Firearms Rights and the Second Amendement

Now, before anyone thinks that I do/don’t advocate certain persons with felonies or mental incapacities having fire-arms, please allow me to put this into perspective: This is about the Framers’ intent regarding the Second Amendment. These other aspects of certain persons being barred create assent/dissent on their own merits of constitutionality. I do not wish to get caught in a debate about those aspects. I maintain my own opinions inre this aspect of the Second Amendment. I will say this: Not all crimes are identical, even though they may be coded alike. Mental illness is a medical issue, and can be treated effectively, to my understanding. Given this exhaustive retinue of discussion, I have concluded that I believe that these individuals should have this fundamental right examined closely for individual exercise based each on their own merit, by full examination, then a decision rendered, based upon such evidence gathered, whether they should have the right re-instated, or not. Some states have this as their venue for such persons, via codified statute, to request of the court to give finding. That is all I will state inre this aspect. Please respect my privacy of opinion to this degree. I shall extend the same courtesy to all.
Quite literally all the evidence from the Founding Fathers shows that there was a consensus as to what the original intent and the original meaning of the Second Amendment was. The Second Amendment was written to keep the power in the hands of the people. Its intent was to ensure that every person was able to take up arms and join other people to fight off tyrants, invaders, or unjustified insurrections. Its meaning was that the government couldn’t infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear ar...

... middle of paper ...

... particular right, the 2nd Amendment, has been distorted over the years to mean anything but the right of individuals to bear arms. The term “well regulated” is a bonfire example of misinterpretation. As I said in the seminar, when reading text that is not written today, it has to be read using the lexicon of the time, the meaning of the words, the structure, the original intent. At the time it was written, the word regulated was synonymous with provisioned. All the colonists were the militia, and in many states, that still holds true today. Would the framers add to the Constitution a Bill of Rights to protect the sovereign? Not at all. The first 10 amendments clearly state the people’s rights and not the Governments, and those rights pre-empt the Government’s as they are unalienable. “The Natural Rights of Man” (1788, Thomas Paine) verses Tyranny of the Government.