Gun Control and the Second Amendment

"If the second amendment does not mean what it says, what about the

first?", this was the question asked by author, and National Rifle Association

member, Bill Clede. In his article "Gun Control, Press Control", he warns

journalists about the hidden dangers associated with gun control.

When dealing with the interpretation of the Constitution, there are two

views one can take. The Constitution can be viewed as a "living document" or in

its "original " understanding. The original understanding, people are guided by

what the Framers of the Constitution had in mind when they drafted it. The

Constitution can also be viewed as a living document, in which the

interpretation should be surveyed in light of today's social and politics

environments. Bill Clede ideas in his article seem to be guild by the idea of

the Constitution being a living document.

At the time the Second Amendment was written, it had a major impact on

this country because State and National governments were unable, or lacked the

power to protect the people. This Amendment gave the power to the people to

bear arms for protection. As Clede points out in his article, it was not the

intent or purpose of this Amendment to bestow unlimited rights upon the people.

The question to ask today is, are the people responsible enough to have the

unlimited rights that they seem to have under this Amendment. Clede states,

"that does not mean that the government can constitutionally prohibit all

weapons, but it probably means that the government can reasonably regulate and

limit their use." I agree with Clede's point. The language of the

Constitution is very vague. The second amendment states, " 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." Never did the

Constitution define or give examples of what a well regulated militia is or

types of weapons deemed reasonable for protection. It then should be left to

Congress, or more importantly the Supreme Court to interrupt this vague language.

I think the government could reasonable regulate guns, without compromising the

second amendment, but like Clede I believe Congress should concentrate more on

who is using the guns and not guns themselves.

Patrick Henry felt that we should preserve our public liberties, and if

need be by force. As Patrick Henry stated, "The great objective is that every

man be armed." Thomas Jefferson and John Adams also held the same views as

Patrick Henry, that every man should have the right to bear arms for private

self-defense. Our forefathers felt that it was very important for individuals

to bear arms for protection of property, life, or limb, when they created a

document that protected these rights, this seems to be evident because to right

to bear arms is the Second Amendment. Again, the question must be raised, did

our