We are told that the right to individual ownership of armaments like AR-15 platform assault weapons, with minimal or no real restraints on purchasing, is necessary for an armed populace to keep the threat of a tyrannical government at bay. The constitutional protection of some to “keep” the weapons that they sometimes “bear” against us collectively is too important a right necessary for individual freedom to contemplate regulations that would, or even might, reduce our risk. We the people must endure this risk, we are told, because otherwise the rights of some to “keep and bear Arms”-even against children-outweigh our collective need for safety and security. In their view, the ordinary citizen is bound by a constitutional covenant to suffer the risk that others might use their military-style weapons to murder children-or churchgoers, or grocery shoppers, or concertgoers, but especially children-because it is the person, not the gun, who does the killing in the Second Amendment’s name. District of Columbia as finally establishing, some 219 years after the ratification of the Second Amendment, an individual right to possess a gun in the home, which they proclaim extends to assault rifles and sundry other weapons enabling individual bearers to inflict mass destruction of human life. Gun-rights activists point to the 2008 Supreme Court decision in Heller v.
#Gun art text free
These advocates select from the amendment’s text only what supports their individual-freedom view, but they ignore entirely the imperative that precedes, the framing device of the whole thing-to protect “the security of a free State.” Read in full, the text of the amendment is not a prohibition on gun regulations but, rather, a requirement of certain regulations necessary for protecting that security and freedom.
To listen to the gun lobby, the Second Amendment provides an absolute constitutional right for an individual to own an array of armaments and ammunition free from regulation by the state.
0 kommentar(er)
