"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." Those words constitute the final version of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, written by James Madison in 1789. No other words in the Constitution or its Amendments have sparked anywhere near as much controversy over the last 235 years. Interpretations and opinions abound, with some people of one extreme wanting to repeal the 2nd Amendment and ban all firearms, with other people of the opposite extreme claiming a need for complete and unrestricted access to all manner of weapons. Most people have viewpoints somewhere in between those two extremes. So, where does Fred stand?
There were several factors taken into consideration when Madison drafted the 2nd Amendment, but only one is stated in the Amendment itself, that of the "security of a free State" in the Preambulatory Clause. That rationale was enshrined in the wording because many citizens feared an oppresive Army, like King George's army that they had just fought against a mere decade earlier. Indeed, the framers of the Constitution, just two years earlier had incorporated wording into Article I of the Constitution that restricted funding for the Army to only two years for that very reason. Early Americans didn't fear a strong Navy, because it's hard to overthrow a government from the sea, so there are no such restrictions on the Navy, but the Army was another matter. It wasn't the possibility of the new government becoming oppressive that they feared, but rather that a strong army, led by a would-be military dictator, which could easily overthrow the civilian government.
After the Civil War, Americans agreed that a larger and stronger federal army was necessary. The Regular Army grew, while the local militias evolved into what is now the National Guard. The Guard keeps its own "weapons of war" securely stored in armories, thus largely eliminating the relevance of the Preambulatory Clause. But a careful study of the Federalist Papers and other writings of the time reveal two other reasons for the necessity of the right to "keep and bear Arms". First, much of the young nation was untamed. It seemed obvious that citizens needed to have the means to protect themselves and their property from criminals and predatory animals that threatened their livestock and crops. Second, many Americans, particularly those living in rural areas, depended on hunting as a major source of their food. Both of those two reasons for gun ownership remain to this day. In his younger days, living in a very rural area of Wisconsin, Fred hunted with his family to help keep food on their table. Also, as a former resident of New York City and the Los Angeles area, he understands the need of some for personal protection, so he fully supports the intent of the 2nd Amendment. But valid questions need to be asked regarding what would constitute necessary armnament for personal and property protection and for lawful hunting.
Only very few radical pro-gun extremists, like Fred's opponent, would argue that nuclear arms, tanks, bazookas, rocket-propelled grenades and similar "arms" should be in the posession of common citizens, even though they're obviously designed for warfare, and not for personal use. Some on the left have argued that the right to "keep and bear arms" should be limited to the "arms" that Madison was referring to when he drafted the 2nd Amendment . . . a single-shot muzzle-loading long gun, a similarly designed pistol, perhaps a tomahawk and a hunting knife. Fred believes that a line needs to be drawn somewhere in between those two views. An effective weapon for personal and property protection should be one with modern technology applied, but does not need to be a weapon designed for warfare. Similarly, a good hunting rifle shouldn't need the capability of putting multiple rounds into the game within a few seconds. If you can't drop a deer with one shot, and perhaps put it out of its misery with a second shot minutes later, you probably shouldn't be hunting. Fred believes that both sides need to come together and have a rational discussion about where the line between modern warfare weapons and antique technology should be drawn. And wherever it's drawn, gun owners must be more than "lawful" gun owners. They need to be responsible gun owners.
Feedback? Email
Copyright © 2024 Elect Fred Ponzlov.com