••• The Big Brother's, oops, i mean Apple's Gazette ••• A Sophisticated Periodical with Panache and a Sense of Humor
18th Century laws
Do our Amendments need to be amended ? The short answer to the question is no. But, … they need be interpreted correctly
I’m specifically referring to the Second Amendment.
Paraphrase: A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a state, and the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed on.
A militia is an army – it means ” The people” ( the Union/State) have the right to establish a well-regulated army AND the right to “bear arms” shall not be infringed.
The sad thing about laws nowadays is they can be interpreted as one chooses according to one’s ideology – it can be spun into any direction and accepted , as long as it sounds logical to the “general public”.
The accepted interpretation, of the second Amendment, thus far, has been that civilians have the right to carry “weapons”; but it doesn’t state anything about civilians having the right to carry weapons, at all.
In order to interpret it correctly we have to familiarize ourselves with 18th century english. The right to ” bear arms” did not mean to carry a “weapon”, but the right to “bear arms” – literally “arms”, as in one’s hands, fists = the right to defend oneself with one’s arms and hands if needed.
One would pull up the sleeves to show one “didn’t” carry weapons, then engage in a “fair” fight. The right to “bear arms” meant one could “strike” back when being slapped – lift one’s fists – hit back – defend one’s self.
Someone who was “well armed” was someone who could hit real bad – no one would pick a fight with a well armed person. And a left or right hook of a well armed person may well be a powerful weapon, but to interpret ” bearing arms” as “carrying weapons” ?
I think we need to remind ourselves that these laws were written in the 18th century, when bearing arms meant bearing “arms” ? 😉