Can't believe they actually published this one:
>>>The writer of a recent letter perpetuates the belief that the intent of the Second Amendment is to provide for possession of firearms only within the confines of service in a governmental militia ("Draft the owners of assault rifles," Sept. 18). I would raise two points to counter this flawed argument.
The First Amendment ensures the right of the people to peaceably assemble. The Fourth Amendment guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons and their homes, etc. The Ninth Amendment provides that the enumeration of certain rights shall not be construed to deny other rights retained by the people.
Why, then, is it that when the term "the people" is used in these amendments it is said to confirm individual rights, but when "the people" is used in the Second Amendment ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed") it is said to confirm a collective right subject to governmental service?
Second, I would cite Title 10, Chapter 13, Section 311 of the U.S. Code, which provides a legal description of who are members of the militia referred to in the Constitution: "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in Section 313 of Title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States, and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard."
The militia referred to in the Second Amendment has nothing to do with the National Guard, which was founded more than 100 years after the writing of the Constitution.<<<<
>>>The writer of a recent letter perpetuates the belief that the intent of the Second Amendment is to provide for possession of firearms only within the confines of service in a governmental militia ("Draft the owners of assault rifles," Sept. 18). I would raise two points to counter this flawed argument.
The First Amendment ensures the right of the people to peaceably assemble. The Fourth Amendment guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons and their homes, etc. The Ninth Amendment provides that the enumeration of certain rights shall not be construed to deny other rights retained by the people.
Why, then, is it that when the term "the people" is used in these amendments it is said to confirm individual rights, but when "the people" is used in the Second Amendment ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed") it is said to confirm a collective right subject to governmental service?
Second, I would cite Title 10, Chapter 13, Section 311 of the U.S. Code, which provides a legal description of who are members of the militia referred to in the Constitution: "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in Section 313 of Title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States, and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard."
The militia referred to in the Second Amendment has nothing to do with the National Guard, which was founded more than 100 years after the writing of the Constitution.<<<<
