MedWheeler
Member
My wife, born and raised in the USSR/Russian Federation, was sworn in as a US Citizen last month. Among the documents and literature issued to her by the USCIS is a book called "The Citizen's Almanac." It describes the origin of the nation, outlines the rights and responsibilities of the citizens of the nation, and touches on the building blocks of how this nation came to be such a favorite place of immigration from others.
In the section outlining "rights" of citizens are descriptions of each right assured by the first ten amendments of the Constitution (followed by those of other key amendments.)
I sighed and possibly moaned a bit as I was reading them, daring to subject myself to whatever off-beat interpretation of the Second I was about to face.
It reads:
Imagine my pleasant surprise at the lack of any attempt to apply this right only to any form of military force or membership in any such force, or for the purpose of defense of or at any specific location (such as home only.) In such an age when modern interpretations of the 2A (such as those in school textbooks) usually include, or restrict themselves to, such instances, I was relieved somewhat. It's particularly surprising considering that this is the version revised in May of 2013, during the current administration, and the current (or recent) gun-control-pushing environment.
Also notably missing is any mention of any specific types of firearms. No "muskets-only", no "double-barrel shotgun-only" (listening, Joe?), no prohibitions on anything that "looks military in nature", no nothing like that. I'm amazed that this got through the political proofreaders.
My relief, however, is not without at least some apprehension, as I disagree with the use of the word "privilege" in the second sentence, as such a definition implies that the 2A is protecting a privilege and not a right.
The clause "reasonable restrictions", despite recent anti-gunners' use and definition of such, does not bother me because it is defined as those "intended to prevent unfit" or those criminally-intended from access. The current usage of that type of clause in the agenda going on now does not have that intent, so I believe the current agenda falls outside the scope of this book's definition of "reasonable restrictions."
In the section outlining "rights" of citizens are descriptions of each right assured by the first ten amendments of the Constitution (followed by those of other key amendments.)
I sighed and possibly moaned a bit as I was reading them, daring to subject myself to whatever off-beat interpretation of the Second I was about to face.
It reads:
"The Constitution protects the rights of citizens to have firearms for personal defense. This privilege is subject to reasonable restrictions to prevent unfit persons, or those with the intent to criminally misuse guns or other firearms, from obtaining such items."
Imagine my pleasant surprise at the lack of any attempt to apply this right only to any form of military force or membership in any such force, or for the purpose of defense of or at any specific location (such as home only.) In such an age when modern interpretations of the 2A (such as those in school textbooks) usually include, or restrict themselves to, such instances, I was relieved somewhat. It's particularly surprising considering that this is the version revised in May of 2013, during the current administration, and the current (or recent) gun-control-pushing environment.
Also notably missing is any mention of any specific types of firearms. No "muskets-only", no "double-barrel shotgun-only" (listening, Joe?), no prohibitions on anything that "looks military in nature", no nothing like that. I'm amazed that this got through the political proofreaders.
My relief, however, is not without at least some apprehension, as I disagree with the use of the word "privilege" in the second sentence, as such a definition implies that the 2A is protecting a privilege and not a right.
The clause "reasonable restrictions", despite recent anti-gunners' use and definition of such, does not bother me because it is defined as those "intended to prevent unfit" or those criminally-intended from access. The current usage of that type of clause in the agenda going on now does not have that intent, so I believe the current agenda falls outside the scope of this book's definition of "reasonable restrictions."