I write in regard to the likely failure that Congress will make any substantial changes to gun laws (“Sides drawn as hearings on guns begin,” Page A2, Jan. 31). Can anyone possibly think that our Founding Fathers had in mind that, when the Second Amendment was constructed, it was going to include or was supposed to include assault weapons and large-size magazines that exist today?
As times change, we must modify our thinking to take into account current concerns and the changing nature of society. For example, when the Model T was first invented, fuel economy concerns about pollution were not paramount, nor should they have been, though now they are hugely important issues.
Comments
And your crystal ball knows what they would say? Bull. Mine says they would say "This government has become exactly what we did not want, it is a good thing we wrote the 2nd amendment so the people can remove those who have violated their rights."
The Founders, as well as the hundreds of legislators that ratified the Second Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights knew exactly what they were signing. There's no reason to second guess them, the meaning of the words are exceptionally plain.
The fact that this is the only Amendment using the phrase "shall not be infringed' tells you that they believed this right to be fundamental to Liberty in this country.
As for the 'they couldn't imagine..." arguement, that's ridiculous. The stated intent, to be able to fight a tyrannical government, meant that citizens would have access to the same arms as any military they might face.
They did not restrict cannon or artillary in the Second Amendment when they surely could have. They did not restict bombs or explosives, something they also knew about.
We've gotten away from that recently in the mistaken belief that regular citizens somehow 'can't be trusted' with these arms, but that was not true during most of this country's history.
We have lost the right to arm ourselves as we see fit, not as the government chooses to allow. We've forgotten that the arms do not make the man. A good person is safe, and a bad person is dangerous, no matter what weapons they each may have.
Most people are good. That's what the Founders believed, and it's why they wanted those good people to have the tools they needed to resist the bad ones no matter where they were found.
Ah. Isn't it wonderful to hear the views of such as Michael Levy from Andover on the Second Amendment. For years we have been hearing from progressives that the Constitution is not a static time capsule, but rather "a living, breathing document" designed to be interpreted to fit the needs of today. We heard this from the Left on every constitutional issue, from so-called abortion rights to welfare. But now these same people want to do an about face and freeze the Second Amendment in time, saying that the Founding Fathers didn't intend that it should apply to the weapons technologies of today. The Founding Fathers would be far more likely to countenance assault weapons and large-scale magazines as being within the scope and purposes of the Second Amendment than they would abortion on demand as being within a so-called right to privacy that is not even mentioned in the Constitution.
The usual suspects weigh in on this topic. I am one of them. HistoryIsJustThat has become so clear on the topic. Americans have the franchise and we have elections. We have a tri-partite government, even though the legislative branch is sorta dysfunctional these days. Is this good enough for History? No. He says that people with guns “can remove those who have violated their rights.” It is really quite astonishing, this line of thinking. I remember November 22, 1963 all too well. The rhetoric of the NRA and folks like History can only lead to more tragedies. Assassinations and the slaughter of children are nothing to these people.
How dramatic, to invoke Kennedy's assasination. Which has nothing to do with what I said. Oswald was not attempting to restore rights to this country, in fact, no one is sure what he was trying to do, much less NahantJim.
Jimmy does not understand in the least how this country was structured. Arms in the hands of the citizens do not actually have to be used to insure our freedoms. It is enough that the folks down in Washington understand "we the people" have the means to remove them if it should ever become necessary. It is an excellent check and balance.
Jimmy wants to predict assasinations and slaughter of children in attempt to fear monger, what Jimmy forgets is that in 1776 a small percentage of the BRITISH citizens overthrew the government that existed here to obtain their freedom. If he had been living then, he would have been warning everyone else how dangerous their actions were. Jimmy is afraid of freedom, he realizes it comes with a price he is not willing to pay. Baaaa, baaaaa, baaaaaa.
Nahant Jim, I will not even go near your JFK reference. How does private firearm ownership automatically lead to the slaughter of children? This is a strawman fallacy. I respect the law and actually help children on a daily basis. Why should I be punished for the actions of some insane individuals (like in CO, AZ, CT)? Why should some random nutjob keep me from protecting my family? Until someone like you can logically answer this, you will never come close to being persuasive.
I don't think they intended for wack job churces to protest soldiers' funerals either when then penned the 1st amendment but here we are. Give the framers a little credit, they weren't as dumb as you think they were.
I think they would be very happy
The 2nd amendment is an anachronism and should be updated and revised. As is, you can buy a musket if you show your militia ID.
Methinks Lavran has become an anachronism and does not realize it yet.
History, i could not agree with you more about Mr. Levy's letter. First, the Framers would laugh at his ignorance about why the 2nd Amendment was written. The 2nd Amendment was written as the second right because of its paramount importance FOREVER in fighting against tyranny. Tyranny has not been eradicated, nor will it ever be. Yes, we do have a republican system of government to prevent abuse. That is why this country is great and free and tolerant. But what would happen if our reps became corrupt or sought to replace a democracy with dictatorship (see Weimar Germany)? The 2nd Amendment is the failsafe against that. How would Mr. Levy propose to fight tyranny, with a six shooter and a buckknife? Laughable and ignorant premise. Finally, we do know what the Framers would think of the 2nd Amendment today. Here are there exact words. What about tyranny has actually changed in the past 225 years since these were written?
Alexander Hamilton: "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed," adding later, "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government." By the way, Hamilton is referring to what institution when he says "the representatives of the people"?
James Madison: "(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
Thomas Jefferson: "What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
George Mason, author of the Virginia Bill of Rights, which inspired our Constitution's Bill of Rights, said, "To disarm the people — that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."