunt, self-defense, etc.
What is dreadfully confusing is how the four dissenting Justices could get this entirely wrong. Perhaps those four Justices should take a refresher course in Constitutional Law 101 during the Court’s recess?
Looking at the Second Amendment again:
“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.”
It’s obvious the Founding Fathers did not intend for “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” to be restricted by “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,” any more than in the examples above about gas and clothing. The right to self-defense with a handgun is as much included in the Second Amendment as the right to hunting with a handgun. What is obvious is that the gun control groups & four Justices attempted to twist the meaning of the Second Amendment – further restricting the rights of the people.
E Lawrence Welch
Gun Holsters Blog
posted by E Lawrence Welch at
10:42 AM
1 Comments
Links to this post
