I have recently expressed my concerns over the threat single issue voting poses to our culture. Let’s now consider the issue of gun rights. This question addresses our interpretation of the Second Amendment which reads, “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Two clauses exist in the statement. Although it is over 70 years ago, I recall Madame Beall, my high school English teacher, demanding that we learn to separate clauses, particularly if one clause is dependent upon a condition imposed by the other. The folks that sell guns and ammunition for huge profits ignore the first clause and emphasize the second in capital letters, “the right to bear arms” clause. But that clause is dependent on a condition specified in the first clause, “being necessary to the security of a free state.”
In this 21st century, our security is secured by an army, a navy, a marine corps, the coast guard, the national guard and multiple police departments. This is not 1787 when the only people available to either fight for or defend our fledgling country were farmers and small business owners. The Second Amendment was written appropriately for the time in which it was written. Its interpretation today requires attention to the qualifying clause. In my opinion, the U.S. needs strict control of guns.
Doug Lowe
Concord